Eftirfarandi texti er tekinn óbreyttur og óþýddur frá fréttavef BBC. Ég vil ekki þýða textann því hann er góður og að mínu mati nánast skotheldur og ég held að margir hér hafi mjög gott af þessari lesningu. Reynslan sýnir líka að fæstir hér “nenna” að lesa út fyrir mbl.is og ég mæli með þessari lesningu fyrir þá aðila:

****

“Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.

Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.

Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush ”senior“ administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?

Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan ”No Blood for Oil!“

If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.

If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.

Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company ”fat cats“ were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German- Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.

If the argument is that ”Big Oil“ is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.

If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would ”win“ economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract ”lottery,“ it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.

Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development contracts are overstated. The post-war Iraqi regime would certainly ensure that most of the profits from development were captured by the new government, whose reconstruction needs will be monumental. In fact, Secretary Powell has repeatedly hinted that Iraqi oil revenues would be used for exactly that purpose. Big money in the oil industry goes to those who own their reserves or who secure favourable development contracts, not to those who are forced to surrender most of the profits up-front through negotiation.

If the argument is that the United States is going to war to tame OPEC by ensuring that a puppet regime friendly to America holds the second largest reserves within the cartel, then it runs up against the fact that the United States has never had much complaint with OPEC. Occasional posturing notwithstanding, both have the same goal: stable prices between 20 and 28 dollars a barrel. The cartel wants to keep prices in that range because it maximizes their profits. The United States wants to keep prices in that range because it ensures the continued existence of the oil industry in the United States without doing too much damage to the American economy. The United States doesn't need a client state within the cartel, particularly when the cost of procuring such a state will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro ”Mini-Me“ Hugo Chavez?

In sum, the argument that the war with Iraq is fundamentally about oil doesn't add up. While everyone loves a nice, tidy political morality play, I doubt there is one to be found here.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1/sha red/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iraq_iessays/jerry_taylor/htm l/index.htm > TRANSCRIPT

****

Ég vona svo að enginn láti standa sig að fáfræði eða málflutningi sem ekki yfirvinnur sterkar röksemdir þessa texta.