Does the U.S. have every right to militarily take what it needs for it's stability?

Question

Let's say that President Bush simply but honestly for once said that it is necessary for the U.S. to have control of the oil of the Iraq or any other country for that matter.

Would that be OK with you?

Answer 1

Let's say that you admit that you would never advocate your nation fighting for anything...anywhere.

How about that?

Answer 2

That would be honest, but then it would be too obvious to the people of the world that the USA was the new Nazi state.

It's not ok with me, whether they admit it, or not.

"But then we ought to just be honest and say, "Look, we're a bunch of Nazis." So fine, let's just drop all the discussion, we save a lot of trees, we can throw out the newspapers and most of the scholarly literature, and just come out, state it straight, and tell the truth: we'll do whatever we want because we think we're gonna gain by it. And incidently, it's not American citizens who'll gain. They don't gain by this. It's narrow sectors of domestic power that the administration is serving with quite unusual dedication..."

Noam Chomsky - University of Houston, Texas, October 18, 2002

Answer 3

I would prefer to try a "Golden Rule" policy in foreign affairs. How would Americans react if another country did the exact same thing here? Probably wouldn't like it and would spend a lot of time fighing back. In short, imperialism leads to blowback.

The classic example is Iran - we overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh, replaced him with the Shah, built up resentment among the people who finally rebelled in 1979, and "held America hostage".

Answer 4

NO! If he really cared about our oil consumption then with all the money spent on this war we could have purchased a Prius for every American and still have money left over for the needs of our country. Cut consumption and develop alternative energies and policies.

Answer 5

No, there is no need to get oil with a costly war, it's cheaper to purchase by the barrel. Our fights have not been over land or resources for a long time now. We do have the right to do preemptive attacks against terrorist cells, wherever they may be housed...that's in our best interest.

Answer 6

Sound like Harry S Truman. (The Truman Doctrine)

"To ensure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations, The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."

http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/truman-doctrine

Answer 7

We're no different than animals in the wild. It's survival of the fittest. If that's what it takes for this country to remain solvent, I might not like it, but wouldn't disagree with it.

This is really easy for me to type because, I don't believe that it was about oil. :)

Answer 8

No. But I suspect that's what will happen eventually; when our own finite oil resources dry up and other countries are sitting pretty on theirs.

Answer 9

No,I don't support Imperialism but what you describe is actually the true neoconservative game plan.
America doesn't have that right under International law and that matters

Answer 10

I wouldn't believe him if he said it was so. Saudia Arabia, Iran, and even Canada has more oil than Iraq and we haven't invaded them.

Answer 11

not really because I think there are far better alternatives

such as mandating solar cells on new construction

higher MPG for vehicles

investing in nuclear power and fusion power research

etc