I have asked this question many times over the last year, and that is Why is it always our energy problem, and why do the liberals and the environmentalists always fall back on the least plausible of the options as being the one that is true?
When it comes to the War in Iraq, the liberals and the media always fall back on the fact that the war is about oil. First off, it is not.
We are in the war on terror, ie: The war in Iraq, because we were attacked brutally and savagely on September 11th, 2001. That being said people, why is the hatred for Bush so strong that the subject always falls to “it’s Bush’s war” and “he is in it for oil”.
Well, first off, it isn’t Bush’s war, it is our war. We were the ones attacked on 9/11 not Bush, and when it comes to the “he’s in it for oil” fiasco, that doesn’t even hold water.
Our energy problem do not stem from Bush and “his war” as you libs put it. It stems from years and years of the environmentalists and the government doing everything they can to keep us from drilling our own oil. And here is the sad part about this. We cannot drill for our own oil in the gulf, but we are letting the Chinese and the Russians do it! As the most technologically advanced nation on earth, if the environmentalists ideas that to drill would cause irrepreparable damage to the environment, then wouldn’t a country who isn’t as technologically advanced not be able to do it as environmentally sound as we could? The answer to that one is a resounding NO! So the answer still needs answering. Why can’t we drill for our own oil?
I know a few of the reasons that the environmentalists are always saying that there is no way to us to drill for oil are because they think that we cannot do it, and they always do one other thing. They always show photos of some poor animal covered in oil because of an oil slick.. But they never tll you that things like the bird shown here, are not from oil wells, but spills from a ship that has run aground or something like that. The oil wells had nothing to do with that.
Environmentalists use a little truth, and a lot of lies to get what they want. A great example of this is Al Gore and his polar bear theory, that they are running out of ice and therefore drowning, by trying to swim many many miles to get to something else that they can get out of the water on.
The trouble with that kind of thinking is, that the polar bears are excellent swimmers and have been swimming for centuries if not longer. It is part of what they do to fish, move around and have fun. Polar bears love the water. So drowning? I think not. Just another lie that is propagated on the American public. And what we need to do is to start letting these environmentalist wackos know that we are onto them and their lies.
Now to bring up another point that they always seem to hit us with, is, that ‘we do not care for the environment.’
People, I care for the environment as much as the next person, but, I hate having to pay out the nose for things that are only causing more troubles. Much like ethanol.
The ethanol problem is skyrocketing prices not only in fuel, but also in food costs, making it so that the farmers have to grow their corn not for food anymore, but for ethanol, a not so inexpensive subsitute for gasoline. Gasoline burns a lot more effeciently, and you get more miles per gallon with gasoline, than you do with ethanol based fuels.
So we are paying for a fuel that will not cut it if totally instituted like the liberal media and the politicians in Washington want. The price of corn will continue to go up because the politicians are now giving incentives to grow corn for fuel. If the farmers will make more money to grow corn for fuel than for food, my friends, guess what they are going to do? You guessed it. They will grow corn for ethanol. And in doing so, they will raise the price of meat, because the animals who eat corn, will cost more because the corn for food costs more. And the list could go on and one if I wanted too. This is just the starting of the troubles that we are heading towards if we do not stop letting the environmentalists and the government do the thinking for all of us. Step forward and let your congressman and congresswoman know that they are wrong and we do not want to pay for things that will not help us in the long run.
Let us drill in Anwar! Let us drill in the Dakotas where the latest BIG find of oil is. This is a must if we are to become energy efficient and energy independent of foreign oil. Do this and we will be able to thumb our noses back at the middle east, who has been thumbing their noses at us for years. They think they have us all by the balls with their control of oil……and you know what? They do, because the environmentalists seem to like that.
But there is one more question to be asked here. Why, if we can’t drill for our own oil, do we let a foreign nation like China and Russia come in and drill for our oil? Now that doesn’t make any sense to me. Does it to you?
God Bless Americabr
God Bless our Troops….
God Bless my readers here, my listeners on BTR, and my viewers on my video updates on youtube.
for more information……..
Why Iraq War Isn’t ‘About Oil’
April 2, 2003
With so many possible arguments against the war, why do opponents trumpet the one that makes the least sense?
That’s the charge that “it’s all about oil.”
You hear this constantly. Everyone from government officials in Europe and China to college-age protesters lying down in the streets seem to believe the U.S. government is waging war in order to seize or control Iraq’s crude reserves.
Press the issue further, and they’ll point the finger at greedy multinational oil companies, which of course have close ties to our former-oilman-from-Texas President. Or sneer that we’re fighting to feed our gas-hogging SUVs and sprawling McMansions.
Typically, though, the “it’s about oil” idea is less an argument than an insinuation. “No Blood for Oil” makes a fine chant, and TV cameras love props such as those cutouts of drilling rigs with red paper streaming out the top (blood – get it?) carried by protesters in Philadelphia the other day.
But think about it even a little, and the charge gets harder to understand.
Are we fighting to make oil cheaper, because of our wasteful habits? Or more expensive, to boost the oil barons’ profits? Who is dictating America’s hidden oil agenda here, producers or consumers?
Who supports, who opposes
It gets even murkier if you look at who supports and opposes the United States in Iraq. Oil-importing France and Germany loudly object to the invasion; so does Russia, now the world’s second-biggest oil exporter. Kuwait, which produces and exports oil, is with us; so is Australia, which imports and consumes it.
Where others stand, in other words, isn’t driven by their position in the global oil market. If it’s not all about oil for everyone else, why is it for us?
As a nation, we obviously care deeply about oil. But the idea of waging war for either higher or lower prices rings pretty hollow.
Oil is the ultimate global commodity. Its price depends on how much is produced and consumed all over the world. That means the growth of Chinese auto sales or last winter’s temperatures in Scandinavia can affect prices as much as who controls the wells in Iraq.
Oil is fungible, moreover; if buyers can’t get it from one seller, they can easily find another. Sanctions and war limited Iraq’s oil sales for most of the last 12 years, yet other producers were easily able to meet demand.
A post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would surely modernize its oil industry and produce more crude, which might indeed help lower world prices. But the United States would surely not be the only winner there; Iraq itself would gain from its increased market share.
No logic to the claim
William Nordhaus, a Yale economist who published a critical analysis of the war’s likely costs, sees no logic in America’s laying claim to Iraq’s oil reserves. “It’s hard to come up with any cost-benefit analysis that says that makes any sense,” he told me.
America’s oil interests are broader than one nation or region. “To the extent we have an economic objective here, it’s to stabilize the world market,” Nordhaus said.
We want the worldwide market to remain open, free-flowing and competitive. Thus, it makes more sense to argue that the first Gulf War was “about oil”: Hussein had seized Kuwait’s oil fields and was threatening to move in on Saudi Arabia’s as well.
But this time is different. If all we wanted was more of Iraq’s oil, it would have been much easier and cheaper simply to buy it.
In fact, it makes as much sense to claim the Iraq war is “just about oil” as it does to say South Africa’s antiapartheid struggle was “just about diamonds.”
The real issue isn’t access to a natural resource; it’s what those who control the resource are doing with the cash. Hussein’s oil enables him to afford weapons of mass destruction – or so the Bush administration claims.
Take issue with that claim if you want. Argue that the war is stupid, cruel or potentially ruinous. Say we’re being misled by theological or imperialist zealots.
But don’t simply dismiss it as “all about oil.”