I don’t agree with this statement – I believe everything the Bush administration has done is all about national security. But maybe it SHOULD be true.</p>
<p>Oil is a strategic resource. If you don’t care about our economy, safety, security, education, health care or social security, then maybe you can ignore the strategic interests of oil. But if you care about any of the above, then you’d better be pretty darned interested in ensuring a stable supply.</p>
<p>Oil isn’t a renewable resource. Whether or not we are already at peak is disputable, yes, but it will run out eventually. Is interminable war, to ensure that Americans can drive Chevy Suburbans and live in 5000 sf houses really the answer, particularly when we <em>know</em> this can’t continue indefinitely?</p>
<p>Whether China calls our debt first, or the oil runs out, or someone pushes the red button first, this cannot and will not continue.</p>
<p>Sorry for being so cheery, first thing Monday morning! :)</p>
<p>“Oil is a strategic resource. If you don’t care about our economy…”</p>
<p>at the expense of innocent lives? </p>
<p>As someone who previously comes off as a deeply religous person, how can you justify a comment that disregards people over a thing? </p>
<p>Ja ever think god put the oil where he did to test us? to see how we would go about getting it? Are we willing to kill, control and occupy our neighbor’s land for a thing? How is it on Sunday we can pray for peace and on Monday invade?</p>
First of all, I find this comment to be deeply insulting. I have never made a derogatory comment about you. You are WAY out of line.</p>
<p>Secondly, you have completely missed the point. </p>
<p>EVERYTHING depends on national security – it is the first node on any decision tree. And oil is an element of national security.</p>
<p>Without national security, our economy tanks. If the US economy tanks, the global economy suffers as well. If the global economy suffers, then the first people to feel that around the world are the poor.</p>
<p>Where do you think the money for social programs comes from? Tax revenues. Duh! If the economy tanks, what happens to the employment picture and tax revenue? There would be no money for education, health care programs, social security, medicare, AIDS research etc. Who suffers the most in any economic downturn? The poor, sick, mentally ill, elderly, indigent, homeless and, especially, children.</p>
<p>How can we look for new sources of energy if we end up in an oil crisis, or suffer another terrorist attack? Do you remember the gas lines of the 1970’s? Don’t you understand that AQ’s goal is to destroy the west, particularly through the US economy?</p>
<p>So you have failed to follow the logic and made a snide comment that is groundless. Because you can’t come up with a more intelligent way to counter my comment regarding the strategic value of oil to the US economy, you go for the personal insult. Typical.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the whole oil=US economy issue is a VERY complicated matter. I think few people would disagree that, at this point in history, oil IS an important strategic resource absolutely essential to the health of our economy. Seriously, what would happen if we suddenly experienced a severe and long term shortage of oil in this country? Well, the short answer is A LOT!—Not only here, but worldwide, because, like it or not, the global economy is joined cheek and jowl with that of the US. I don’t believe that we can afford to be so simplistic as to think that the health of the global economy isn’t tied to far greater numbers of “innocent lives” than those being effected by the war in Iraq. </p>
<p>A lot of people seem to think that a severe oil shortage would merely inconvenience us gluttonous Americans, and force us to “go green” and become energy independent. I’m all for going green as fast as humanly possible, and believe we should have been well on the road to engergy independence by now, because the writing is on the wall: Competition with emerging economies, is heating up at an alarming pace, and actions by China in recent years have made it perfectly clear that they intend to be in the position to demand their share of the world’s oil supplies in order to continue powering their meteoric economic growth. Has anybody looked at the size of China lately? </p>
<p>I so despise that we invaded Iraq in the first place, because I now believe that it was inevitable that we’d end up exactly where we are today—namely, between a rock and a hard place. There aren’t any pretty options. Whether we stay or pull out, the fallout is going to be pretty grim. And that really pi$$es me off. I believe that in the mind of Bush/Cheney, as well as that of Clinton/Gore, Iraq has always ultimately been about the oil, first and foremost. But, of course they couldn’t actually tell us that;). I keep wondering what would have happened if our government had done the prudent thing and made energy independence a national priority 25 or 30 years ago, as our seers had been warning us to do. The long term viability of our national economy will probably hinge upon a number of critical decisions our government makes in the next few years. We are at a turning point. But most people don’t seem to know it.</p>
