LETTER: Oil isn’t why we’re at war

Editor,

I’m writing in response to a lengthy anti-Bush diatribe by Vito Russo in Friday’s Statesman. At first glance, Russo appears to have done his homework, telling us that the war could cost us $1.9 trillion.

He claims that oil is our main motivation for war with Iraq. This could not possibly be the case given that this is oil we were already importing from Iraq anyway. Annually, we spend an average of $5 billion in Iraqi oil imports.

Why would we spend a possible $1.9 trillion and American lives for that? It is simply not cost-effective. We have nothing to gain financially. Even if we flat out stole their oil (which would throw the delicate balance of supply and demand off), we would still be losing money on this war.

In his speech following Sept. 11, 2002, President Bush asked for our patience as he began the long campaign to eradicate terrorist threats. How soon we forget. Mr. Russo must have slept through that part.

He asks, “What has Iraq done to America?” Questions like this make me worry for the future of our country. The fact is Saddam Hussein supports terrorism. The Iraqi government pays the families of suicide bombers. Why do you think that is? Why does it continually have to be spelled out for these anti-war protesters?

The problem with people like Russo is that they don’t think their freedoms (like his liberally exercised freedom of speech), should come at a price. I, for one, am tired of these conspiracy theorists telling us what our motivations are and what our government is really up to, especially when their reasoning is clearly the basis of uninformed opinion. I am going to have to go out on a limb here and trust the experts. I would advise the rest of you to do the same.

Jake Adkins