Editor,
As of late, I have noticed the same tired mantra being repeated over and over again by the anti-war crowd: "No blood for oil."
I felt it to be my duty as a fairly well informed American citizen to clear up a few myths/misunderstandings about the issue that is the war on Iraq.
Myth #1: The war is about oil and only oil. Why this is wrong: let me start by saying that if it was just about oil, we would lift the frickin' embargo! Sure, Iraq is sitting atop a lake of oil, but Afghanistan was sitting upon a literal treasure trove of precious gems. Do you see American companies there pillaging these treasures? No! For that matter, where were the cries of "No blood for rubies" during the Afghan campaign?
It's a simple fact that there is more to this war than just oil. In the greater scheme of things, what has more value: a gallon of gas being a few cents cheaper or a tyrannical dictator being disarmed and/or killed? Obviously, getting rid of the unstable madman who threatens collective security is more helpful to everyone than just getting cheaper gas. Basically, cheap oil is just an added benefit of doing away with Saddam Hussein and his circus of evil.
Myth #2: The United States is simply waging war to extend its "empire." Why this is wrong: Let me begin with some (excuse the pun) empirical evidence of countries the United States invaded but did not absorb into its "empire." Some examples are Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan and, more recently, Kuwait and Afghanistan.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Seems to me as though the United States is not very interested in expanding its territory. Hell, if we were so land hungry, wouldn't we just invade Canada and Mexico? They're a lot closer and, hey, they have oil, too! Simply put, this "empire" myth does not stand up when put under light of truth. During the past century, the U.S. military has been one of liberation, not domination, as so many would lead you to believe.
Misunderstanding #1: If Hussein is so bad, why didn't we take care of him in the '80s when he was gassing the Kurds in the first place? Well, folks, there was a little place called the "Soviet Union" that wouldn't have taken too kindly to us trying to affect regime change in Iraq at that time. Remember that whole "Cold War" business? Oh yeah, that was pretty big, wasn't it? A misstep by us at that time could have very well resulted in open war with the Soviets or nuclear annihilation. See my point?
In the end, most people who are against the war are really against President Bush. I say to them: get over your selfish opinions and support a war that will benefit the Iraqi people and the world as a whole. When you go home to a family who hasn't been gassed to death, you'll be glad you did.
Alex Hughes
UNM student
