While I was out today I saw the “No blood for oil” slogan on the back of someones car. I really haven’t given it much thought until then, altho its become a favorite saying amongst the anti-war crowd.
For myself it really doesnt make much sense. On one hand I don’t see were oil is really an issue in this conflict. It was indeed an issue during the Gulf War, Saddam was threatening our interests in Kuwait. But now its mostly about stopping a dictator from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. I’m sure there are those that would disagree with that, thats okay.
Secondly, even if it was about oil wouldn’t that be something worth going to war for and even spilling some blood for? I’m pretty sure any country would go to war for oil, thats one of the reasons the Japanese attacked us in 1941. I wonder how long it would be if we were cut off from our oil supply the people would cry out “War War!”
In any case to sum things up, I dont think any of this is about oil, but even if it was it would be something worth going to war for. So thats why, to me, the “No blood for oil” statement is ludicrous one.
So, on the one hand you admit how important oil is, yet you deny that it could have anything to do with it. Puzzling…
The other point is that it might indeed be worth to go to war over.
That doesn’t make it morally right to kill for.
If I am hungry, it is worth it to steal someone else’s bread. That doesn’t make it right for me to steal.
If we were so concerned about oil and only oil, why not just lift the embargo and buy it from Saddam? Or does that not neatly fit into a leftist conspiracy theory?
For those of you who think oil is not a factor, or who wonder why simply lifting the embargo wouldn’t accomplish the objective, see this other recent thread, Its about oil…
Perhaps…But, I think that is usually done by explaining how the “apparent” contradiction is not actually a contradiction. If you don’t do that, your mind is not developed…It’s just lazy.
Well, if it’s only a little bit of blood, say a pint or two … and if it’s the cheap, O-positive kind of blood, and not the much rarer AB-negative variety … and you’re getting a whole lot of oil out of the deal (say, enough to last you through 5 or 6 oil changes) …
The thing of it is that it isnt necesarily contradictory. The Misconception arises from the anti-war people is that this war is all about oil (sub set of that is that Bush is a wildcatter and is wanting Iraqi oil for himself and his buddies). That couldnt be farther from the truth. Its about Saddam, all about saddam and that he has to go.
That is not to say that oil isnt a factor, albeit a relatively minor one. The best and fastest way for the US economy to get a jumpstart is to have lower oil prices. With saddam out of the way, removal of sanctions is pretty much assured and for Iraq’s economy to get a boost is to start exporting their full allotment of crude to ahem the US. Thats a win-win situation, folks. (If you include France in that, its gonna be a win-win-loser) Thats why its very vital that he dont blow dem things up.
Getting low gas prices is the icing on the cake. It cannot be obtained without making the cake first. It will never be done if France vetoes using the oven.
Saddam is not the issue. Oil isn’t even the issue. International politics is the issue.
After Sep. 11 it’s become increasingly obvious that over the next few decades that the middle east is where the main focus is going to be at. A nice, central location would be ideal for the US to keep a large force, right on the doorstep of any country that might consider supporting any sort of terrorist activity. Add to this the fact that generals (and presidents) are always wanting to fight the last war over again, and Iraq is a prime target. It’s got (or will have) everything needed: prime central location, a very friendly/puppet government and it’ll allow the US to ignore Saudi Arabia as they will no longer be relied on to house US forces in the region or for oil (ok, so it is a little about oil). Getting rid of Saddam is really good PR and provides a ‘legitimate’ cover.
Finally, this has provided Bush with a chance to stick it to the UN. He is taking a bit of a risk, but not much of one. If the invasion of Iraq goes smoothly (as most people in the know believe it will) then he will have cemented US hegemony at the expence of the UN. If it goes badly, then the US will lose some of it’s political clout to the UN, particularly France. The US is the only remaining superpower and no longer needs to play by the rules that were set up to contain multiple powers. In 20 or 30 years time China and/or Europe may be capable or rivalling the USA. If the US can successfully place itself outside the rules then it will be in a better position to limit the expansion of Europe or China.
Well, those are my thoughts. getting back to the OP, the ‘no oil for blood’ is just a typical far left ‘compress a really complex issue into 5 words or less’ slogan. I consider myself pretty left wing, but I do like to think about the issues as opposed to spouting whatever the trots or Greens tell me to.
