noiseradio wrote:Mr. Average wrote:
What gets me everytime, Noise, is the Oil argument. Without a question or a doubt, our involvement in the region is most definitely related to the "unfettered access" to a premium natural resource, oil. However, in other wars, where other, stronger nations invade weaker ones, history (I think) demonstrates that the natural resources and the riches that they represent become the 'spoils of war'. In this case, the US led coalition has not stolen, taken, controlled, nationalized, or whatever the Oil reserves of that region. The oil remains the natural resource of the keepers of the land. It continues to enrich the land and the people who occupy it...the Iragi's.
In the hands of Ahmadinjad, do you think of a second that our access to this precious resource would remain unfettered?
If you're referring to my comments about Jim Baker, I'm merely passing along what I saw him say with my own eyes and ears. The former Sec. of State during the 1st Gulf War said that was about our access to oil more than anything. This is the guy bush Jr. trusted above all others when Florida was still in play. He's as loyal to the bush family as anyone, and he's not just saying this to be provocative. He's telling it like he sees it, and that's from the vantage point of DEEP inside the Bush administration. Both of them. If he says the primary concern was oil, then you can take it to the bank that that was the biggest thing on the minds of the people in power. And that's an odious reason to go to war.
So what of the current conflict? Is it all about oil? I don't think so. Not all. But I do think it's about control, about a long-held grudge against Saddam, and about the build-up of the military industrial complex as a cure-all for economic woes. That old chestnut. Ask yourself this: Before the invasion of Iraq, what nation was the biggest threat to our national security? Not just in hindsight, but then. What nations seemed poised to do us the most harm? Either by direct attack or by plunging the world into a new arms race. What nations had already harmed us? Either in terms of terrorism or economic destruction. These aren't ranked, but if you had asked me that question in January of 2002, I'd have said Saudi Arabia long before I'd have ever thought of Iraq. And before I ever arrived at Iraq, I'd have gone through Iran, N. Korea, China, India, and Pakistan. All for totally different reasons, but the problem is that they still pose us as great a threat now as ever. War wasn't the answer to solving those problems. You can't threaten Kim Jung Il with invasion; he'd blow up the Korean peninsula. So you have to find other ways. So why invade Iraq? Because we could. And we could because we already had him in check. It's abhorrent.
I really don't know what this has to do with Kanye West, the subject of this thread!