Wednesday, October 19, 2005

No Blood For Oil?

I will only say this once. The United States did NOT go to war for oil. If, as so many claim, this was the case then why has the gas price increased at a rate rivalling the crisis of the 1970s? As you can see in the graph below, gas prices have doubled since Dec. 9, 2002.


Prices on that date for all grades of conventional gasoline were $1.35/gallon; today they are $2.74. I'm just not seeing the logic here, and I would ask someone to explain it, but there is no logical explanation. If we tried to steal Iraq's oil, wouldn't it seem appropriate for OPEC to step in and stop us. Alas, they haven't done anything of the sort, rather they've hiked our prices for their own selfish gain. So who're the bad guys here, the evil capitalists of the US government or the monopolistic hegemons of OPEC?

3 comments:

GNN Staff Writer said...

If anything changes in this world, it can and will be turned into a Negative and blamed on the Imperialist Americans. This is simply another example.

Anonymous said...

"The United States did NOT go to war for oil... gas prices have doubled since Dec. 9, 2002... I'm just not seeing the logic here, and I would ask someone to explain it, but there is no logical explanation."

Sure there is. The Bush Adminstration simply miscalculated, just as they did with do many things regarding the invasion of Iraq.

The Bush Administration incorrectly thought that the Iraq invasion would be a cakewalk - this much we know with certainty. It is 'logical' to speculate that they also therefore believed that we'd then relatively quickly have a stable oil-rich ally in Iraq, and therefore no longer be dependent on Saudi Arabian oil. This scenario would be in the U.S.'s strategic and secutiry interests, since Saudi Arabia is channelling much of our oil dollars to aid our Islamofascist enemies (directly via unoffical channels, and indirectly via their funding of anti-American/Western maddrassas throughout the mideast and beyond). Saudi Arabis is also potentially ripe for takeover by Islamofascists.

At least in the short run, the Bush Adminstration has been wildly incorrect however, since Iraq is anything but stable.

"[The Iraq War] could last, you know, six days, six weeks, I doubt six months."
- Donald Rumsfield, 2/7/03

"My belief is we will in fact, be greeted as liberators."
- Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

"Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03

Anonymous said...

Logic eh?, I don't suppose that you know what that means. Take a look at the changes to the profit margin for the US oil companies over the past 4 years. Not only do they get to make more, but they have also been successful in convincing people like you - who only look at the surface of issues and think they have made some great logical discovery - that they couldn't possibly be having a war to make money. Of course the war is for oil, almost everyone in the Bush administration has been recently employed by an oil company of some sort. They have also proven their lack of interest in the wellbeing of their consitituency time and time again, so don't even try to claim that their humane interests outweigh their financial interests. They don't... They just don't...