If giving up PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION meant the END OF WAR?

Question

would you be willing to give up all of your petroleum consumption? it would mean short term blackouts and shortages as alternative resources are streamlined and advanced in efficiency - but it would mean no more dead U.S. troops - would you be willing to participate?

(of course this is a "black and white" type of scenario - in reality the switch over to alternatives will not be that drastic or severe)

of course the Iraq defenders are sqwaking incessantly trying to defend the Iraq invasion - did I mention Iraq anywhere? and let's not forget - we install military bases on Islamic holylands to secure the oil fields - that's basically why the Muslims hate us - not because we're from the "west" or because we're "perverts" or whatever - only b/c of military bases on Islamic holy lands - would you be pissed off if the Taliban installed a base in the Vatican? I would be - and I'm not even Catholic

and uh no - petroleum has been around for eons - war is a recent invention - of the last 10,000 years or so - but petroleum is the media through which greed is by and large illustrated today -

Answer 1

keep in mind this war is not about oil... its about keeping everyone afraid and stressed... fear is Rove's strategy... but yes... in your impossible scenario i would do what i needed to do to help my fellow human

Answer 2

Market forces must determine the outcome. To artificially impose consumption caps just doesn't work (ask Jimmy Carter). I would be willing to give up petroleum consumption, if I got cleaner air, cheaper fuel and less volatility in the world, and it could happen tomorrow. So it can't, and so I'll wait, and so I'll support the security and subsequent lower price of oil, until something better comes along.

The US troops that died, I believe, didn't breathe their last breath thinking, wow, I hope mom saved a few bucks on her last tank of gas. That is what you're suggesting. If we believe Cheney, then the run-rate of 6 billion a month should be netting us at LEAST 6 billion a month in oil cost savings, to justify the war on the oil issue alone. That is so far from the truth, because the amount and value of oil extracted from Iraq pales in comparison to what is being spent to execute this battle against Sunni and Shi'ite extremists and this battle to democratize the Middle East ( a must in my opinion, because WHEN the oil runs out, these people must have a stable and productive society and economy to fall back on, or the current Muslim vs. Christian/Jew conflict will seem like a thumb-wrestling match compared to the massive unrest the Middle East will experience when there is no oil revenue coming in).

I am a firm believer that Bush should have told the American public that OIL was a major factor in the invasion. It was being sold to our 'allies' who paid Saddam to prop him up and ensure their commercial contracts with him (so Oil-For-Food was really Oil-For-France, for example). Saddam suggested moving oil trade in Iraqi oil over to the euro (and away from the dollar). He basically did everything in his power to circumvent UN sanctions and to economically squeeze America. So screw him.

I don't care if he had WMD's (which he did, ask the families of those Shi'ites and Kurds that were gassed and burned alive). I don't care if we didn't find any WMD's (how hard is it to hide or sell or otherwise dispose of the material if you have 12 years to do it?). I care about America's interests, for I am an American. And a Saddam Hussein or a Kim Jong Il or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his puppeteer Khameini or any other anti-American state leader or terrorist agent willing to develop, sell or use WMD's to blackmail or attack the US is worthless to me. And so the invasion of Iraq was just. To free Shi'ites and Kurds who were living in oppression, to free up oil fields for commercial production and sale on the open market, and to put an American military presence in the midst of 'enemy territory', to convey to radical Islam or to opportunist arms traders that the US means business. I have NO problem with that.

The US has been exemplary in supporting democracy and capitalism, and the progress of both, in recent years and administrations. To deviate from that because we feel war is 'icky' or 'unsavory' is caving in, cowardice and naive. I am all for better, cleaner, cheaper fuels, but that is a scientific question that has NO bearing on what this economy, and your gas tank, needs today. It's not my job to fix the future energy equations of America, I think science and government are fast-moving in that direction, it's my job to support the economic needs (mine and yours), today. And that means a democratic Iraq, Iran and N. Korea, period. To deny this, means you are willing to ride the proverbial a-s-s to work. I'm not.

Answer 3

Disingenuous question..... it is meant to ignore and obscure the fact that wars are fought for other reasons. I prefer how it was put back in the 1930's

"If giving up the SUDETENLAND meant the END OF WAR?

or back in the 1860's

"if giving up ABOLITION meant the END OF WAR?

Answer 4

War existed thousands of years before petroleum.

Answer 5

It would also mean that a lot of people wouldn't eat for a long time.

Answer 6

Your premise was wrong, so naturally, you came up with the wrong conclusion.
It's called: "illogical reasoning."
The war was never about oil.
(Now write that down a hundred times and remember.)
Whoever told you it was about oil is probably laughing at you for being gullible.

Answer 7

IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL!!!!!! How many times do you have to be told that. The Islamist extremist want you to be their type of Muslim, or dead. One or the other. NO choice. So, it you love Allah, then you can pull out early. I wish your dad had.