Replies

I said in my #11, "Moving from the present political order to one that rejects Empire would cause economic and political upheaval here in the USA. Israel would be lost, and Arab Nationalism unchecked, and the whole oil zone would be dominated by Saddam Hussein look alikes all in love with their long range missiles, near Earth space systems of offense and defense, and their nuclear weapons."

Actually a more likely scenario is for the Chinese, or even the Russians, or, believe it or not, the Germans and French, to move in to dominate the oil producing regions. Too much power and money is at stake.

Agree completely.

There is more than one cog to this argument. I've heard Rush say that the reason why no effective alternatives to petroleum have been developed is because none are necessary. Oil is cheap and plentiful.

It's also concentrated in the most inconvenient places on earth, geopolitically speaking. I think Rush is wrong about the actual costs of a petroleum based economy.

If we can't afford to occupy Iraq, then practically speaking, what would it cost to make them politically irrelevant? Is the time now to get serious about a national energy policy?

I say this because at this point, we are stuck in Iraq. We can talk about this all we want, but the alternatives to remaining there are more expensive, and vastly more dangerous. Terrorism is only the second most important reason for the Invasion of Iraq. Our economy is petroleum based, and as long as that's true, the region is important to us.

Germany and France opposed us as they did precisely because they had ironclad contracts with Hussein for cheap oil that allowed them to establish an independence from US policy and interests.

They are waiting now to pick up the pieces.

I also believe that we need to stop looking at our foreign policy situation as something that is separate from our economic situation. The US needs to take a new look at everything and do what it must to be more competitive across the board. Swap the Income Tax for a Fair Tax. Erect tarriffs, tort reform, medicare reform, immigration reform, etc. All of this as a strategic form of improving our competitiveness.

Part of the options on the table is saying, "We have taken steps to completely overhaul our ability to compete economically in the world. We are actively moving our economy off of petroleum, in partnership with Japan, Eastern Europe, and other countries that have a vested interest in disentangling our national interests from the Middle East.

We are no longer willing to cede core strategic industries to countries that actively oppose our national interests, and will take steps to protect those industries, simply by leveling playing fields we knew to be rather tilted.

Iraq was a referendum on Globalism, in my opinion. We tried subsidizing other countries, in the thought that developing other markets would eventually be good for us. We are wrong on that account. Mexico is playing against a tilted field of its own now in the Maquiladora vs. China, and isn't willing to act of its own accord to tilt it back - blaming us instead.

I'm flummoxed on why we refuse to learn anything from Reagan. Reagan's lessons are as clear and simple as anything availble with respect to governance domestically and abroad, and I guess because he's been so charicatured we just choose not to follow.