There have been many references in the past few weeks to a recent senate vote labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Nobody, though seems to understand the content of that bill. Here is a brief snippet (SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN. Section B5):
[It is the sense of the Senate] that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224.
The Bush Administration has been suggesting military action against Iran, and the passage of this bill enabled the President to present this country as a threat to America that must be neutralized. In 2002 as he built up the case for an attack on Iraq, George Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". After the invasion we learned the truth: there were no chemical or biological weapons. The British information was inconclusive at best. When Ambassador Joe Wilson, our envoy to the African nation in question, attested that Bush's claims were false, the administration responded by outing Wilson's wife's CIA identity.
Five years later, we are still engaged in an Iraqi fiasco that is rapidly worsening. We have lost nearly four thousand troops and over six hundred billion dollars to an ill-fated, poorly reasoned, horrific foreign policy mistake. Apart from imaginary nuclear weapons, Iraq had another resource. It had oil, and lots of it. In fact, it has the world's fourth largest proven reserves at 112 billion barrels. The oil industry, former field of Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Condoleezza Rice, had incidentally given a record $26 million to Republicans during the 2000 campaign (according to Open Secrets). The invasion, which has profoundly harmed the US's economic and domestic security, has led to record profits for all of the major oil companies. While regular Americans pay through the nose for gas, energy companies have doubled prices while the supply remained the same, pocketing the difference. Here are some informative charts (from http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/oil_company_profits.htm):
In short, oil companies have gained revenue by the sweat and blood of American soldiers. Iran, which we may now attack, coincidentally has even more oil than Iraq; with the world's third largest proven reserves: 138,000,000,000 barrels.
Shame on the 76 Senators, and especially the 30 Democrats, who voted for this bill. It may not be a declaration of war against Iran, but it allows the President to continue flirting with the possibility of Iraq all over again. He justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming a mandate from congress and a responsibility to the so-called "War on Terror". By voting for this bill, Clinton forces us to question her judgement. This issue is too important to be taken lightly. Blood and oil don't mix. Not only is it basic chemistry, it's common sense.
Five years later, we are still engaged in an Iraqi fiasco that is rapidly worsening. We have lost nearly four thousand troops and over six hundred billion dollars to an ill-fated, poorly reasoned, horrific foreign policy mistake. Apart from imaginary nuclear weapons, Iraq had another resource. It had oil, and lots of it. In fact, it has the world's fourth largest proven reserves at 112 billion barrels. The oil industry, former field of Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Condoleezza Rice, had incidentally given a record $26 million to Republicans during the 2000 campaign (according to Open Secrets). The invasion, which has profoundly harmed the US's economic and domestic security, has led to record profits for all of the major oil companies. While regular Americans pay through the nose for gas, energy companies have doubled prices while the supply remained the same, pocketing the difference. Here are some informative charts (from http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/oil_company_profits.htm):
In short, oil companies have gained revenue by the sweat and blood of American soldiers. Iran, which we may now attack, coincidentally has even more oil than Iraq; with the world's third largest proven reserves: 138,000,000,000 barrels.
Shame on the 76 Senators, and especially the 30 Democrats, who voted for this bill. It may not be a declaration of war against Iran, but it allows the President to continue flirting with the possibility of Iraq all over again. He justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming a mandate from congress and a responsibility to the so-called "War on Terror". By voting for this bill, Clinton forces us to question her judgement. This issue is too important to be taken lightly. Blood and oil don't mix. Not only is it basic chemistry, it's common sense.
2 comments:
I wouldn't necessarily state that the war in Iraq was based off oil. I believe that Bush used "weapons of mass destruction" to get full support from Congress and the nation to wage war on Iraq. I believe that the major issue was the fact that sanctions made by the U.N. were broken by Iraq. They did not allow inspectors to come into their country. They chose to shoot at our planes. The truth was, we (for lack of a better phrase) we whipped their asses in the Gulf War, but went easy on them at the end. Instead of removing Saddam from power, we let him stay as long as he stayd loyal to the sanctions made by the U.N. Britain, France, and America (among other nations) agreed that if those sanctions were broken, there would be hell to pay for Iraq. Britain, Australia, and the United States were the only nations that stayed strong to this agreement.
I do think there were many errors within the war, like disbanding the Iraqi military.But I believe Americans are spinning the death toll way out of proportion. 4000 soldiers dead in Iraq vs. over 70,000 soldiers dead in Vietnam, or the 37,000 dead in the Korean War, or the 417,000 dead in WWII. The truth is, with media and news coverage incredibly massive and powerful, we are more aware of the atrocities of war. If there was news coverage of the many bodies at Gettysburg, American citizens would have been exclaiming "fine! We'll remain separate! It's not worth it to unify the country!"
You must also note that anti war protesting had never been as great as it is today before the Vietnam War, where one photograph of a Vietnamese soldier beheading an American soldier changes public opinion of the war. I hate war, but that is what is. You will have errors, vast amounts of money spent, and a large death toll. I ask that if you give me a better way to fight our enemies, I'll change my opinions.
You have a point, but you forget that Saddam was not our enemy. We chose to divert our resources away from Osama Bin Laden, the man who actually hurt out country, and in doing so let him escape.
What are the 200,000 innocent Iraqis killed? Collateral damage?
Post a Comment