Originally posted by JayZ750 Nowhere does it mention partly. It simply sounds as if you believe every move the American government makes is eitehr based on (a) our own economic interests or (b) our political leaders personal grudges. And then we resort to proclaiming human rights to cover those real motives up. I still contend that this is r****ded. When I say the reason for x is a, b, and c doesn't that mean that a, b, and c are in themselves part of the reason? I do believe that national interests play a role in moves made by our government but we adhere to some interests (oil) more than others (freedom, democracy, human rights). In this case, I believe the reasons for war are those interests along with grudges and what I believe are false national security assertions. The liberation of Iraqis is only a reason when we need to play on some heart strings. Why is this so America-centric? EVERY country will benefit from a consumer standpoint from decline in oil prices. Nowhere near as much as the US. We use half the world's oil. Only specific companies from specific countries, however, will benefit from buying rights into Iraq fields in order to produce the reserves that are there. I can't predict the future, but post the first Gulf War, these contracts were not rewarded to American firms (but rather French and Russian ones as mentioned), and I presume based of the governments repeated statements that the oil will be in the hands of the new Iraqi regime, it will be up to them to decide how much they can get for what, from whom, etc. The oil will be in the hands of the new Iraqi regime set up by Tommy Franks and Don Rumsfeld. I wonder who they'll pick. It seems to me that the French were trying to postpone war as strongly as possible for mainly economic purposes. They continued to hope that war wouldn't happen without full UN support. Now that it has been "declared", it's not suprising that they are starting to back of their stance, is it? They're not exactly backing off. More like trying to save a little face. Backing off would be saying they'd support a resolution. Maybe you're right but I disagree. At the very least, I don't think it is evident at all if that is the case. I personally believe that oil aside, Iraq, due to its unique position in the Middle East as a possible supplier of WMD to terrorists and as a possible user itself makes it the biggest threat out there currently right now, so big that something needs to be done about it. Diplomacy was tried for X years to absolutely zero success. I believe something different should be tried. I don't believe Bush did a good enough job gathering support for the war, though, and we certainly acted way too much like the big bad wolf. I just think we're not really looking at the ramifications of this action. Pre-emptive war without UN approval now has precedence so that door is open now. I also don't like the impression this leaves in the Muslim world. I think moderate Muslims might just take another step towards hating America.
I apologize if I misinterpretated your initial post, then. I just think that: (A) The war is more about our safety than our economy (B) Post war, oil contracts won't necessarily go to America, as they didn't post the Gulf War (C) From a consumer standpoint, the drop in oil prices will effect every country postively, or negatively (you really never know) in similar ways relative to country populations, etc. (D) All this taken into account, economic interests are a minor reasons for instigating this war. You disagree. That's cool. Good debate, though.
