From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:40:10 MST
John K. Clark opined:
<<I'm less certain of what the correct policy regarding Iraq should
be than you are, and of course certainty has no relation to being correct.
Last year I thought it was clear as glass that war with Afghanistan was the
only thing to do and it turned out I was right, but things are more murky
about Iraq. You were certain last year and you were also dead wrong,
I'll tell you a year from now if you're doing any better.>>
Perhaps Bush is overthrowing Iraq's Chief goon for oil?
Why might this be logically justified?
Because the Wahabbi-ruled Saudis, are funding Islamic Jihad actions, in large
part, with their oil wealth. If one deprives Saudi of much valuta, then the
support of the jihad becomes more costly. This is one hypothesis. It also
brings the more moderate, Muslims a reason to be defiant of the Jihadists.
The can point to Saddam and American might as a reason to suggest other means
of behavior. This is a hypothesis anyway.
Are there alternatives to this? We have wasted more then 3 decades since the
last OPEC boycott, and this largely is due to a lack of political will on the
part of the American public. Beer, pizza, and sports appear to pacify a lot.
But the notion of developing alternatives to foreign gasoline will take time
for commercial feasibility, and so far, nothing beats petroleum, as far as
getting funding from the banks. Its quite lamentable, but its the world in
which we live, and its difficult rousing contented cows (the US public) to
action. Certainly bio-source diesel tech and other fuels can play a large
part, and you lose no human blood in doing so. Again lamentable.
On the brighter side, Mother Russia is building a new pipeline (allegedly)
for USA use, and the West Coast of Africa, holds more petroleum, then the
Persian gulf. But again lamentable. Oh well, time for beer and sports (hic!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:31 MST