I think the Oil argument is idiotic. If we just wanted access to their Oil nobody would be happier than Saddam Hussein to sell it to us provided that we drop the sanctions and allow him to sell the stuff.
2 Words for the stupid oil argument. Texas and Alaska...... That doesn't even count the gulf of Mexico. it ain't about oil.....
Why is it people are so willing to see the "oil influence" in France's motivations, yet overlook the numerous and rather glaring advantages to the world energy market (some markets more than others, actually) by this move? These include:
1. Adds security against potential Saudi fundamentalist disruptions. Who are the big supporters of Islamic terrorism again? Potential for another Shaw/Homeni/Iran kinda thing?
2. Limits the potential of Iraqi disruption of other oil supplies in the region (actually noted, but downplayed by Bush actually in his address) If WMD are an issue this is where the threat lies, IMO.
3. Add, hopefully (flip of a coin?), greater stability to the region for the world's petroleum infrastructure. It also clears up a military monitoring expense and any number of irritations dealing with Iraq in the region.
As ancillary benefits (don't believe they are sufficient in their own rights for the political fallout, but they are hard to ignore):
1. Opens a new, major market for the US/British "Multinational" oil companies and infrastructure support companies.
2. Provides access to low-sulfur crude which makes producing the low-sulfur gasolines and diesels mandated by recent environmental rules more efficient and less costly to implement. When you push technology for a 97 percent reduction in distillate sulfur, having low sulfur crude saves a lot of money in new cracking towers or lost efficiency by having to process the crude 2-3 times in an existing refinery. You do the math.
It takes an extremely willful effort to accept the less honorable motivations of the "others" yet totally dismiss potential US and British motivations where Iraqi oil is concerned. I mean, it's not like we let "morality" get in the way when dealing with countries like PRC, which represent significant business opportunities. Why should morality have an overwhelming role here? It's not like we haven't overthrown leaders in the fairly recent past for our own cold war interests.
But of course, the whole WMD/OIL connection is all liberal ignorance shining though, right? Well, such noted liberals as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, seem to agree with the OIL connection. In fact they outlined Husseins WMD threat -- to oil mainly -- as early as 1997 when pushing for a preemptive regime change. No terrorist linkage then, nor real concern about a direct threat to the good old US of A.
In 1997 a group of prominent Republicans and neo-conservatives (including Cheney, Jeb Bush and a number of individuals who are now Bush foreign policy staffers) organized the Project for the New American Century. Among the “urgent” needs they identified was a regime change in Iraq, due to Hussein's WMD programs and their potential threat to the regions oil supply, our ally Israel, and other moderate states. Heres' a quote with the remainder posted below. The good news is that you can at least blame it on Clinton!
The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
Here’s the full letter
Cont.
