From: (No Email available)

Date: 2004-11-03 07:38:35

Comment:

Attacking Iraq for Oil isn't a valid argument because
(i) It will take years before American troops (and their allies) have resolved the conflict there at the cost of a huge amount of money and resources.  Even after the conflict is resolved Bush would still have to be in power long enough to see the oil pipes and trade agreements set up to actually begin transporting it to America at a lower cost than it is now.

(ii) If Bush was going to go to war anyway why attack Afganastan and make up bullshit about WMD it would have been easier to go against Iraq immediatly while world opinion was still on his side just after 9/11.

(iii) Better yet if he wants the Oil why attack Iraq when there is the soft target of Iran which has open terrorist links was openly developing nuclear power and has a smaller army.

(iv) Better even than that if Bush wants Oil why not attack Saudia Arabia which has potentially all of the above and virtually no army plus a way more Oil, this would also scilence his critics about being too close to the Saudi Royal Family.

(v) Then again why even go to war America used a policy of sponsering dictators in South America extensivly in the 1960's 1970's to control Latin america why not do the same.  Oil for protection it wouldn't make headlines it wouldn't need a "Coalition of the Willing " and wouldn't cost nearly as much money.

These are just 5 reasons why a war for Oil in Iraq would be feasible.