Hostility centers around oil
Published: Saturday, January 25, 2003 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, January 24, 2003 at 11:44 p.m.
Why is the president so eager to go to war with Iraq but to "cut a deal" with North Korea?
What is so different about these two nations that we would cater to a dictator who starves his people, but we wouldn't dare accept anything less than a regime change in Iraq?
The answer, easily, is oil.
After the 9/11 attacks, we went into Afghanistan to seek retribution from Osama bin Laden. As soon as the Taliban were conquered and a U.S.-friendly administration was set up in the country, the hunt for bin Laden was no longer a priority. Perhaps it was an easy reason for troops to remove the Taliban, install the United States backed interim government of Hamid Karzai, a former Usocal employee.
Usocal (United States Oil of California) had plans to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. They even courted the Taliban in 1997, but backed out of the deal. The American public had no idea the plan was only put on the back burner until a friendlier regime would reign in the desert nation.
Even President Bush, months after claiming he we needed "energy independence" from foreign oil, appointed another former Unocal employee, Zalmay Khalilzad, as the U.S. envoy for Afghanistan.
Today we have another oil-rich Middle Eastern country being accused of terrorist support and of having weapons of mass destruction. Americans have not heard the evidence against Saddam, yet the very obvious acts of North Korea have been displayed for the public to see. Kim Jong Il has supported terrorism in the open, selling his weaponry to terrorists.
I fear this is just another ploy to replace an oil-rich country with an American-friendly government. When we aren't showing North Korea - a country without oil - anywhere near the same hostility, it only supports these fears.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article