Keith Devens .com

Good text, 1999 : http://www.nonviolence.org/commentary/messages/5805.htm

Some good things too :
http://www.msnbc.com/news/IRAQOIL_Front.asp?cp1=1

The author says it pretty well, so I'll quote it:

Second, Iraq’s having substantial reserves -- and the whole Middle East holding much of the world’s oil supply -- is a legitimate factor in our concerns in the region.

During the Gulf War, the "blood for oil" placard was first hoisted. As the preeminent oil expert, Daniel Yergin, wrote in the New York Times last August: "The focus even then [during the 1991 Gulf War] was not so much on access to oil as on the ability of a Greater Iraq to transmutate oil into economic, political and military power -- especially weapons of mass destruction."

Oil is certainly part of the reason we're involved with the region (frankly, it's practically the only reason most Arab countries have any money and importance at all), but I don't think it's the main reason we're about to attack Iraq. It makes up part of the picture, but to claim its our only reason for going over there, as the "no blood for oil" anti-war crowd claims, is a gross simplification, and is naive.

I always understood "no blood for oil" to be a slogan, not an entire argument.

As you say, oil is practically the only reason the mid-east has any importance. Hence, any blood spilled there by the US/UN will be inextricably pinned to the oil market.

Nice, now we're getting somewhere.

I always understood "no blood for oil" to be a slogan, not an entire argument.

See, the problem, from what I've seen, is that is often people's only argument. If you try to delve deeper into these anti-war protestors' psyches, it turns out that they're pacifists who would never support any war. Or they just hate Bush so much that that clouds their thinking.

Hence, any blood spilled there by the US/UN will be inextricably pinned to the oil market.

I don't see things that way. Blood spilled there will be for making the world a safer place by eliminating a murdering dictator who has and is trying to get ever more dangerous WMD's, and for liberating the people he's terrorized for decades. Plus, we protect our citizens from him. That's why we're sending soldiers in.

That we may free up some of the world's oil reserves, lessen our reliance on foreign oil provided by nations that support terrorism against our country, and hopefully destabilize OPEC a little, are all bonuses. They're also important for the next stages in our War on Terror, I think. It seems like we've had to be buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia because we need their oil, but after Iraq hopefully we won't have to be nice to them any more.

Anyway, I don't think it follows that because Saddam has money because of oil, that therefore removing him makes the war a war for oil.

Gas prices are going to skyrocket to record highs this Spring, dude--low crude oil supplies and dwindling inventory--yup.

BTW, how are we going to, "lessen our reliance on foreign oil provided by nations that support terrorism against our country" by attacking those very countries?

Gas prices are going to skyrocket to record highs this Spring, dude--low crude oil supplies and dwindling inventory--yup.

BTW, how are we going to, "lessen our reliance on foreign oil provided by nations that support terrorism against our country" by attacking those very countries?

<blockquote>"We're probably going to start the summer driving season at higher levels than we have in a long time," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago. "There's a lot of bad news in those inventory reports."

The biggest wild card is still the Iraq situation, Flynn said. "The general consensus is the sooner we get rid of Saddam Hussein, the sooner oil prices will come down."
</blockquote>

BTW, how are we going to, "lessen our reliance on foreign oil provided by nations that support terrorism against our country" by attacking those very countries?

Because after the war we'll have access to Iraq's oil, which we've been abstaining from until this point due to sanctions. Iraq will quickly become one of our largest oil suppliers (well, whenever they can get their infrastructure up to handle it). Which is nice, because now the money will go to the people rather than to Saddam for him to build palaces for himself. So we'll lessen our reliance on oil from places like Saudi Arabia.

Why do my comments get posted twice sometimes?! (I'm definitely not hitting 'Post' twice.)

You're probably refreshing the page and saying "yes" to reposting the data. Whenever I get around to improving the weblog code I'll put an "anti-double-post" feature in

From what I see, the issue with the anti-war protestors is not that they would be against ANY war, but that the case for a full military operation in Iraq has not been made yet.

