JimSmith - 10/7/2004 3:48 PM
Botnst - 10/7/2004 2:25 PM
Does anybody doubt the importance of oil for sustaining civilization? Who would you most trust to be in charge of it, a despotic dictatorship, a despotic monarchy, or a representative democracy?
What it means is that a murdering freak nutcase no longer has the capacity to threaten the economy and food production of the planet.
Is there any indication anywhere that the USA is seeking long-term colonization fo Iraq? Has anybdoy in government ever indicated a desire to seize Iraq's oil?
On the contrary, the coalition has gone to great pains to return sovereignty to a democratic Iraq and to preserve and protect Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people.
Bot, no one argues we have managed to be so shortsighted as to become dependent on a resource we now have to import. It wasn't always that way. And it doesn't always have to be that way. But you are correct that it is that way now. The question is what to do about it.
The price of oil was set independent of Saddam and his despotic dictatorship for the last decade or more. We can buy oil for the going price like the rest of the world. We could probably have made do without Saddam's oil for another several decades and adding his oil production capacity would not have done much to the availability or price. So, other than a personal preference not to have Saddam in charge of anything of value, I don't see the necessity.
I guess I also don't see how he was directly threatening the world's food supply. If you mean the chemicals used for fertilizer were about to become in short supply I think that is an overstatement of Saddam's influence on the availability of these chemicals. If you mean he was making some WMD to interrupt the food chain by ruining farmland, I guess I don't believe he had or was about to have such a capability, and with continued monitoring he never would have gained such a capability.
If we were not intending to impose a long term occupation of Iraq, I wonder how we intended to solve this oil problem for any length of time. Changing the government and then leaving in the short term, like before the oil is all gone, won't do much for keeping us in control of the oil. Especially if we don't remove the governments of the neighboring countries.
Having a single democratic style government created by a kind of military-imposed artificial insemination process in the middle of a bunch of countries ruled by Islamic despots or Islamic despots with a royal family will last as long as a piece of iron in a high flow rate stream of seawater in a titanium pipe a mile long. It has an agressively corrosive environment and a bad area ratio going against it.
So, I fail to see how the lives lost on this Iraq misadventure will ever turn out to benefit any American national concern if we did this to secure oil supplies, and we leave while there is any oil there. Don't get me wrong here, if they had oil and we needed it to survive, I would be joining you in the chorus chanting for us to get their oil. Those are a lot of ifs though, and if I was going to lose a son on this adventure, I would damn sure want the oil to be ours before we left. Jim
I don't give a flip about who was short-sighted or not nor why. What we have is a world completely dependent upon oil. No possible way of avoiding that singular fact.
Forget the bleeding political moment. Please try.
Think about the world dependence upon oil. It is the source for the electrical grids of most countries, for motive force, and for petrochemicals. This includes the world's major fertilizer and pesticides. Without which, industrial agriculture simply cannot function. We could return to organic farming and lose about 90% of agricultural productivity. So then what will we do to address the shortfall in food, go to Kroger? Plant Victory Gardens? Everybody who thinks they coudl grow or hunt enough food to feed their family for a month, raise your hands. How about a year? How about for several years? Without industrial farming maintaining a steady food supply, non-farmers are going to learn a hard lesson within a year of the interruption. (It could also happen from catastrophic volcanism or a meteor striking the Earth, or a drought or the Mississippi River changing course but those are stories for another day).
No other chemical or energy source can fill that need at the present time. It is delusionally wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
Over 70% of the proven oil on the planet occurs in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Arabian Gulf states. the processing infrastructure of the planet is geared toward that source and its uninterrupted supply.
Loss of that petroleum source would cause world-wide chaos. Lets all imagine the various industrial states suddenly aware that their citizens will starve in the dark and cold because they cannot get oil. Some countries, like the USA, have enough reserves to meet the farming needs and probably the residential energy needs. Some, like say, China, France, Japan, N Korea, Australia, Germany, Italy, India, Pakistan, Turkey, much of Africa and South America do not have sufficient sources to address the interruption of mideast oil.
What would all these countries do--allow their citizens to starve in the dark or justify seizure of the resources of adjacent countires? Maybe the French, the UN or the Vatican would take charge, huh?