Isn't this like saying we'd never have to get involved with these Muslim countries if it wasn't for the oil? Isn't this tantamount to confirming Iraq was a war over oil resources and if we want to avoid future conflicts like these we need to stop needing their oil? Which is precisely the conventional wisdom they've been denying all these years. The big claim has always been in no way shape or form is this confict about oil. A big NO WAY. As in "how dare you suggest it!" "Harumph!"

Now Bush is saying we're "addicted" to oil and it's getting us in trouble so we need to get away from foreign petroleum. Bravo, all for it, but excuse me for noticing the Orwellian double-speak. I mean are they really trying to argue that our dependence on foriegn oil is a threat to national security from all points except Iraq? That Iraq is the lone ME country where it's not about the oil?

Any 1984 scholars want to illuminate for me the finer points of this logic? What the hell does he think he means? Or more to the point - Who does he think he is? Who else can get away with this stuff?

because most Americans seem to lack the interest or ability to make very basic logical connections (see the hype to war, downing street, plamegate)

and that most Americans can't seem to remember the positions they once took but have now done a 18o, even though it is on tape. (see Frists and Shiavo)

and yes it was about more than oil. it was about securing the region
which only matters to us because of it's oil

and it was about bringing democracy to an oppressed people
but what makes them different than all the oppressed people we ignore? their oil.

and it was about toppling a mideast dictator?
who had oil, funny as other ME dictators who were in our graces (the Sauds, the Shah, earlier era Saddam) we just don't / didn't seem to mind

The war was based upon many reasons, including oil (a subset of regional stability, democracy, etc.). It was never "all" about oil, which is how many war protesters chose to characterize it (a strawman argument).

Even if it was partially for oil, that's not necessarily needless. Like it or not, we really do need the oil, at least until something better comes along. Our economy would collapse without it.

and yes it was about more than oil. it was about securing the region
which only matters to us because of it's oil

and it was about bringing democracy to an oppressed people
but what makes them different than all the oppressed people we ignore? their oil.

and it was about toppling a mideast dictator?
who had oil, funny as other ME dictators who were in our graces (the Sauds, the Shah, earlier era Saddam) we just don't / didn't seem to mind

No, not just oil. There are people in the Middle East that we care about protecting.

Funny, since the war, if it was all about oil, why haven't we just confiscated it? We could start reducing the deficit pretty quickly and lower prices here, couldn't we?

Saddam was shown to be a nutcase, hell bent on doing nutcase things -- like invading Kuwait -- and then thumbing his nose to the UN for 10 years afterward.

Again, even if oil is a motivating factor, that's not necessarily all bad. We, including each of us, needs it. We could not function with 20% less, either.

No, not just oil. There are people in the Middle East that we care about protecting.

Funny, since the war, if it was all about oil, why haven't we just confiscated it? We could start reducing the deficit pretty quickly and lower prices here, couldn't we?

Saddam was shown to be a nutcase, hell bent on doing nutcase things -- like invading Kuwait -- and then thumbing his nose to the UN for 10 years afterward.

Again, even if oil is a motivating factor, that's not necessarily all bad. We, including each of us, needs it. We could not function with 20% less, either.

because then Dim Son's pals in the oil industry couldn't make $10 billion every quarter.

it's not about oil for you and me, for america, so we can have gas in our cars. it's about oil for exxon and chevron, and halliburton, and so on.

in any event, i'd say we pretty much have. but the poor security situation prevents us from capitilizing on it. can't rebuild the facilities, can't get access to more oil.

No, not just oil. There are people in the Middle East that we care about protecting.

Funny, since the war, if it was all about oil, why haven't we just confiscated it? We could start reducing the deficit pretty quickly and lower prices here, couldn't we?

Saddam was shown to be a nutcase, hell bent on doing nutcase things -- like invading Kuwait -- and then thumbing his nose to the UN for 10 years afterward.

Again, even if oil is a motivating factor, that's not necessarily all bad. We, including each of us, needs it. We could not function with 20% less, either.

"We could not function with 20% less." I highly doubt that, and I take issue about you saying it ok to go to war over oil. If that's the case we'll be at war with the Chinese soon.

The war was based upon many reasons, including oil (a subset of regional stability, democracy, etc.). It was never "all" about oil, which is how many war protesters chose to characterize it (a strawman argument).

Even if it was partially for oil, that's not necessarily needless. Like it or not, we really do need the oil, at least until something better comes along. Our economy would collapse without it.

I'm glad you concede oil as a reason but I thought of all the arguments for the war and there were several, WMD being chief amongst them, that oil was definitely not one of them. I recall both Bush and Cheney saying out loud that this invasion "was not about oil."

Now it seems like Bush indirectly is saying it was a little bit about oil.

