Today on Blogcritics
Home » But it’s not about oil.

But it’s not about oil.

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Tell that to the family of the first US combat fatality. A Marine, he was killed during an operation to seize control of… Guess what? An oil field.

Sorry, no criticism here — or maybe that’s exactly what it is — but I felt the irony deserved mention.

Powered by

About Martin Blank

  • http://www.unproductivity.com Tom

    Where is the irony? His death had nothing to do with oil. Had we not secured the oil fields, Saddam would have burned them, or emptied them into the gulf. You’d rather have an environmental disaster, I suppose. I mean, it better makes your point, right?

    I know, for anti-war protestors, it’s all about the oil. Because there can’t possibly be any other reason that would drive a nation to war, right? Because EVERYONE in the government is totally corrupt, because that’s the only way a war simply over oil could ever occur. Of course. It couldn’t have anything to do with this. Read it, all of it – and read all of the links, which go to legit news sources, by the way (before someone starts saying these are biased news articles from previously unknown sources.) Then you tell me that it’s all about oil again.

  • http://www.hereticalideas.com Alex Knapp

    In the last war, Iraq burned 700 oil wells, which took nine months to put out, and created the largest oil spill in history by spilling oil into the Persian Gulf. Me, I think that the Iraqi people deserve a clean ocean and clear skies. But I’m sure it’s just all about the oil…

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    The point is that it is ironic. It’s a PR nightmare. I’ll be the first anti-war protestor to admit that the invasion of Iraq is not primarily about oil. Granted, it’s a salubrious side effect, but it’s not the ultimate goal. I’d be a lot less worried if it were all about oil.

    However, securing oil fields, even if the alternative is burning or dumping, seems a misplaced initial target. Why are we doing so much to sieze oil fields and not so much to protect noncombatant lives in Baghdad? Perhaps it is indeed more about oil than I originally thought.

    The case for direct Iraqi support of terrorism has never been made. A better case for Iranian support of terrorism has been reported through various sources, but we’re not shelling Tehran right now. On the converse, no one has proven that Iraq doesn’t support terrorism. It’s a wash: not enough upon which to predicate an invasion.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Hey, that’s a first for the Bush administration: concern for conservation of an ecosystem.

  • http://www.unproductivity.com Tom

    San, what would we do to protect civilians in Baghdad? Other than use the precision guided-bombs we already are, that is?

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Take it by ground force instead of heavy shelling, perhaps? Maybe not. But if in planning this invasion we discovered that we were going to be able to protect oil fields but not noncombatant lives, a little rethink might have been in order. (If you plan on coming back with an argument about the accuracy of these bombs, I have two words for you: Chinese embassy.)

    I appreciate this discussion. From it I have developed the new pro-war slogan: Silly pacifists, we’re fighting this war to save the environment.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    “I know, for anti-war protestors, it’s all about the oil. Because there can’t possibly be any other reason that would drive a nation to war, right? Because EVERYONE in the government is totally corrupt, because that’s the only way a war simply over oil could ever occur.”

    Tom, it might reassure you to believe that all anti-war protesters fit this caricature, but they don’t. I’ve seen more American flags at these protest rallies than I ever have before. Even conservative Orange County, CA, (our own mini red state) has protesters out. You could scroll through these pictures and just focus like a laser on the more simplistic and outrageous signs if you wanted to.

    Or you could take a look and see if this protest movement isn’t something else entirely. It’s a mass movement of citizens from all walks of life, with many points of view, who all agree on one thing: This particular war of choice was a very bad idea.

    I have a heard a grand total of one conspiracy theory (involving the US dollar, the Euro and, yes, oil) in all my time among the protesters, and I’ve literally talked to hundreds. In contrast, I’ve seen and heard clergy pleading for peace in the name of religion too many times to count.

    If you want to find out who the protesters are, why don’t you come down and meet us rather than depending on the images Fox News has selected for you?


  • Rob

    Oil fields and refineries are some of the more common man-made structures in southern Iraq. These rather large industrial complexes are good for concealing both troops and equipment. Furthermore, Iraqi commanders know thathe US is less likely to bomb these targets, as they make a helluva mess, ( I lived in Denver when the Conoco refinery blew up, the shockwave alone travelled about 10 miles.) IN the First Gulf War, the Iraqis did infact use the smoke from oil fires to cover their advance and attack coalition forces. You can’t bomb the fields and you can’t bypass ‘em, so in go the ground troops.

    As for reduction of civilian casualties, notice that the US forces have not levelled Umm Qasr, Safwan, or Basra, but have actually tried to get defenders to surrender. We are doing all we can to minimize civilian casualties, but there will be some, regretfully.