[ QUOTE ]
I won't blame you if you think the former because that is all that the media ever says. But here is the thing: Do you think the war was increased or decreased the chances of a domestic attack? Would war supporters be glad if another 9-11 occurs?
----
Despite all the pundits saying 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here', did the war planners of the war have that in mind at all, outside the obvious propaganda value of that arguement? Do Cheney and his cabal actually believe that statement?
Canis582's perspective of history tells me that practically all wars since the begining of time have been fought over natural resources, but have had various rationales. The Iraq war is no different. Does anyone on this board think our nation would be spending a billion per week on that occupation if Iraq's main exports were burkas and bongos?
The middle east's oil has been described as the 'greatest strategic prize in the history of the world.' I believe Bush and Cheney's failure to effectively plunder those resources is grounds for eternal exile to a poor province of Mexico.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously it's about natural resources, but it's about making sure a "terror state" does not have control of those natural resources. Whether you agree or disagree with the war, its goal seems fairly apparent. It's about making sure we have ties to the oil in the region and that it's not controlled by dictatorships who are enemies of the United States.
It's not as simple to just propose it as a dichotomy. "Terrorism or Oil?" It can be about both. And keep in mind, I'm referring to terrorism very loosely, as it applies to a "terror state", i.e.; a violent dictatorship. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism within our own borders, other than the fact that terrorism in the US was used as a reason for the invasion.
One thing is for sure, anyone who says it's not about oil is just stone cold lying (perhaps to themselves). It's all about natural resources. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly
has admitted as much.