Originally posted by scabb
I truly fail to see the point behind this war. I don't see how such lengths could be reached in order to obtain a drop of oil.
That's because it's not just about oil; it's about the economy, too. The fact is, Bush and his government are desperate for a war. Why else do you think they lash out at anyone who attempts to put into practice their bull**** cover policy of "dimplomacy first"?
What's crippling the US economy right now (and thus, the world's) is not the threat of war, but uncertainty as to whether there will be
a war or not. Whether it's decided one way or another, the difference is marginal - the economy will stabilise because the investors know where they're putting their money and why. Then you have another problem - a long, drawn-out war is going to drag the economy right back down again. What to do? Does anyone here really believe the US needs
the hundreds of thousands of troops they're amassing just to invade a country with no cover, no secure supply lines and military tech thirty years behind theirs? The troops are there because the White House wants the conflict over quickly, (and before the start of the next financial year, I'll warrant.) A quick war will level out the economy, but the promise of a huge oil bonus at the end of it all will send it through the goddamn roof. The value of the US dollar will skyrocket, fuel prices will go down around the world, and the UN will be falling all over itself to get back to kissing Bush's ass. More money and more power for the American government, and the credit for it all goes to everybody's favourite meglomaniacal redneck cretin. Yeehaw.
That said, I could give two ****s what happens to Iraq; America can turn it into a sheet of glass for all I care. While it is a shame that a lot innocent people will be hurt, if the World Trade Centre incident taught us nothing else it's that innocent people will always
be the first to suffer for the arrogance of totalitarian governmental systems. It's like a universal law or something.