Replies

We cannot risk economic catastrophe based on a shaky energy strategy.

In 2002 the U.S. spent ~162 billion on oil. We've already spent more in the last year on this war. and we spend three times as much on our military. If Hussein had tried to jack the price for oil even he wouldn't control enough to double, triple, or quadruple the price. It would merely encourage the use of already existing supplies that cost a little more than the current market rate to harvest. The economic argument just doesn't wash, and furthermore, we aren't avoiding the impact, simply putting it into government spending instead of the marketplace, where a solution could be found.

Gunslingr3 wrote:

The economic argument just doesn't wash, and furthermore, we aren't avoiding the impact, simply putting it into government spending instead of the marketplace, where a solution could be found.

Exactly..
If Bush would have announced shortly after 9/11 that one of our 'war' goals was to become energy independent of middle eastern oil, the muslim world would be on their knees by now, begging for economic mercy.

Too bad tho, -- none of the bozo squad on this thread can understand anything but what the RinoCrats put forth.

I label an energy strategy as shaky if it involves anything other than producing oil and buying it on the free market. The thing about Middle East oil, not just that they have so much, but the geology is such that it costs less to get out of the ground there than anywhere else. Saudi Arabia et al do whatever they can to keep the money rolling in. Therefore, it is an economic necessity for us and hundreds of other countries to deal with Middle Easterners, whether we like it or not.

The stakes are so high and the politics in the Middle East so wretched that substantial threats have arisen: tinpots, terrorists, and theocrats. These threats include but are not limited to crises in the oil market. They include attacks on our interests with WMDs of various kinds, including hijacked airplanes.

I don't deny that our past interventions have played a part. We agreed to put the bases in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Saddam Hussein in exchange for their agreeing to join the 1991 coalition. Then those bases were an irritant that fueled Al Qaeda. It is admittedly a mess, but I have not yet seen a believable scenario where we stay neutral militarily and all is well. tpaine's suggestion of offing a few individuals is fine as far as it goes.