Oh No?

Posted on September 29, 2004
Filed Under pol |

The Iraq war’s not about oil? Yeah, sure, say the authors of two books discussed here. Given the Administration’s ties and allegiances, I’d be surprised if anything they did wasn’t about oil.

Comments

4 Responses to “Oh No?”

  1. scott on October 1st, 2004 9:41 pm

    I’m tired of you conspiracy mongers. The Iraqi war is and has always been about freeing the Iraqi people (well, it seems like there was something else too, but I just can’t remember what that was now…)

    Anyway, the fact that George’s friends and family members (and Dick Cheney directly as a Haliburton stock-holder)will make a lot of money from Iraqi oil is just a coincidence. A big, happy coincidence.

  2. gordsellar on October 1st, 2004 10:36 pm

    Dear Scott,

    I’m tired of you idealists.

    Nice language, that, isn’t it? Categorize someone and you suddenly can dismiss them with the greatest of ease.

    I think you’re being a little idealistic to the point of blinding yourself for your politics. The “big, happy coincidence” would be possible if it was the first time this kind of thing had happened. But, uh, it’s not. It’s so very not.

    Add to that the rhetoric of the war being about “freeing the Iraqi people” and you’ll have to excuse me, but I think you’re reading only one selected segment of world news. Come on: the Iraqi people aren’t free, will not in the foreseeable future be more free than they were. Saddam was a bad man. There are lots of bad men. America doesn’t care about those, but Iraq was a special case.

    Because America loves the Iraqi people, right? That’s why it kept up those sanctions even when it was obvious they weren’t doing anythign and Hussein was content to let the people suffer.

    I’m sorry, but believing that takes even more idealism and lies to oneself than subscribing to evangelical models of Christianity. I am not able to trick myself in that way, nor do I think I should.

    And if you want to comment on someone else’s blog, please be more polite than to address someone as “you conspiracy mongers.”

  3. scott on October 3rd, 2004 1:24 am

    Sorry Gord, this is not the first time the intended irony in my writing may not have been clear enough to be picked up on. Read my post again and imagine a smart-ass sarcastic tone to it and it should come across quite differently.

  4. gordsellar on October 3rd, 2004 7:41 am

    Scott, I’m sorry I misunderstood your intended meaning. The sad thing is, if you wander around the blogosphere, you’ll find the position you mocked is all too common. So… it was easy to assume you really meant it. :) In addition, I was in a rush as I was being told it was time to come to sleep… so I quickly reacted to what I saw.

    No worries, you are always welcome to come and comment here.