Your thoughts on why or why not. I will leave my opinion out of this question!
2007-01-14 03:24:26 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
not only is it a national security issue. its is the easiest way to defeat the capatilistic views of the west. you cant beat the west militarily you cant stop them by hit and miss attacks like pearl harbor and 9/11 that just pisses them off. but IF YOU CAN CONTROL THE WORLDS OIL SUPPLY AND LIMIT THE FLOW TO THE WEST THE ECONOMY WOULD BE DESTROYED. This would also be a precursor to the fall of our military.
every military person knows that to win a war you must cut the supply lines to the military. almost every military victory in the history of the world can be linked to the cutting of supply lines to the military. If the west is cut from the supply line of oil from the middle east the military would be bled dry. many historians will tell you that Germany had better equipment than Europe and the West as well as fortification it was the cut of supply lines through Africa that dissabled their ability to mobilize the military. If Hitler would have listened to Rommel and sent more troops to Africa to protect their supply lines we may not have won that war.....
2007-01-14 03:38:22 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
To be honest, I don't think so. I think we have the technology to stumble along without it and the reserves to protect our country during transition if we had the will to require distribution infrastructure (alternate fuel at each gas station with more than 3 pumps) instead of oil taxes, say.
I think it is about protecting entrenched interests now, which is a very different thing than national security.
I think our economy would take a short term hit while corrections were made, but so long as we stay self sufficient on really important things like FOOD, I think we'd be ok.
2007-01-14 11:42:03 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What's your definition of national security? Is it enough fuel to defend our shores. Is it enough fuel to run our economy, heat and cool your home. Is it enough fuel for you to get to work, earn a living, and send your kids to college.
Furthermore, should it be enough fuel whose source is within our own borders so the wealth of American isn't sapped away by oil rich countries?
Energy independence is a national security issue, not oil. If it takes another type of energy source to fuel America, then that's what we need to do.
I heard recently about a new product developed in S. Africa, roofing material that generates electricity. If used, this material can make every home in America energy independent. It has the potential to save 40% of the fossil fuel usage in America. That is an amount equal to the oil we import.
I wouldn't be surprised, tho, if the oil and electric companies block its use.
2007-01-14 13:10:50 · answer #3 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if you believe that you must strong arm this commodity from weaker nations. Oil would not be an issue at all if we would have followed the Carter doctrine of 1977 and began to chart a course toward renewable energy sources and conservation. But he consistently wrongly ridiculed as the worse president of the modern era. Thank you Ronald Reagan...George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Yeah I said Clinton too...he did little or nothing to decrease our addiction to oil from the middle east.
2007-01-14 11:34:46 · answer #4 · answered by Winter Storm 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but I do not see it as an excuse to go to war over. It may seem like I am contradicting myself, but i am not. Certainly, we rely on foreign oil and we must keep the flow coming, but the flow is best maintained through peaceful negotiations rather than high-handed tactics such as military action. More flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. It seems that this country has forgotten foreign diplomacy with words of peace and by using the principle of give and take. Instead we seem intent upon outright murder to get our way. We will pay a heavy price for what it going on today---all societies do who resort to violence over peace. God is a God of peace and he rejects the violent behavior of men. We are leaving our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy, a legacy that they will have to pay for in suffering.
2007-01-14 11:34:09 · answer #5 · answered by Preacher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, think about this. If we want to liberate everoyne, why do we let the monarchy of Saudi Arabia exist? Because that's where we get almost all our oil. If we were to tick off the other countries in the Middle East and they cut off our oil supply, we'd be in for it.
2007-01-14 11:28:45 · answer #6 · answered by John S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. With radical Islam in control of the Middle Eastern oil supply, world safety is doomed.
They do not use the money to better living conditions for their people. They use the money to buy arms.
2007-01-14 11:37:03 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-01-14 11:29:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Especially if the next major terrorist attack is on "our" oil refineries,several in unison, that would be a terrible blow to the security of the US
2007-01-14 11:29:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Oil is a fungible commodity readily available on the world market.
2007-01-14 11:28:08 · answer #10 · answered by Fletch 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