When people say America attacked Iraq “for money” or “for oil,” they’re talking about two different but related concepts:
1. President Bush attacked Iraq to make his evil capitalist overlord friends richer.
2. President Bush attacked Iraq to protect the overall economy.
While I do not approve of starting wars to make evil capitalist overlords richer, an argument can be made that the well-being of much of the planet depends on economics. Poverty kills lots of people.
In theory, a well chosen war “for money” can save a huge amount of lives in the long run.
Suppose you believed that the world is soon reaching an oil supply crisis. Many experts believe that. And suppose the consensus of economists is that unless the oil supply problem is solved, America will be plunged into a spiral of depression the likes of which has never been seen.
If America goes down, the rest of the industrial world will too. Starvation will follow. Health services will crumble. Crime will soar. Lots of people will die. Imagine China losing half of its customer base in a year. Could 100 million people die from a large economic disaster? I think so.
Now suppose America’s experts thought that a smallish war to depose an evil Iraqi dictator was all that was needed to buy another 20 years of reliable oil supply – long enough to develop alternative energy sources that are economical.
Under my hypothetical scenario, would America have a moral obligation to attack Iraq under false pretences if its experts believed that doing so protects the most lives in the long run?
Now sit back and enjoy seeing how few people can deal with a hypothetical question designed to clarify thinking. Bonus points to the first idiot to point out that the real situation wasn’t at all like my hypothetical.