OK, If it wasn't for oil,?

Question

Would anyone in the "Western world" really give a stuff if the middle east broke away from earth and drifted of into space.?

Answer 1

No not at all

Answer 2

The men fighting over there are not benefiting from the oil.
They think they are bringing peace to the middle east.
What ever we think about it or what ever reason Bush had for going in there. Those people who have died on both sides had noble reasons for doing so. However, misguided they may have been. It is just to bad they couldn't talk things out and make a decision that doesn't include someone dieing.

Answer 3

no.. they cant care... they dont care cuz the middle east is a different culture and they dont want to take on the western culture.. and they dont think westerners are all that cool.. so the western world hates them cuz the western world thinks they are the best people in the world.. they just want the oil. and making lame excuses to get it by death

Answer 4

As long as we get the oil first, No, bloody good riddance.

Answer 5

nope! i would not care at all. what we should do is invade their countries, take all their oil because they cannot defend against us, kill all their people, and after we've exhausted the oil reserves, leave and insure no muslim is spared.

Answer 6

No it is not retarded. It is right on point. We would be about as concerned for the middle east as we are about tribal warfare in Africa.

Having said that, It may interest you to know that Devon co. hit a well in the gulf of mexico a few weeks ago 44% larger than the oil reserves in alaska (well named jacks # 2) (source daily oklahoman September 6, 2006)expected to produce 1.5 million barrels per day.

Anyway, few people understand how dependent the world is on oil. Over the years we have shifted from as the primary source of energy from whale oil to kerosene to coal to petroleum. (water, wind and nuclear make up a small percentage of the whole)

Oil is a huge factor in national security. The reason Japan attacked Pearl Hardor was because we had been providing info leading to the sinking of their tankers bringing fuel back to their mainland. Which was our stratagy, at the time, in helping to defeat them, which was to cut off their fuel supply.

During the naval buildup between Great Britian and Germany prior to WW 1, G.B. converted from coal powered ships to oil powered ships although 95% of the known oil resreves and refinaries were owned by Standard oil, a forein corporation to the Brits.

In WW II General George Patton was sceaming for fuel to move his tanks in an attempt to chase the Germans back to Germany before Great Britian's Montgomery confronted them first.

Todays current price hike is a result of the tremdious amount of fuel being used by our military. Coupled with the fact, that during the Clinton administration, Clinton released fuel held in national reserves something that the Bush administation has done only rarely and on a limited basis.

During times of inflation, one way to slow down the economy is by raising interest rates, However, by far, the quickest way to slow the economy down is to reduce the supply of fuel; thus raising prices of manufacturing, trucking, ect. while simotaniously limiting discrecionary spending of consumers.

So fuel is critical not only in military operations but also to econmical survival. Thus is a major consideration to national interest. So much so, that if push came to shove, we would be without alternative to ensure its continiued flow by any means nesseccsary.

Those who make moral arguements agianest a war claiming we are fighting over oil are making a frivioulious argument. They do not understand just how completely dependent upon oil we are. The United States' current usage is one thousand barrels per second and steadly growing each year (not a misprint)

The thing that is so prohibitive in changing from one primary source of energy (ie whale oil, kerosene, coal) to another is infastracture of supply lines. China has and edge as they develop themselves in to a major world power. They are starting from scratch in a lot of situations rather than having to change over from exsisting supplies. The advantage to that is because with change, someone is going to make and someone is going to lose some money ; thus causing resistance to change even when change is benefital to the whole.

When we went from lighting our homes with kersone lamps and heating our homes with wood buring stoves to having coal as our primary source of energy, we discovered the light bulb and criss crossed the US with steam locamotives. Then came the current age in which we live; "the age of hydrocardon man" and we have had cheap fuel for the past 75 years and unparalled growth and prosperity.

Change is inevitable. Who will be the next "standard oil" is yet to be determined. However, once a large scale replacement for oil is made, it will change the entire geo political scene of the middle east. It will change the entire worlds power structure; the deserts of the middle east will once agian become barren desserts of the middle east.

Kurshev once said, "we will buy from the US the rope in which we hang them with". In todays enviroment, we are buying the rope for them, in which, they are trying to hang us. As we fight radical Islam, funded by oil producing middle east countries, not only are we funding our war againest them, we are also funding their war againest us. Isn't that a kick in the nuts?

Three books are listed as sources and suggested as reading for those interested in the subject. A thousand barrels per second is highly recommended reading.

Answer 7

prob. not. most people don't care about anyhing except what is goin on in their own little world.

Answer 8

This question is the most retarded I ever seen

Answer 9

never ending...

1) if it wasnt for oil we would have no fries at macdonalds or burger king....

did i win??

Answer 10

well it would take the earth with it would it not

Answer 11

Of course not.