What's wrong with going to war when Oil supplies are at stake, simple minded Democrats?

Question

If we allow rogue states or terrorists to disrupt oil supplies we better go ahead and shot ourselves in the head. A huge hike in gas prices after such disruptions would affect not only the amount of driving we can afford, but it would surely mean millions of unemployed, bankruptcies of major and small companies, ie airlines, auto makers, plane builders, etc. The plight of the poor to put bread on the table would become exponentially more difficult. The democrats are the poor's real worst enemies. A war to secure Oil is a matter of everyone's survival not only the oil companies.

It's the duty of the state to protect the interests of all its citizens even moronic lefties like you. When a crisis loom I rather have one pres that acts decisively... there was no time to put trillions of dollars to develop alternative fuels only WIMPS can see nothing wrong with turning the other cheek and going on a wild goose chase of alternative fuels and alternative lifestyles (homo friendly) when you are staring at the barrel of a gun. you would all give your asses to Osama without him even asking.

The price of oil is rising because there is a huge international demand for it from emerging countries such as China is not a "right wing conspiracy" like the likes of the Clinton's would make us believe....-

Answer 1

Finally a conservative who acknowledges the real reason we are in the middle east.

To answer your question, it is wrong because there are alternate sources of energy. The oil industry wants you to believe that we NEED oil for our economy to survive. The truth is, our industry and our vehicles have run on alternate fuel sources longer than they ran on petroleum fuels. Cars were steam and battery driven before there was even a gas combustion engine.

If the majority of our oil comes from the middle east, and the majority of terrorists are funded from their oil rich arab bretheren - then wouldn't the best solution be to develope alternate fuel sources and pull out of the middle east completely - AND at the same time deny the number one source of terror money???

Ponder this: who is dying and who is profiting - our average citizens are dying, while the oil industry is posting consecutive record profits the last couple of years. Nope, nothing wrong there (sacasm).

Answer 2

During the 70's when gas prices first went through the ceiling, there was an effort to develop alternatives to petroleum. That's when Mobil One Synthetic Motor Oil was developed. Big Oil then reminded Ronald Reagan not to replace their high profit products with alternatives and he put the development of petroleum alternatives to sleep. Imagine our shrunken dependency on foreign oil if we had been working on petroleum replacement for 4 decades. Right now Bush wants a 20 % improvement in automotive fuel economy within 20 years. Scientists and Engineers say that it could be accomplished in 5 years but Bush doesn't want to interfere with Big Oil selling as much. If we had an alternative to petroleum like we should have had by now, we wouldn't be fighting a war because of it.

Answer 3

Lets play a imaginery game.

Suppose 6 years ago instead of going to war in the wrong place Taterhead had said lets invest 1 trillion dollars into
converting our economy to alternate energy. Think of the jobs that would have been created. Think of the reduction in greenhouse gases. Think about how powerless arab states would be without billions of petro dollars. Bush would have been a hero instead of a zero that he is.

Yes you are right. We were better off putting our self into the middle of a unwinnable war and bankrupting the country so
Exxon and Shell could get access to the oil over there and then sell it to you at a great profit.

Yes makes perfect sense to me. So think about it your grandchildren will be paying for a war that allowed the big
oil companies who only control 12% of knows reserves get their hands on middle east oil so they could make huge profits.

Answer 4

Rogue states in your eyes, may just be trying to climb the social ladder.

One man's terrorist is another mans "freedom fighter"

And if the US decided to say, we're invading you for the oil then fine, at least they are admitting that their a rogue nation. Other wise they simply appear like a bear in fox's clothing, neither stealthy nor efficient.

Answer 5

We should just kill everyone in the Middle East, left to their own devices, they are going to kill each other off anyway, we'll just be hastening the end.

Once everyone there is dead, we can send the oil companies in and pump the place dry. Then we can start on the oil producing countries in Central America.

Answer 6

Yes, I can see how invading Iraq has decreased oil costs, kept that pipeline going, and made it cheap for everyone to car. I also have the ghost of Christmas past following me around, threatening to rip my toenails off.

Answer 7

Will you still feel that way when Russia and China start nuking the US to keep us out of the last remaining oil?

Answer 8

The US made the monkey on our back installing regimes like Saddam, the Shah in Iran, Saudi Arabia. Big Profits have been in the way of the US getting away from oil for decades.

Answer 9

It's called theft