02-23-2003, 06:50 AM
My feeling is that AK404's point was actually refuted by Occhi's original post, which AK's post does nothing to refute. If we have an ultimate motivation to go into this war other than stealing Iraq's oil, does it follow that the first thing we would do in Iraq would be to seize the oil fields? Of course not. If our ultimate motivation is Iraq's oil, does it make sense for us to be enforcing sanctions that keep Iraq's oil from getting to us? Of course not. Would a regime change in Iraq mean more flow of Iraqi oil into the United States? Yes, if for no other reason than finally lifting the economic sanctions, but that is a far cry from the suggestion I was interpreting in AK404's post.
Which do you think is most responsible for lack of oil trade between the U.S. and Iraq right now: U.S. enforcing sanctions against Iraq, or Iraq not wanting to do business with the U.S.? If the former, does that not strike you as inconsistent with the sentiment of AK404's post?
Which do you think is most responsible for lack of oil trade between the U.S. and Iraq right now: U.S. enforcing sanctions against Iraq, or Iraq not wanting to do business with the U.S.? If the former, does that not strike you as inconsistent with the sentiment of AK404's post?