If we weren't so dependent on oil, do you think there would be less wars?

Answer 1

I'm sure that people would fight about something else.

Answer 2

I think if we weren't so dependent on oil, we might choose better wars. That's probably the very most we could ever hope for.

As long as there's so much money and power feeding off each other in such an unholy symbiotic relationship, I feel that there's no hope for any less wars. There's money in power and there's power in money. In this current administration, the same players have gained control of the majority of both.

That's why it's never a good idea to choose or follow an administration that we know is beholden to the military/industrial complex and big business. Particularly when we've already suffered under almost exactly the same administration for twelve long years previously. We were just breaking even and actually banking some money again after a trillion dollar deficit from these same players. Cheney, Rumsfeld, James Baker III, and Paul Wolfowitz were all high-ranking cabinet and party members during the Reagan/Bush years.


This time we're eight trillion dollars in debt after less than six years, and, once again, the players aren't paying the bills. They're leaving it for the next several administrations to deal with again. As long as they can make gargantuan war profits, they're doing exactly what they intended to do. And what their sponsors gave them massive amounts of campaign dollars to do.

If it wasn't oil, it would just be something else. If everyone in the world looked the same and we all went to the same church and voted for the same party and bought the same cars and clothes and houses and had the same haircuts, we'd still find something to fight about.

The powers that be would make sure of that.

And enough of us would fall for it that we'd be happy to fight. Anyone but them.

Answer 3

no. if we had never devised petro-technology, it would be as it was in the 1800s when we were "dependant" on coal. There were still plenty of wars. I think petro-technology may have actually decreased the activities of war because it led to the development of a global economy that, in some senses, discourages war due to the interdependance nations have on each other. If we didn't have such a working business relationship with China and East Asia, for instance, we may still be fighting it out with them like we were in WWII, Vietnam, and Korea. Certainly the conflict potential still exists, but there are new incentives to prevent it from boiling over.

So my opinion is, if we were less dependant on oil, we would have a weaker trade infrastructure and less economic interdependance with other nations, and there would be more wars because nations would have no reason not to invade each other, as they have throughout political history. Just compare American wars over the last 30 years to the ones we had prior to that. Iraq is bad, but it's no Korea. It's CERTAINLY no Vietnam, and if people had much of a sense nowadays of what the World Wars were like, we'd consider these blessed times. Daily death counts were in the triple digits... now, if 5 marines are killed, it's a bad day. Modern wars are miniscule compared to the wars from basically the remainder of human history. This skirmish going on in Lebanon would have been considered mundane stone-throwing at one time, when there was always some vast army tearing through the countryside in a sea of bloodshed someplace in the world at any given time. So I'd say we're doing pretty good, to be honest, and I'd challenge someone to find a more peaceful era in history, modern or ancient.

Answer 4

Whereas oil is a vested interest for many nations, the unrest in the middle east are based on religious differences. Oil has never caused any war. It may or may not have prolonged existing conflicts though.

Answer 5

Even when we weren't dependant on oil, there were wars. Why should it be any different?

Answer 6

I think we'd fight about something else.
The civil war had nothing to do with oil
Neither did the French and Indian War
or WW2 or WW1
There will always be a reason to fight.
And I DO NOT agree that this one is about oil

Answer 7

Wars are mostly for the same reason fm the beginning of human history. And this is not oil. Power.

Answer 8

Earlier wars might have been for honour or some other stupid reason... the present day wars have cool clear headed calculation behind them... oil, resources, power... u r spot on!

It is only juvinile teenage public that actually believes in them.

Answer 9

No. There are many different reasons used to fight a war other than oil.

Answer 10

I don't think that financial issues have been the cause of any of the last, say, ten wars (arbatrarily guessing), at least not with the US. (Say, since WWI - possibly forever).

We've clearly spent WAAAY more FOR war then made FROM war.

Answer 11

Probably not. Human beings show a great deal of ability to find something to fight about. If it wasn't oil, it would be something else