Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy
So far, I haven't heard anyone bring up the third world and emerging nations. If we are to assume that the US is in Iraq as part of a strategy to hold down oil prices, is it not a positive boon to nations whose industrialization is at stake for us to be doing so?
C'mon anit-war Bush-bashing America-haters, I need to hear your comeback to that one.  |
I'm not anti-war (I'm a firm believer in SENSIBLE violence) nor an america hater, but I'll bite on this one.
The US did not invade to hold down oil prices. What invasion reasons evolved around oil were done to have CONTROL over the sources, not their prices. Control will AFFECT prices... you're trying to wag the dog if you claim prices are the ultimate goal.
It's entirely understandable why they'd want control. Some of these emerging nations have a substantial amount of power to upend the US economy at will (although it would likely mean economic disaster for them as well... think of the results of china dumping the USD as a reserve currency). Control of energy means the ability to dictate terms. There's no great surprise that china and russia are backing iran... it's not out of any great love to the ayatollah or an idiological thing. They want to secure access to iranian oil.
Ironically, if they would just come out and say "We need that oil because we're running out, you have it and we're going to take it" then at least people would be able to respect the honest stance that we all know is the Realpolitick reason. Instead you have a bunch of jackals preaching feel-good bullshit like 'spreading democracy', or obviously bogus tripe like WMDs.