Even Alan Greenspan was willing to admit it — the invasion of Iraq was about oil. So was the invasion of Afghanistan.
Both were intended to occupy foreign lands that stood on top of huge natural resources and oil reserves or which stood on top of critical oil transportation and distribution routes and both invasions were intended to occupy those lands either by U.S. armed forces or by friendly proxy governments under U.S. control in order to control those petroleum resources.
Barack Obama ran on a platform of ending the war in Iraq. This was a consciously deceptive position.
"Ending the War" is not the same as ending the occupation. "Ending the War" was by no means intended to relinquish control of Iraqi and Persian Gulf oil or Afghan trade routes.
Barack Obama is a very good bamboozler. He convinced millions of voters that he was different than Bush, but he is continuing fundamental Bush goals to secure foreign resources under American control for the benefit of American consumers and the American economy at the expense of the Iraqi and the Afghan people.
The Left misses this altogether.
Pacifica Radio’s Mitch Jezurich and Aaron Glantz were shamelessly promoting the Obama agenda on the air yesterday and pretending that ending the war was the important thing. They completely ignored the real purpose of the war and, thus, continually miss the fact that the war cannot end as long as the goal is to secure the resources.
Both the Iraq War and the Afghan War are resource wars and wars of aggression and occupation. America was not attacked but it invaded and killed for resources and oil.
Obama is still trading blood for natural resources and oil, though in smaller quantities at present.
But make no mistake about it — if Iraqi insurgence increases, the bloodletting by American forces will increase because America under Obama continues to be fully willing to shed endless quantities of Iraqi blood and necessary quantities of American blood to get control of that oil.
Obama is Bush. There is no significant difference.