“The US is dependent on oil and was well passed peak oil production when the war began. Looking at Iraq, many in the White House saw an opportunity to secure America’s oil supply by creating a friendly government which would be more amenable to providing oil to the US...Iraq has cost the US $3 trillion but if one tenth of that money had been invested in developing alternative low carbon energy sources, the US could have secured its energy supply without having to go to war.”
Sir David King, speaker at the BHA's Darwin Day Lecture.
Bookmark & Share
Subscribe via Email
Release Dashboard
6 comments:
Hey, can theists comment on here?
Hi Christopher Geiser
Of course they can!
Note that this is not an anti-theist blog, this is an anti-double standards blog, and against the bigotry, prejudice, threats to free expression and worse that come from those support such double standards. The double standards can come from anyone - regardless of their views on god.
OK, cool. I ask because I know that it is possible that people dont want theists commenting and didn't want to write anything if that was so. So cool.
I like your blog by the way. I think it is good for people to come on here and see other peoples' views.
In the quote by Sir David King I think he was stating that the USA wanted to go to Iraq because of oil, I don't know if that is what he was saying, but if that is true...then I think he is wrong in that area because the USA went to war with Saddam Hussein...not Iraq. Saddam was suspected to have WMDs. Even though he did not, I think it was still wise to go there because he was a dictator and I think dictators are not predictable as far as how far they will go in destroying nations. But the news media does make it seem that the USA is there for oil. Do you follow me? I might be in the wrong. But I think the USA is wise to be there in IRAQ. Just my two cents.
Hi Christopher
Have you read the link from the BHA, they did say it was controversial themselves!
Anyway I have not blogged on Iraq but the following points stand out:
1. Bush and Blair knew the WMD arguments were fallacious yet proceeded anyway
2. Iraq was no a supporter of Al Qaida and the attack was not justified in any way based on Sep 11.
3. Bush Senior could have got rid of Saddam and did not.
4. There are plenty of other dictators around, why chose this one. On what basis does the USA chose to get rid of a sovereign leader of another country and why did it focus on Saddam?
All these do lend support to the widely held view that a key factor in the USA going to Iraq was for oil (and their naiveness in thinking it could make the middle east better by forcing democracy there - displaying huge ignorance of previous attempts by the UK in the 20th century to do that which had already failed). What alternative explanations are there?
ok cool. well maybe it was for oil then. Well at least in their pursuit for oil they got rid of a vicious dictator then, huh?
Look at the cost in terms of money and lives. Is the world better off?
Post a Comment