Quote:
Originally posted by Simple_Min
No ofcourse not. Why would the US be interested in oil, it's not like we consume much anyway.
We just chose to attack Iraq because we think it has WMD (the technology and capibility ofcourse was supplied by the Americans and the Soviets) and the iraqi government's record of inhumane treatment of people. It just so happened the oil was a consequence of Afgani and Iraqi invasions.
About the looting, i agree with what maximusveritas said. Also you say looting is a good thing, as if looting and anarchy is what we meant when we declared our intent to make iraq democratic.
|
1) Oil is certainly part of the equation, but it's not the main reason for this war in my opinion. You seem to imply that any attack on a country which has oil is automatically about that oil, because we all consume oil... similar logic: the US population consumes a lot of heroin, which Afghanistan produces, so that war must have been about heroin, then.
2) We *know* Iraq had WMDs, and still has the capability to build them. Most of the knowledge and materials were supplied by the Germans, French and Russians. The US mainly made the mistake of providing samples of biological agents. Under Saddam, even after full disarmament, the potential to build WMDs was a constant threat. With him gone, the WMDs should be gone too.
Drawing Afghanistan in is actually quite silly: that war was about Osama and friends; as you say, oil was merely a consequence, and not even directly...
3) I said some looting is good, <b>to vent anger</b>, especially if that looting is aimed at the thugs that have exploited the Iraqis for 30 years, taking their wealth for themselves, instead of sharing it. That looting is "good", in that it has positive effects on the Iraqi people. Besides that, the anarchy was to be expected, and is already being replaced by law and order.