What if it's about oil?

[Bgno64]

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/25212

Viewed in this light, the war makes sense in a way it otherwise doesn’t. It explains why we are building permanent military bases in Iraq; the president’s refusal to withdraw troops may be borne not of mere stubbornness but his belief that the energy security, and thus the economic security, of our country hinges on staying.

And if this is the thinking behind the war, an attack on Iran may be a fait accompli, a done deal but for the timing. Of course, we must pave the way with moral arguments and heaping helpings of fear, as with Iraq. We’re seeing that now.

[acmavm]

1. WTF? Is this guy the amoral twit I understand him to be?

Attacking Iran (and of course the already bombed Iraq) is excusable, justifiable, to protect our economy?

What the hell am I missing here?

[Briar]

2. But this is how the right thinks

Don't forget - the objections to use of the H bomb were "merely moral" according to Teller. The "merely" is the word that tells it all.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. If it was a selfless act to protect our country's energy future two

things would be true:

First, he would have had to recognize early in his administration that peak oil had been reached and, being a good business man CEO, he would have diversified and made massive investments in solar, wind, hydrogen and electrical research, as well as controlled the Middle East oil fields. But he didn't diversify. Bush has paid lip-service to alternate energy sources for America. We have lost six years because the man lacks vision for anything, but getting money in the hands of the cronies that will cushion his fall when his time is up in the White House;

and,

Second, he would have recognized that he was putting thousands of American soldiers' lives at risk and would have at least attempted to limit Halliburton's riches to show that his commitment was purely selfless and not profit-seeking. But he didn't even do that. Instead, he allowed Cheney's Halliburton to win no bid contracts and suck up all the billions from our country and we've received nothing in return. What's worse, those sons of bitches are going to use our money to buy public infrastructure, here in the U.S.

So, Bush is not a leader. He is a CEO. That is all he ever was, and not even a good one. Which means, maybe it's time to review what our CEOs are doing in business because this is too damn destructive.

[acmavm]

4. When I see this stuff I just have a hard time accepting that

THAT is what this country is being led by, that is what we've come to. I gag when I read justifications for murderinig people reduced to dollars and cents. And dollars and cents that's going to end up in the pockets of the same people who are making the policy for my poor broken country.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the people who are running this country are neither conservative OR Christian (or moral individuals, no matter what religion they profess to follow).

They have reduced this country to a shameful renegade warmongering nation. For money. And that is the basest of all reasons.

[bhikkhu]

5. sadly its a pattern...

and the US has always been willing to undertake the premptive strike, whether itself, by a proxy or by deception, where national economic interests might be furthered. Only now it is official, as preemptive strike for the protection of threats to economic interests is a matter of written policy.