Flame — HabitableZone

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

re: "Blood For Oil"
Fox — (archived)

From reading your other post, I take it you're nominating this phrase as the first candidate for remarks which, in your opinion, provide "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

You have not included a demonstration of how the enemy was aided and comforted by reading those words on the pages of Habitable Zone. But, in this instance it's not necessary. Those words -- perhaps more accurately rendered, in the fashion of a sign carried in an anti-war protest, as "No Blood for Oil" -- have been and continue to be used world-wide. That one or two, or even a handful, of posters in the Zone might have repeated them could not possibly be noticed in the greater noise.

The idea behind the words -- that the ultimate goal of US policy is to secure control of the petroleum pooled beneath southwest Asia -- is decades older than the current war. In the bad old Cold War days, "strategic Middle Eastern oil reserves" was a commonly heard phrase, one of the goals of US foreign policy in that region, almost always with the proviso "so the Soviets don't get it." Hence, as an example, our support of the Shah of Iran. Hence also, our demonstrated reluctance to "get tough" with Saudi Arabia -- which has the most oil -- in spite of its having been the country of origin of bin Laden, most of the 9/11 hijackers, and all of their money.

In other words, it cannot be denied that free-market access to oil is a collateral asset to successful policy in that region. It also cannot be denied that opposition to US policy has often focussed on that obvious benefit and exaggerated its importance, as a rhetorical tool.

Rather like exaggerated rhetorical accusations of "treason", don't you think?

The point of my rebuttal is this: "No Blood for Oil" as a slogan, or rallying cry, of protest against US policy was a pre-existing condition. I will, for the sake of this debate, stipulate that the current enemy makes use of it -- though I suspect they use more emotionally potent items of propaganda to recruit fighters and materiel, such as 'invasion of our native lands' and 'infidels' (how much do you think a suicide bomber cares about oil?). However, it was already there to be used. Accusing anyone of aiding and comforting the enemy by repeating the phrase in the current situation bears a resemblance to leveling the same charge against publishers of Marx's Communist Manifesto, when the Commies were "the enemy".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I believe, in the course of writing this rebuttal, that I have finally discerned what the problem is -- not just Gary's, or yours, or Ann Coulter's, but for all those inflamed enough to bandy the word "treason" when faced with opposition. This, in some ways, is a perfect example: The enemy has already derived maximum aid and comfort from the existence of the "No Blood for Oil" slogan. Not much more can be gained from its repetition (certainly not here!), but to do so is unpatriotic.

Patriotism is solely an emotional issue, and can immediately lend itself to emotional outburst and rhetorical exaggeration. That this is widely known is demonstrated by words like "jingoism" and phrases like "wrapping oneself in the Flag"; as well as by accusations of "aid and comfort to the enemy". American patriotism, however, is of a special kind: for many of us, especially those steeped in our rebellious history, our love of our country requires that we protest when its current leaders appear to be taking it away from the ideals upon which it was founded. It is our patriotic duty.

Certainly, some forms of that protest become as exaggerated in their way as do those who express their own patriotism in terms of "Nothing America can do is wrong -- it's America, damn it!" But, as I said, patriotism is pure emotion... and (as abusively controlling spouses sometimes discover, though not often enough), human nature makes it impossible to demand that emotional expression take one form only. I am reminded of "hardhats vs hippies" from the Vietnam War era. If you looked at that Google search link in my post from yesterday, you'll find that many of the top hits refer to 30+ year old accusations against Jane Fonda, and many more refer to John Kerry. (You'll even find, on page 2, a link to a post in this very thread.)

To sum up: we (by which I mean the greater collective "we") can scream at each other for years, or even decades, and neither side will persuade the other to change their mind, shut up, or go away. It is our nature as Americans.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (148 posts)