Sometimesit amazes me how people jump on bandwagons just like, spout the most asinine of opinion and even try to pass off it as fact, without looking back to see who is watching or listening. Ever since the drums of wars have begun to beat I have been looking for the argument both for an against for the impending invasion. Sadly, with the exception of one occassion few arguments seemed to have swayed me. Raffique shah its all about oil article is the latest in that series.
What Shah is saying is no different to what others have said before that Bush and Chaney in particular ( both men have their fortunes firmly entrenched in the oil industry) are planning an invasion to control the oil. Then they go off to discuss the price of it etc etc. Is that it? You want to control the price of oil so you go in and take control, rolling over all the iraqis in your way. Is that it? Come on there must be deeper and more sensible rational for something like this to take place. I consider it an insult to my intelligence when people try to tell me that America will have, when Saddam is gone that is total control of the oilfiled and thus set the stage of that important industry. Will the rest of OPEC countries and non oil producing Arabs nations allow that to happen just so. Come on people we are more sensible than that. I am not doubting that oil is not important and central to the conflict but not in the way it is being put across. You all must give us a more logical explanation. Maybe Saddam is in fact the monster they are making him out to be, maybe he is not, but in the interim do not see us that ignorant point of view that it is just about controling the oil fields. We deserve something more elaborate. Especially from our gifted columnists.