Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.
What could that money achieve if it was spent on green/electric vehicles, flex-fuel, regenerative technologies, hydrogen, etc? We need oil for ONE THING. Vehicles.
Lets be honest. The real reason the Islamic nations hate the U.S. is because of the unscrupulous ways we manipulate their govts and position our corporate energy interests. Without oil, the Middle East is just useless desert. Their only power is oil. Take that away, and what happens? Everything falls apart... Al Queda, the terrorist camps, the oppressive regimes, it all vanishes like a fart in the breeze.
It's only because of U.S. oil's corporate greed that the middle east is even on our radar screens. The public simply has to demand that we get off our oil addiction, and all our Islamic problems will go away.
2006-12-13 16:20:06 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Keep in mind the majority of US electrical generation is coal, hydro and nuclear. Very, very little is generated by oil.
2006-12-13 16:21:29 · update #1
You make some very valid points - however, it just isn't that simple. First off, I live in Maine, and, believe me, oil isn't just for vehicles.
Islamic radicals, by their own admission, hate us because we are infidels. Their only power is not oil, it's a deep hatred and bombs stuffed with lethal shrapnel. And, lets face it, it doesn't take a lot of money to blow yourself up along with dozens of innocent people if you've a mind to - and it doesn't take a centralized, well financed organization, either.
If I thought that they would go away (like a fart in a breeze?) if we became energy independent - I'd say, go for it. But in reality, oil is going remain an energy staple for quite a while longer - for better or worse, our whole infrastructure runs on the stuff - from the manufacture of numerous products to heating our homes, running our factories to powering our vehicles. These processes will take a long time to be replaced even if an alternate source were discovered tomorrow.
For instance, what would we do with an estimated 400,000,000 vehicles? The alternate sourse would have to be slowly phased in - and the Middle East knows this.
I think what bothers me most is the apparent fact that we aren't and haven't been persuing alternate energy sources with any real entusiasm or urgency. As you point out in your question, perhaps our biggest obsticle is our "corporate energy interests" and "corporate greed" as well as our "unscrupulous ways."
I think one would have to be pretty nieve to think Exxon/Mobil wants me to heat my home with hydrogen, for instance - or to think that their engineers are busily working on an alternative to their cash cow. I srongly suspect that alternate energy sources will come from independent research - research that is not funded by big oil.
2006-12-13 17:03:19 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think its just oil. Oil is a big resource, and industries still heavily use it. Its not just used as a fuel, but also as an ingredient for many products.
The US government doesn't want to give away its power to anyone, especially Iran. I don't necessarily think of it as a clash of civilizations, its a war for power.
You forgot to mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its one of the things that fuels extremism in Muslim countries.
What may come out of the Middle East remains unclear. Only time will tell.
2006-12-14 00:27:18 · answer #2 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but we aren't going to get away from using oil, no matter how much money is spent: there is no substitute for liquid hydrocarbon fuels for vehicles. If there were no oil available, we would have to make it from coal and hydrogen or natural gas. Also, Islamic hatred for the west has nothing to do with energy, government manipulation, or anything of the sort except for one fact, and one fact only: we aren't Muslims. And abandoning the middle east is not going to change that in the least. In the meantime, oil is still by far the cheapest source of energy except for coal.
2006-12-14 00:52:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
A brilliant idea!
I thought that was the plan back in the 70s when we had a "gas shortage" of huge proportions. The so-called energy crisis at that time had the government asking us not to decorate for Christmas, for heaven's sake! I thought that we were learning a lesson then.
But, how will we ever convince the oil gazillionaires to give up their profits? We might as well try to pull down the sun.
I said in the 70s that the US "pigged up" its own natural resources like a kid with candy, without a thought to the well-being of the future generations. But that the oil "belonged" to the Arabs, and they were the only ones who were "allowed" to determine its use and its cost. How dare we fight them for what is theirs???
We'd better find some alternatives and QUICK!
2006-12-14 00:38:36 · answer #4 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because radical Islam wants to destroy the west. In their minds it has nothing to do with global energy. It's an ideology of extermination, like Hiter's final solution.
2006-12-14 04:13:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't we spend the billions on becoming energy independent, and leave the Middle East to China?
Excellent Idea.... will you please email this to Mr. Bush
2006-12-14 03:03:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isolationism doesn't work. We tried that in the 1930's
2006-12-14 00:44:04 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