WarAngel;709934 said:
That isn't the point liberals are trying to make. It's not just that it's a war for oil (though it is, and it isn't a "tiny drop"),
Oil may certainly be ONE factor, but it's not "the all-compelling reason" that a lot of people make it out to be. Iraq isn't even in the top 10 of oil producing countries in the world (they barely make the top 15). Only a fraction of our oil imports come from Iraq.
In Dec. 02, the U.S. imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, we imported 56.2 million from Saudi Arabia, 46.2 million barrels from Canada, 53.8 million from Mexico, and 56.2 million from Saudi Arabia. Plus an additional 62.8 million from other countries.
11.3 million barrels compared to 275.2 million barrels is a drop in the bucket.
If that's not current enought, here's the data for June 2007 (barrels per day):
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
If it's a war for oil, Iraq's oil sure ain't helping me much at the gas pump!
..it's that we aren't creating an intelligent foreign policy.
I'd be the first to agree to that!
It would far, far, far, FAR more cost-effective and intelligent to spend just a part of that war money on alternative fuels. It would save our country a shitload of money, it would save our people a shitload of money, and it would reduce our dependence by almost 100% on the middle east.
I'd be the first to agree here too. We just need to figure out how to do it without totally fucking up our economy. Also, remember that alternative fuels pose a threat to the economy of the middle east, so there is that to consider as well.
But in spirit I'm with ya. We have to find ways to become more fuel dependent.
There's no need to become more involved in the most hostile region in the world when the option to spend much less money and become less involved in that region is there. At least you would think that would be the logical option, but for some people, apparently not.
I think our main reasons for being in Iraq are mainly to:
1) send a clear message to the entire middle east that we won't stand idly by while training camps are established in the region to send people on missions to crash airplanes into our buildings. True, Iraq was not responsible for that, but it's a great incentive for the middle east to police itself when something like this awakens the sleeping giant no one wants and puts it in your back yard.
2) To obtain a foothold into the middle east to build military bases and pre-position equipment. Our closest allied nations are Turkey and Saudi Arabia and we are limited as to what we can place there. The middle east is a threat region for the U.S. It is volatile, our economy is dependent upon the oil from that region, and extremist Islamic terrorists have been our top security issue since at least the early 70's (especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union).
3) More democratic countries in the middle easts (in theory anyway) should spread and help stem the tide of radical islamic extremists in the region.
Absolutely not true. One of the major issues for Bush&Co. over the last year was getting the factions to agree on how to split up the profits from THEIR oil in THEIR country. It's not our oil just because we say so.
Correct. Iraq's economy is built on their oil. Whoever controls the oil controls the economy. Whoever controls the economy has the power. The culture in that part of the world is very tribal in nature. These are not a united people by any means. The entire concept of democracy is alien to them. That's not to say there can't be a democracy (Turkey is an example of a democratic Islamic nation that was at least somewhat successful) but it will be a tough road. Obviously there are factions who don't really want a democracy as it means giving up power.