Welcome to real economic reality. Our entire economic, social, and everyday environment depends on a certain flow of resources. Without them, our country grinds to a halt. Without them, you lose you job along with me and many others. Food production begins to falter, overall industry begins to falter, people begin to go hungry, the government begins to get stressed. Possible social collapse begins to form. That of course depends on a complete inability to access those resources. And oil isn't the only one. Platinum, copper, molybenum (sp), tungsten, etc. is always on the verge of creating similar problems as they are required in the majority of U.S. materials productions. In a situation where a reduction of resouce availability takes place you end up with higher prices, economic slow downs in key sectors that depend on those materials, and possible long term economic depressions, etc. The first people to get hit are the poor, then the middle class, and eventually the rich but not quite as often. Let's say oil is restricted by 50% in its flow to the U.S. but China is still able to gain 100% of its needs. The United States suddenly finds itself in the situation where gas is 8.00 a gallon if and when it is available at all. The lack of mass transporation and an inability to provide car pooling in enough quantity prevents people from getting to work. Over the next series of months your unemployment starts getting toward 10%, then 15%, etc. as the oil still is not flowing. You, your neighbors, and your family no longer work as your clients or customers no longer can afford your services or products. The U.S. government begins to struggle in its ability to provide resources (food, heat, etc.) to its citizens. You are on food rationing and maybe that's going to run out. Are you willing to go to war with China (assuming it is nonnuclear) to regain your flow of natural resources? Or would you rather watch a complete collapse of your country until some other form of power generation can be brought to bear? The most likely conclusion is a war (especially since you've now got lots of young men looking for jobs).

I know, I know, hypothetical, hypothetical. Except it's happened all across Africa and in the past. It's also a fairly likely scenario if the Middle East ever goes completely t!ts up and Venuezuela now longer wants to deal with us cuz other countries will buy their products.

what has been happening to Iraq's oil since we invaded?

we care about people in the ME,who besides Israel? If there wasn't oil under these 'people' our caring would equal that to Rwanda.

what has been happening to Iraq's oil since we invaded?

we care about people in the ME,who besides Israel? If there wasn't oil under these 'people' our caring would equal that to Rwanda.

Apparently, it's not flooding the market here causing prices to go down.

"Besides Israel?" Reason enough, I'd think.

Again, I think it's wrong to attempt to pin the reason for the war on one alone. What was "the" reason for the American Revolution, Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.? Was it ever just one reason?

but Fixed ya gotta admit. If there was no oil in the region we'd have no interest. All the Arabic Nations would still be poor unorganized and regional 'tribes' with regional affiliations.
Israel would still have our arms and $ and could take care of itself with one arm tied behind her back.

Iraq would equal Rwanda, Darfur, etc.......

we couldn't care less (unless a Dem was running the show)

but Fixed ya gotta admit. If there was no oil in the region we'd have no interest. All the Arabic Nations would still be poor unorganized and regional 'tribes' with regional affiliations.
Israel would still have our arms and $ and could take care of itself with one arm tied behind her back.

Iraq would equal Rwanda, Darfur, etc.......

we couldn't care less (unless a Dem was running the show)

If there were no oil, no Israel, no harboring/training/funding terrorists, you'd probably be right. Nothing left but sand and people who otherwise would not care about us. I doubt human rights and democracy alone would be enough to get riled up about.

What would Israel do if one of those countries had nuclear weapons, though?

Let's say oil is restricted by 50% in its flow to the U.S. but China is still able to gain 100% of its needs. The United States suddenly finds itself in the situation where gas is 8.00 a gallon if and when it is available at all. The lack of mass transporation and an inability to provide car pooling in enough quantity prevents people from getting to work. Over the next series of months your unemployment starts getting toward 10%, then 15%, etc. as the oil still is not flowing. You, your neighbors, and your family no longer work as your clients or customers no longer can afford your services or products. The U.S. government begins to struggle in its ability to provide resources (food, heat, etc.) to its citizens. You are on food rationing and maybe that's going to run out. Are you willing to go to war with China (assuming it is nonnuclear) to regain your flow of natural resources? Or would you rather watch a complete collapse of your country until some other form of power generation can be brought to bear? The most likely conclusion is a war (especially since you've now got lots of young men looking for jobs).

I know, I know, hypothetical, hypothetical. Except it's happened all across Africa and in the past. It's also a fairly likely scenario if the Middle East ever goes completely t!ts up and Venuezuela now longer wants to deal with us cuz other countries will buy their products.


