Change the question? LOL For YEARS people on the far left have ranted about "blood for oil" and accused the Bush Administration of going into Iraq simply because they wanted Iraq's oil. That always was a bullshit argument made by ignorant ideologues. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a sociopath who fancied himself as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar...a despotic ruler who wanted to use his oil money to obtain nuclear weapons. A man who used chemical weapons. A man who attacked peaceful neighbors. A man who provided large cash awards to the families of suicide bombers. A man who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't abide by UN sanctions and was once again rebuilding his military with the use of black market sales of oil for weapons to circumvent those sanctions. It had NOTHING to do with weakening OPEC!
This issue isn't one that is black and white, it's not a "there is only one reason".
The Israelis were pushing for something to happen in Iraq, just as they're pushing for something to happen in Iran and have been for a long while.
However, the US govt will only go in if their own interests are being served. Looking at US action since the end of the Cold War and you get a very keen sense that this is to with oil.
For example, the case of Libya.
John McCain was pushing for the US to go into Libya, he massively criticised Obama for not doing anything quickly enough.
McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com
"McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya" April 22, 2011
Graham, McCain Critical of Slow Response in Libya | S E N A T U S
"Graham, McCain Critical of Slow Response in Libya" MARCH 20, 2011
McCain, Lieberman: Obama Too Slow on Libya
"McCain, Lieberman: Obama Too Slow on Libya" Sunday, 20 Mar 2011
PostPartisan - McCain: U.S. 'making up reasons' to avoid action on Libya
"McCain: U.S. 'making up reasons' to avoid action on Libya" 03/ 1/2011
So the question is, why was McCain so desperate in Libya?
Now the other question is, why did McCain not give a damn about the Ivory Coast?
Second Ivorian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Second Ivorian Civil War[8][9] broke out in March 2011 when the crisis in Ivory Coast escalated into full-scale military conflict between forces loyal to Laurent Gbagbo, the President of Ivory Coast since 2000, and supporters of the internationally recognised president-elect Alassane Ouattara. After months of unsuccessful negotiations and sporadic violence between supporters of the two sides, the crisis entered a critical stage as Ouattara's forces seized control of most of the country, with Gbagbo entrenched in Abidjan, the country's largest city. International organizations have reported numerous instances of human rights violations by both sides, in particular in the city of Duékoué. The UN and French forces took military action, with the stated objective to protect their forces and civilians. Ouattara's forces arrested Gbagbo at his residence on 11 April."
So, civil war in Libya, the US has to help, civil war at the same time in the Ivory Coast and the US doesn't give a damn, I doubt most Americans even knew it was happening. To be honest, I type in "john McCain Côte d'Ivoire" and i get nothing, absolutely nothing, he didn't say much if anything about this conflict.
What about Syria?
Did McCain criticise Obama for being too slow in Syria? It started March 15th 2011. It's been going on for more than 3 years and the US hasn't intervened.
McCain has called for military action at times
John McCain: Congressional Vote Against Military Action In Syria Would Be 'Catastrophic'
"John McCain: Congressional Vote Against Military Action In Syria Would Be 'Catastrophic'" 09/03/2013
though this was 2 years after the crisis started
McCain calls for airstrikes on Syria - CNN.com
"http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html" March 6, 2012
and this was 1 year after it started.
Syria: Intervention is in Our Interest | TIME.com
He even made the case that intervention was in the interests of the US.
"For America, our interests are our values, and our values are our interests." which is a bit of a joke.
But this was all in the past few years. What did he say at the time?
McCain: Syria military intervention too risky - CBS News
"McCain: Syria military intervention too risky" April 28, 2011
Yep, he was saying no intervention. Why was Libya so urgent, but Syria not?
Sen. John McCain: U.S. Must Sustain Momentum of Arab Spring | United States Institute of Peace
"Sen. John McCain: U.S. Must Sustain Momentum of Arab Spring" May 20, 2011
Here's an idea of why he may have changed his mind. He wanted the Arab Spring to work. Why? Could it possibly have anything to do with Iran?
"“It should also put to rest the ugly claim, heard all too often over the past decade, that the Arab world is somehow condemned to despotism – that unlike people everywhere else, Arabs are not ready, not capable, or not fit for democracy,” the senator said in USIP’s Great Hall in its Washington headquarters."
He seems to be claiming that it's all about democracy. Heard this one a lot, even when they took down the democratically elected leader of Venezuela in a coup they claimed it was for democratic purposes. Is the US the only country in the world that can destroy democracy and claim it is acting in the interests of democracy?
"Sen. McCain called for changing anti-American regimes, consolidating nascent democracies, reforming pro-American autocracies and renewing the Israel-Palestinian peace process -- echoing many of the same themes President Obama had touched on in his own speech."
Wait, they want to get rid of anti-American regimes.
"Countries with regimes that are incompatible with a free Middle East must be forced to change. The U.S. must support IranÂ’s Green Movement, for example, by placing effective sanctions on that country."
Hmmm, democracy and freedom again.
"“We must do all we can, short of military action, to help the Syrian revolution to succeed,” Sen. McCain said, "
Oh, no military intervention.
"In Libya, Sen. McCain would like the U.S. to move away from an “incremental escalation of pressure on Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi in favor of a more decisive course of action.” He said he would like to have U.S. strike aircraft “back into the fight” to destroy the Libyan leader’s command-and-control sites and have the American government recognize the transitional national council in Benghazi as “the legitimate voice” of the Libyan people."
But is talking up intervention in Libya at the same time.
"In other countries, the U.S. has been criticized for its lukewarm opposition to regimes where people have called for change – like in Bahrain. “The United States is fully committed to our partnership with the Kingdom of Bahrain, as well as its Gulf neighbors, but we want them to stay on the right side of history in their countries – because that is where the United States must, and will, remain,” he said. It is critical now for the U.S. to sustain the momentum that has already begun in the birthplace of the Arab Spring, he said."
But, oh, Bahrain, no, no, no, don't want to hurt those who are pro-US, so it's nothing to do with democracy, that's a load of bull.
Do you not see that you're making a claim that they said something, so you're willing to believe. Actions speak a lot louder than words, and in the case of countries the US is willing to intervene in, it has to be about US interests, and those interests are OPEC.
McCain has been trying to make Syria about US interests, but no one is buying it.
So, there are very, very few options left as to why the US wants to invade Iran, bombed Libya, invaded Iraq, and helped a coup in Venezuela while ignoring the Ivory Coast, not intervening in Syria etc.
