The argument is made by anti-war protesters that this is a war for oil.
Ok, I'll play along.
Let's say that it is.
Is that a bad thing? Part of the job of the government is to ensure a smooth economy. Now, economics is a complicated subject, but we'll try to keep things simple.
Energy makes the world go round. If you make Widgets, you need transportation to get your widgets to the market. Energy. You need power for your factory. Energy. In short, you need energy for each step of the economic process.
In America, we've managed to stifle our energy producing industries (no new nuclear power plants, restrictions on oil drilling/refining, coal mining, etc.) Since solar and wind power haven't generated the fruit we've all dreamed of, and the world still runs on gasoline/kerosene/and other oil fuels... we have to get it from somewhere.
Historically, when a nation has been threatened with the loss of a key part of its structure, it fights. Whether that structure part be land, energy, food, or freedom, that's what happens.
Divert water away from a country? War. Take it's land? War. Oppress it? War.
Has there been war for oil? Sure. Anyone remember WW2? The Japanese felt threatened by the US embargo on it's oil. Not having any natural reserves of its own, it took others. They even had a name for the plan... the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. (Pearl Harbor was just a failed attempt to keep the United States from meddling in their plan.)
In our case, we have managed to become dependent upon Middle East oil. It's in our interest to keep the tap open and the oil flowing. Not just to fuel our SUV's (a specious argument for gas prices rising), but also for all of the other products that petroleum gives us.
Plastics. (Surprised you there.) Plastics are an oil byproduct. Look around. Lots of plastic in use.
Asphalt.
Lubricating oils.
Parafin wax - good for candles, candies...
Used in manufacturing of carbon and graphite and aluminum. Also synthetic rubber.
In fact, petroleum accounts for 89% of our nation's non-fuel energy use.
Imagine if it was gone. So, you see, a "War for Oil" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But then, that's not what this is about... (mostly).
2 comments:
True, but the flaw in the "war for oil" claim is that we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East and there are oil sources far closer than that region that we could seize and use for our own ends. I suppose the people using are trying yet another variation of the "Bush is Stooopid" slur, but I get the feeling they themselves haven't thought about this very clearly.
Patrick Chester
wolfone@io.com
Well, I don't think that Bush was exactly forthright about why we were going into Iraq, and I don't think going into Iraq was a good idea, but I do agree that the war for oil mentality is really f'in stupid. I would have almost no objections to this war if that was true. You mean that by attacking Iraq we could get gas for .50 a gallon? Kill'em all! But that's not happening.
Post a Comment