So basically what you are saying is that the US does not have the resources nor the technical prowess to change......hmmmm. Brazil has and last I checked they lag far behind the US in regards to technology. (and are far beyond the US in regards to their appreciation for the badonkadonk but that is for a different forum)

I do not hold your pessimistic outlook for the US....it is possible but with BigOil having record profits that means there is a lot of money to insure the status quo as the admins back pedaling seem to illustrate

Has nothing to do with change in the long run. I'm very much against the notion that we cannot bridge the gap away from oil once we get our politicians away from the oil money. This is not what I was saying at all. This country has the potential to easily move into a new category of fuels, energy, technology, etc. What I was pointing out was dominoe affect caused by a drastic and sudden change in worldwide resources flow. A basic, and very possible example (lets say 2 years in the future but I'm just generalizing big time) is Iran refusing to ship to the U.S. anymore because China has contracted for 100% of all oil output from Iran at OPEC's set price. The now established democratic republic of Shiite Iraq sides with Iran and also only sells to China. Russia's oil is flowing 50% to Europe and 50% to the U.S., along with Venezuela who has contracted partially with China and India to export the majority of the oil. Suddenly, within a one month period the U.S. is facing an huge decrease in available oil resources. There is no way the U.S. could respond in a quick enough manner to fix the problem or prevent a huge crisis. Most likely in the short run we would be all right as every citizen worked to do their part to car pool, mass transit, ride bikes, etc. But in the long run things begin to shut down.

Heinlein (sci-fi guy) once said that if you throw a problem at a group of engineers they can almost always eventually come up with a solution. I believe that. But could the U.S. react fast enough to prevent a collapse of its economy in a very sudden change in the flow of some particular resource. Probably not.

If there were no oil, no Israel, no harboring/training/funding terrorists, you'd probably be right. Nothing left but sand and people who otherwise would not care about us. I doubt human rights and democracy alone would be enough to get riled up about.

What would Israel do if one of those countries had nuclear weapons, though?

Israel would still exist. There'd be no money nor organization to harbor, fund, terrorists. Most of the fighting would be Islamic Clan against Clan and they'd have no powerful nation states to wage war.

They'd have no science and $ to develop nukes.

If they did/do Israelwill take care of it. I remember a certain pre-emptive defensive strike

Heinlein (sci-fi guy) once said that if you throw a problem at a group of engineers they can almost always eventually come up with a solution. I believe that. But could the U.S. react fast enough to prevent a collapse of its economy in a very sudden change in the flow of some particular resource. Probably not.

So why are we not undertaking a Manhattan Project style approach? Instead, we get a lame duck prez totally beholden to the tat of big oil offering jack dung......This admin continues to put the interests of the few over the interests of the country as a whole.

So why are we not undertaking a Manhattan Project style approach? Instead, we get a lame duck prez totally beholden to the tat of big oil offering jack dung......This admin continues to put the interests of the few over the interests of the country as a whole.

he coulda funded it with about 1/10th of the dough we've wasted in Iraq. again,that whole oil addiction speech was due 9.12.01. He coulda funded said project, every American was willing to help, he could have sold conservation, alternate energy,transportation, we coulda came out the leader in a new energy source and thus been selling energy not buying. He would have gone down a monumental Pres like FDR, instead he'll go down as Corporate lackey.

This I agree with 100%. With the amount of money spent in Iraq we could have easily granted the money to many research centers and technology development firms. We would, most likely by now, have the technology required to dramatically reduce or dependency on oil. We would also likely have been able to subsidise (sp) the initial production in order to get it ramped up and to allow costs to normally drop with the increase in products produced. The other point would have been to keep the design, engineering, and production away from the government and from the politicians pet corporations. It would have required a multiparty review committee with an equal amount of votes on all sides. Unfortunately, as long as we have a man in charge with a brain completely contaminated by oil companies I doubt you're going to see any change.

can't have a clear vision if you are beholden to said folks. which again is why I said electing a couple texas oil men was a really bad decision.

difference between an FDR and a Dim Son.

difference between an FDR and a Dim Son.
I read this as FDR and Dim Sum--puts a new twist to a chicken in every pot.

Apparently, it's not flooding the market here causing prices to go down.

"Besides Israel?" Reason enough, I'd think.

Again, I think it's wrong to attempt to pin the reason for the war on one alone. What was "the" reason for the American Revolution, Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.? Was it ever just one reason?

Taxes...Slavery...Balkans...Hitler... :D

Taxes...Slavery...Balkans...Hitler... :D
And Hitler was a socialist--don't forget that. :)

my question is, why aren't the oil companies going whole hog into research and investment in new energy sources? yeah, i know they are doing it a bit, with stuff like bio-fuels, and some work with hydrogen power, but shouldn't something like 75% of their future investment research be going toward this? they have to know that at some point not very far away, oil's gonna be out of the running as far as mass-produced energy, and they're gonna be on the outside looking in as new technology and new companies take over the energy markets.

or is it just that doing so would be so prohibitively expensive now, so much money going toward furture investment instead of dividends, with no payoff for years to come, that their shareholders would never stand for it. keep the profits coming in now, quarter to quarter, and who cares about the future, cause by then we'll be dead?