This does not mean the Hussein isn't a horrible human being who needs to be handled, but that conditions do not yet merit 600 cruise missles being shot at Baghdad followed by a 3 year occupation (the 600 cruise missles is supposedly whats planned for the first 24 hours, the the 3 year occupation is something Blair mentioned).

For me the question is not whether or not Hussein violated UN policy, as I think its been demonstrated that he did. The issue is whether or not Hussein represents a clear and present danger to the US and our allies.

Of this I am not yet convinced. Iraq's last nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israli army 25 years ago, and still Hussein has not been able to rebuild it (by accounts, he isn't even close). Iraq's link with Al Quieda is tenuous at best - the evidence is an Al Quieda member operating in the Kurdish region, where Hussein has no control.

I've not seen evidence that containment isn't working, and wouldn't continue to work - while the case for a new war seems tenuous with the continued War on Terror, the state of the economy, and the lack of popular/UN support for the action.

From what I see, the issue with the anti-war protestors is not that they would be against ANY war, but that the case for a full military operation in Iraq has not been made yet.

That's not really what I see. To me that seems like an excuse. Maybe they'd be for a war if Saddam attacked this country directly (and we could prove it to their satisfaction), but it's evident that he wants WMD's, and given his history we can't afford to let him keep them and get ever more dangerous ones. Not only that, but as a member of the U.N. we're enforcing the sanctions, and I'd argue that they've all come about as a result of our war with him in the early 90's. So really, part of this is unfinished business left over from previous administrations.

The issue is whether or not Hussein represents a clear and present danger to the US and our allies.

I think he does. Every moment we delay he gets more weapons, and gets closer to having a nuke.

Of this I am not yet convinced. Iraq's last nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israli army 25 years ago, and still Hussein has not been able to rebuild it (by accounts, he isn't even close).

The former head of Iraq's nuclear program (Dr. Hamza? sp?) claims that Iraq was within a year of getting a nuke. All the aluminum tubes they've found, etc. shows that he's putting together the technology for it. We can't afford to wait. When people that argue that the risks are too great to go in right now, I think that the risks only get greater the longer we wait, and he will have to be dealt with eventually.

Sean Hannity makes a pretty good point. The arguments the Bush administration makes sound exactly like the ones that Clinton made in 1998. Hannity points out that no one complained then, so to him, and to me, a lot of the objection seems to be because of our "right wing" president. Most of the objection today is from the left, yet they had no problem with it when a Democratic president was in office. Most of the claims that the case hasn't been made yet just don't seem genuine to me (think Nancy Pelosi).

If it can be proven that Hussein represents an immediate danger to the US and our allies, then I'd agree that war is the right course of action.

I don't see that this case has been made. Certainly we disagree on this point.

Powell's speach to the UN spoke well towards continued inspections and enforcement of sanctions. Given the US intelligence network and technological capabilities, continued containment of Hussein seems very workable. Remember, its our Generals that are cautioning against military action.

Given the lack of popular support for this military action (both here and abroad), the poor state of the economy, that sanctions have been effective for the past 12 years, the amount of government spending so far this year, and that we're already fighting one war without an exit strategy - I'm not convinced that a full fledged invasion is what's best for America.

At this juncture, is war already the only choice? Are we already in that weak of a position?

If it can be proven that Hussein represents an immediate danger to the US and our allies, then I'd agree that war is the right course of action.

I certainly don't think he's going to attack us tomorrow, BUT, he's a near to long term danger that is not going to go away unless we do something.

Powell's speach to the UN spoke well towards continued inspections and enforcement of sanctions.

Whoa, what speech were you watching . If anything, the speech (as well as Blix's statements, as well as Saddam's past behavior, etc.) shows that Saddam is never going to cooperate, and that inspections haven't worked. Furthermore, sanctions have done nothing to stop Saddam's drive for WMDs. He still has plenty of money, palaces, etc., but he lets his people suffer because he doesn't care.

I gotta run. More later.