Replies

As long as Shiites and Sunnis are fighting each other, there is cause to worry about those fights spreading across the region. And when the destabilized region goes poof and oil production dies, I’m sure Ron will have an answer for that too. So on top of us supposedly to be against the WOT, we’re to be hopeful of continued strife in the ME, and ignore the threat to a flow of oil. I guess I’d never quite thought of it that way. Very good. Not!

The Federal Government could easily purchase the entire annual oil exports of Saudi Arabia, and simply give every American free gasoline, for less than what the Iraq War (which concerns a rather small portion of world oil exports) is costing us NOW.

Not that I think that the Federal Government should give us all free gasoline. But it does illustrate just what a hopeless case you have, if you're now appealing to "cost-efficiency" in terms of "Wars to protect the flow of oil". If that's your criteria, this is without question one of the most counter-productive Wars ever fought in human history.

Let the Sunnis and Shi'ites kill eachother. Buy oil from whichever is currently in power. They've got nothing else to do with the stuff but sell it (they certainly can't drink it); and if we're really fortunate, the Turks will move south an put an end to to the whole insanity. There's plenty of evidence that they're already itching to do so.

Then, we can buy oil from the Turks, and the Turks can deal with the recalcitrant Arabs. Where's the problem?

(World War I was a mistake. It should be corrected).

I addressed the problem of strife between the two groups spreading across the region, and you didn’t even pick up on the complexities that would create.

Instead you drifted off on some plan for the U.S. to purchase oil for us and give it away free, because this war is not cost effective.

And where would the U.S. buy that oil if the Middle-East was in turmoil? You mentioned Turkey, but Turkey can’t supply what Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Emerate states provide now.