Invalidating The Protestors
By Andy Obermann (03/22/04)
Over the weekend, massive protests were staged across the nation. Protestors, in nearly every major American city, blocked streets and occupied public parks, picketing America’s “illegal occupation” of Iraq and failure in the War on Terror. Dismissing the logic that 10 months of freedom isn’t enough time to guild a government, let alone a democracy, these activists displayed their true liberal, appeasement-oriented agenda for all terrorists to see.
From what I was able to gather in news reports, the appeasers, I mean protestors, stuck to their primary contention that the War on Terror is all about oil. One sign, in fact, clearly declared “War on Terror=War for Oil.” This claim is becoming very dated, let alone ridiculous, so let’s disperse the myth for good.
In case you aren’t a black helicopter, conspiracy nut, let me fill you in on how this scheme is supposed to play out. First, President Bush (through various bribes and misgivings) convinced the Taliban government to convince al Qaeda groups operating in Afghanistan to attack America on 9/11. Now, given the scale of the attacks, President Bush, showing a great deal more genius and forward thinking than these people give him credit for, must have began this dialogue 2-3 years before the actual terrorist strike.
With his CIA connections (the President’s father was once the director of the CIA), Bush then orchestrated a coup d’etat in the 2000 election to oust the Clinton heir-apparent Al Gore and implement his grand scheme—the establishment of a massive trans-Asian oil pipeline, stretching from Central Asia, across Afghanistan, to the Caspian Sea.
This, mini-American colony (Afghanistan) would be rented out to firms like Halliburton, to enrich Vice President Cheney (the one time CEO of Halliburton, who holds no financial ties with Halliburton and relinquished all shares of stock in the company upon becoming vice president).
The backup plan? Well, if this pipeline scheme failed, the Administration would then use words like “liberation” and “terrorism” to maintain the “occupation” of Afghanistan (for unknown reasons), while moving to “liberate” other countries in the name of the War on Terror. This is where Iraq plays in.
Since the Afghan colony idea failed, Bush decided Iraq was his next best option. He used Saddam Hussein’s apparent terrorist ties, weapons of mass destruction threat, United Nations defiance, human rights violations, mass graves, false imprisonments, torture chambers, rapes, terror funding, and such to justify the “phony” case for the liberation of Iraq. The real plan was to secure oil fields, incorporate companies like Halliburton, and make Vice President Cheney richer, according to the great conspiracy theorists.
I think one simple argument invalidates all of this nonsense: None of this happened! There is no US colony in Afghanistan, no pipeline, no Caspian-Central Asia drilling operation, no “permanent occupation” of Afghanistan, no American colony in Iraq, and no stolen oil from Iraqi fields. Yes, Halliburton was used for some government contracts, but they have received a steady flow of government contracts since the end of World War I, 22 years before VP Cheney was born!
One would think with this excess crude oil coming from Afghanistan’s pipeline and Iraq’s oil fields, our gas prices would plummet. This just isn’t the case. Fuel prices across the globe are soaring, especially in America where gas prices are averaging $1.72 per gallon. Iraq is seeing record gas price levels, and towering crude oil prices worldwide are leading to shortages in some European nations.
Look, the reality is, if it were up to these people, the Taliban would still be conducting female castrations and hanging people from soccer goals in Kabul Stadium. Saddam’s torture chambers and prisons would still be running a direct pipeline to the mass graves scattered across Iraq. His sons would still be executing civilians and raping Iraqi women as young as 12. Most importantly, terrorists, occupying these havens of safety, would still be conducting training and recruiting missions and planning operations against the United States. They, quite possibly, would still seek WMDs, from Iraq, that much of the world (UN and foreign governments included) agreed existed. There is no doubt that the fall of Saddam gave terrorists one less willing accomplice in attacks against America.
Don’t be swayed by these shallow protestors. After all, if they were truly outraged by American occupation, where were they during the Clinton Administration’s nation-building exercises in Somalia and the Balkans? The War on Terror is still America’s fight and one that must be won.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Andy Obermann
