Sunday, September 16, 2007

Really?

Alan Greenspan's new book comes out tomorrow. There's already reviews of it out, and they cite this quote:
Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Can this possibly be a surprise to anybody? Does anybody think we'd give a rat's ass about bringing democracy to the freedom-loving Iraqi people if their main export was pomegranates?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are people all over the internet that find that idea appalling. I have been called lots of names and had my character questioned simply because I suggested that oil was a significant motivation for our involvement in Iraq. (not that my character is beyond question, but...)

What I don't understand is why conducting a war for oil is viewed as a shameful thing. If we intend to keep using the stuff, and friendlier supplies have been waning, then our only choice is to use force to keep it flowing from the unfriendly sources. If this is shameful, then we need to take a hard look at our consumption habit.

Apostolic Anchoress / Rowena Hullfire said...

If the war was about oil, a better strategy would have been to nuke China. (Eliminate the competition among the buyers.)