Whether you're a communist or just another left-wing radical, the potential war against Iraq is infuriating. You hate Bush, so whatever he does must be protested.
With all that terrorism and tyrannical oppression stuff going on, you know your objection must be cloaked in some sort of viable reason other than "I hate conservatives and America" or the public won't buy it. So, while sitting around looking for an easy attack, the answer becomes obvious: Oil! "No Blood for Oil" sounds so catchy as a headline, and it looks great on posters when colored with vibrant markers! But who in his or her right mind really thinks this war is about oil?
Iraq produces just over three percent of the world's oil - so little that when Iraq tried to create its own embargo by cutting off its supply, nobody budged. While Iraq does harbor about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, chances are that a regime change wouldn't free up this product. In fact, many oil experts agree that the best way to get the most amount of oil out of Iraq would be to do business with them rather than wage war against them.
It's asinine to think the United States wants to fight this war for money. We mourned the loss of thousands of Americans in the WTC bombings, yet anti-war protesters argue we are willing to lose hundreds of thousands all for oil money.
What most anti-war protesters fail to mention is the value of the oil: At 2.5 million barrels a day at the current price of $35 a barrel, the revenue is about $32 billion a year. That's about one third of Arkansas' gross domestic product last year. America is simply too wealthy to care about this money; it would be like a millionaire losing his life to collect a penny.
The best evidence why this war is not for oil is what we have not done to get it. The oil fields in Iraq were developed by the United States only to be nationalized by the Iraqi dictatorship. Even though American money was used to get the resource out of the ground, we were denied a return on the investment. Still, we backed off and happily bought the oil from the shady OPEC cartel.
We have at our disposal huge resources of oil in our own country, yet we choose not to develop it. The glaring truth is that we simply don't need the oil. However, France and Russia do.
Our biggest opponents on the issue of war readily stepped in after Iraq gave U.S. oil interests the boot to finance oil ventures. A war for them would mean a loss of billions and a big null stamp across their unfinished contracts. Their monetary stake in this "war for oil" is far higher than ours.
On the Saturday night news there was an interview with an Iraqi woman who told of her small son's desire to kill Saddam. She and her child were starving, and her husband was locked away indefinitely as a political dissident. It used to be that leftists wanted us to intervene in more countries to liberate oppressed people. But now the roles have been reversed, and it is Republicans advocating freedom while leftists whine for "peace."
It's time we return to the old way of war: "To the victor goes the spoils." I have no problem with the United States taking the oil back for punitive damages and a way to finance the cost of war with Iraq. As it is, they get away with murder.
Shanna Bowman is an industrial engineering senior. Reach her at snb@asu.edu.
