posted on Dec, 10 2002 @ 11:19 AM
Does it matter?
At this stage, society needs oil. Certainly, if one entity engages in military efforts to secure a supply of vital resources, it is not unexpected.
Not unexpected but can it be considered moral, right, "civilised"
In the west we make a lot out of the fact that we are "better" than certain people.
Saddam may have nukes.
we have nukes but thats ok because were better and more moral than him
Saddam funds terrorists.
we've certainly funded and armed people considered to be terrorists but thats ok because we are better and more moral about it.
In order for us to maintain the moral high ground we must explicitly demonstrate that whilst our methods may be the same as somone like Saddam our
ultimate goal, our reasoning behind certain actions is for the greater good.
otherwise we loose the moral high ground and our argument for continuing what is, to a certain extent, a hypocritical moral crusade disintegrates.
as such, with the world watching us, we cannot simply state "we want his oil, we're going to take it because we can" even if that is our actual
motive, and, however obvious that motive becomes we simply cannot afford to explicitly say it. We would loose to much good will and, however powerfull
the US thinks it is, it simply couldn't survive without a certain amount of good will from the rest of the world.
Thats why Bush hasn't just said "lets get the oil" thats why Bush has neetly tied Saddam to his war against terror, a moral crusade the people will
back which, if its what he wants, allows him to take the oil without saying thats why he's doing it.
It just might be that simple. Why must it be complex?
The reasons behind this war may be that simple, they may even be as simple as say, a son wanting to please his father, the explicit political
motivation however cannot be seen to be that simple, our political stability requires that the reasons be complex and many fold.