<p>“What do you think would’ve happened if we HADN"T gone to war in Iraq?”</p>
<p>We would have captured osama, set up permanent bases in afganistan, been able to withdraw our military presence out of SA (and MECCA) and still been able to check Iran and Iraq ambitions. Oil production would still have occured, prices would have remained low. While we had the ability to provide air support to the region. The ability to support isreal, the ability to continue to restrict iraqi airspace and the potential to bomb Iran would have been their without so much loss of life. </p>
<p>Yes, Sadam would still be around, Al qaida not so much. Remember there was no real relationship between those two. It was creative thinking on our administrations part to sell the war. </p>
<p>A major airbase and marine bases in afgan would have projected our presence into the middle east quite well and we would have had the world’s support to be there as a stablizer for the region.</p>
<p>" more intelligent way to counter my comment regarding the strategic value of oil to the US economy, you go for the personal insult. Typical."</p>
<p>Actually, all your saying is the end justifies the means. </p>
<p>If you actually feel insulted, when you shouldn’t, could be because maybe your arguement supporting military intervention as a basis of economic sustainability for america isn’t ethical, practical or sustainable. </p>
<p>Canada has large oil and natural gas reserves, should we invade? </p>
<p>My simple point is there are other ways to ensure the economic model besides military… how about trade? </p>
<p>The problem for the current admin is the people they would be forced to trade with aren’t their friends. That’s the “us” and the “we” point from before. Did you care before 1991 that your gasoline came from sadam? I doubt it. Did you care before 91 that we supplied weapons to sadam? I doubt it. Do you know where the arguement of his possession of WMDs came about? Cause we still had the reciepts… </p>
<p>No, one of the reasons you feel insulted is in your heart, you know it isn’t right to covet a neighbor’s property and no matter how you slice it, that’s what we’re supporting.</p>
<p>The US is guilty of egregious hawkish behavior that certainly preceded this administration. </p>
<p>Is that the right answer, FF? </p>
<p>All true. But the egregiousness of this administration has reached new heights in the omnipotent, overbearing American government department. They have clearly outdone, even themselves.</p>
<p>I just think that is ff defense mechanism, he immediately assumes everything done prior to bushjr is fully supported by anyone critical of junior. Personally junior should have listened to his dad, they’re be alot less dead folks right now.</p>
Actually, we have enough oil for our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children. What we don’t have is cheap oil for the rest of our lives? We have millions and millions of barrels of oil in the form of oil shale and oil sands. It is expensive to produce and it consumes a lot of energy to produce it. </p>
<p>Hopefully Mike Huckabee will be elected President because he intends to make America energy independent by the end of his second term. </p>
<p>Unfortunately we are stuck with a do-nothing democrat congress that loves to talk about the environment but has done nothing to raise CAFE standars that were set over 20 years ago.</p>
<p>No, Opie, I feel insulted because you made a personally insulting comment to me, questioning my values and my faith. You can try to talk around it but that’s exactly what you meant in post #23 when you said, “…As someone who previously comes off as a deeply religous person.”</p>
<p>But it’s so much easier to blame the victim for taking offense, isn’t it? You were wrong, imo, and you should just apologize. It’s one thing to ask a question along the lines of, “How do you reconcile your religious beliefs regarding social justice with the view of oil as a crucial resource for the US economy?” But no, you just decided to slam my faith.</p>
<p>“But no, you just decided to slam my faith”</p>
<p>Which faith would that be? in god or the gop?</p>
<p>It isn’t right and you know it. There’s no justification for invasion when we could have gotten all our country needs by trade. What we did instead is enrich the friends of the family through the use of our military. That’s not good policy. sorry.</p>
</p>
</p>