Mark - was the editor comment directed at you or at Albert Bertrand? It could be read both ways.
Posted at 2007-04-25 10:09:45 [PermaLink]As a fairly regular Sun reader (it's a fine pub read), I can say that the response was directed at M. Bertrand - the editors are of a conservative bent and usually take leftie correspondents to task in their responses.
Posted at 2007-04-25 10:29:53 [PermaLink]Good work Mark! It's nice to see plain logic used--instead of the left wing mania that Mr. Bertrand, and others, typically use.
I have a friend who is convinced that the war in Iraq is all about oil, nothing else. He just can't see through his left wing template--if this was a war for oil only, trust me, the Americans would have shielded the oil fields and would completely withdraw from the cities. I know what someone will say, "Yeah, but they want to make it look like that, so they put solidiers in cities to cover their real goal." Beep, wrong. There is no way Bush could possibly sustain those casualties unless there was a clear emphasis on helping the Iraqi people create a sustainable democracy that will be an ally on the war on terror. In other words, the media would have a field day showing clearly how the war is not about this, but really about oil--that's why you see the MSM spending much time trying to undermine the new security measures. They understand that's what it's all about--re-creating the Middle-East one step at a time.
Hey, Richard.
When your friend brings it up again, ask him since Alberta and Mexico have oil, why did America need to go to the ME?
It's not like you guys would put up a fight.....
If it was the oil we were after, the simplest, most profitable line to take would have been to see that the sanctions regime was ended, leaving Saddam in power. Why invade, spending several hundred billion dollars, when we could simply have aped the Russians, French, or Chinese? It's not like the UN sanctions were likely to last much longer, anyway.
Posted at 2007-04-26 12:00:08 [PermaLink]