“The US is the only remaining superpower and no longer needs to play by the rules that were set up to contain multiple powers.”
That is a very debatable assertion. Those rules weren’t set up to “contain” multiple powers. They were set up to maintain peace and stability between many countries including multiple powers. Although the US is the only remaining superpower it is incapable of maintaining peace and stability throughout the globe on its own. And without a reasonable degree of global peace and stability neither the US nor any other country can survive.
If Bush really did manufacture this particular episode in history simply to demonstrate his disregard for the UN then he is even stupider than I thought.
“…‘no oil for blood’ is just a typical far left ‘compress a really complex issue into 5 words or less’ slogan.”
As opposed, I gather, to your nuanced two-sentence elucidation of international relations? Oh, and btw, I think you’ve got it backwards; or was that some kind of far-right Freudian slip?
Correction: in my first paragraph, I actually meant to say that without peace and stability countries can’t thrive, not survive (which is too extreme a claim).
It boggles my fragile little mind that anyone would assert that this is giant complex geopolitical power plot to take over the future center of world interest. When you scratch just a bit deeper than the “No Blood for Oil” rhetoric, you invariably get these kinds of assertions.
Why cant this be simple? Saddam is a despot, hes a menace to the US, getting rid of him has tons of benefits, leaving him there has tons of disadvantages, some highly destructive with absolutely no upside. Why must there be an interweaving of plots, drama, conspiracies and secret agendas?
“Why cant this be simple? Saddam is a despot, hes a menace to the US, getting rid of him has tons of benefits, leaving him there has tons of disadvantages, some highly destructive with absolutely no upside.”
Maybe it can’t be that simple b/c you’re just overlooking the many downsides to “getting rid of” Saddam in this particular fashion. Which makes your assertion just as superficial and inadequate as the slogan you (justifiably) want to dismiss.
I don’t think he manufactured it, but now that the opportunity has presented itself he (or rather his advisors and other thinkers) are taking full advantage of it.**
Nah, just didn’t preview. Anyway, as I said I AM a lefty. Dyed in the wool, I just don’t like these slogans that are so vague as to be almost meaningless.
X~Slayer, it’s not a plot, I’m just looking at how current affairs could transpire over the next few decades and how different countries can act now to put themselves in the best position for the future. Same as they do. You don’t think that they would be doing this without having thought about the long term implications, do you? That’s what foreign affairs departments are for.
Because that’s exactly what it is. Except the agenda isn’t all that secret, more buried in the noise. Spend some time at the newamericancentury (PNAC) website. I’m sure this has been mentioned in other threads. Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld & a gaggle of others laid it out for the world to see in 1997. It’s still there, take a look. They aren’t trying to hide it even though they don’t talk about it much.
9/11 gave them the opportunity to jump-start the agenda & they went for it. Clumsily, of course. Don’t forget that the rush to war began on 9/7/02 with Bush raving about Iraq being 6 months away from having nukes & saying “I don’t know what more evidence we need,” based on an alleged recent IAEA report on Iraq which didn’t exist. The non-existence of that report, documented 3 weeks later in the Washington Times, also got lost in the noise.
There may be valid reasons for taking out Saddam among the ideas advanced in the PNAC documents. But they aren’t being debated because the administration keeps harping on other points that it thinks the world might buy. The altruistic humanitarian motive and the attempt to link Saddam to Al Qaeda are both ploys designed to play on people’s emotions & shift the debate away from the PNAC worldview, which BYK, knowingly or unwittingly, has summarised very well.
Regardless of the possible justifications for invading Iraq, the administration has left a sorry record of shifting attempts to make their case for war. What’s happened to the nukes that Iraq was so close to developing? IMHO they’ve done such a sloppy job of selling their case to the world because they keep trying to graft rationales onto their true motives.
Fundamentally they’ve been dishonest, or at best disingenuous, with the American people. That I don’t like, no matter what the cause.
The ‘no blood for oil’ slogan seems more appropiate to apply to those who want to avoid war. French oil interests are better served in the short term by not overthrowing Iraq. Blood will surely follow as SH and eventually terrorists become stronger and more brasin.
