Oil IS Blood...

I have been stating this from the beginning when those in opposition to the war decried, and still do, that the Iraq Liberation was/is for oil as though that possible motive diminishes the noble deed of liberating 25million PEOPLE (they ARE PEOPLE by the way)--that a State or person can have only ONE reason for doing any thing is absolute fallacy and a ridiculus notion.

Environmental & global economic issues aside, I don't take issue with the Iraq war being "for oil" because oil is FOOD and medicine and education and hospitals and shelter and luxury items, not just for Americans but for those that peddle the black gold. For Saudis and too long for Iraqis, the spoils of oil were bequethed to the excellency of the Saudi family, Saddam and the elite upper class of those societies and never trickled down to the common folk. As the populations live in squalor, the king, princes and dictators live in splendor.

Christopher Hitchens made a similar point in a recent Slate.com article:

How strange that the anti-war left should have forgotten all of its Marxism and superciliously ignored the fact that oil is blood: lifeblood for Iraqis and others. Under Saddam it was wholly privatized; now it can become more like a common resource. But it will need to be protected against those who would shed it and spill it without compunction, and we might as well become used to the fact. With or without a direct Anglo-American garrison, there is an overwhelming humanitarian and international and civilizational interest in defeating the Arab Khmer Rouge that threatens Mesopotamia, and if we could achieve agreement on that single point, the other disagreements would soon disclose themselves as being of a much lesser order. [emphasis added]