Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to In The Interest Of Time - Blood For Oil

Finally!
Robert — (archived)

Oh, man, this whole flame would have turned out very differently if you'd presented the substance of your and Gary's accusations at the beginning. "Blood for oil" is an excellent place to start.

No sane person could deny the central, almost exclusive, role of oil in Middle Eastern politics, and in our half-century relationship (aka "hostage situation") with the Middle East. It's why we give a damn! And oil, and America's economic treatment of the Middle East to extract that oil, figures prominently in the grievances expressed by terrorists. How can we sensibly discuss the situation without discussing oil?

"Blood for oil" is simply provocative rhetoric to refer, in a pithy nutshell, to America's policy toward the Middle East. To say that discussing the role of oil in that policy is offlimits because it amounts to "treason!" is to say that American Middle East policy in general is offlimits for discussion. And that is just far beyond the pale. It can't be interpreted as other than partisan, because the wellknown connections between the Bush Administration and the petroleum industry legitimately calls into question whether the Administration is acting only in the strict interests of the nation and all the American people. Remember "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"? That slogan's not just for RightWingers--it's every citizen's duty to keep an eye on the government, and most especially in times of war when the opportunities for malfeasance abound under the cover of "national security".

You might've noticed the price of gasoline these days. In essence, we're being called upon to pay twice for Bush's War, once through direct taxation, and now through through premiums paid to the oil companies. I believe in the principle of "no taxation without representation"; don't you?

It's no doubt true that American oil companies aren't technically guilty of war profiteering. But look at the price of gas, and try to tell me that they're not in essence war profiteers. And, ironically, war profiteering, while not quite the same thing as treason, is frowned upon and illegal precisely because it undermines our own ability to fight. It's an indirect way of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In the case of oil, money consumed by the high cost of gasoline is money removed from the entire economy, reducing the economic base for taxation to pay for the war. Futher, the high cost of gasoline may make Americans a bit more impatient with Bush's policies; wouldn't that be a form of giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies?

And you really think that discussing these issues is "treason!"??? Mark, I'm sorry, but it seems to me that one could make a pretty good case that failing to discuss the role of oil in American policy is, while not actually treason, certainly a failure to discharge the duty of a citizen in a democracy...a failure of duty whose consequences could be just as serious as treason.

I will not fail to consider the role of oil in the WOT and American Middle Eastern policy. If this be treason, so be it.

The FBI has an online form to submit tips: https://tips.fbi.gov/. Go for it. If you honestly believe that this is treason, then under the doctrine of "misprision of treason", you have no choice but to turn me in.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (148 posts)