[oilfreeandhappy]

I marched against the Iraqi War, as did millions around the planet. Solar and wind won't power automobiles, unless they are electric cars. Middle East oil will power automobiles.

Every time a new highway is built, we can ask ourselves, how many wind turbines could have been erected? Or how many solar panels could have been purchased? The subsidies for our "way of life" continue to multiply exponentially, while other technologies get lip service.

[SinisterBlueCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'H')e's got to be high on the oppression scale.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', 'a')nd they did indeed start trading oil for euros?

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', 'i')t was not about oil ... so what would have happened if the us had not invaded iraq, and they did indeed start trading oil for euros?

[Pretorian]

US could have a way better oil-deal with Hussein than without.. . He would give away everything just for letting him be. The invasion wasnt about oil for your SUV, at least not mainly for it. It had another reason

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'I')t had another reason

[SinisterBlueCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'E')r ... doesn't that mean it WAS about oil? If oil didn't matter, we wouldn't care if it was traded for euros, yuan or even piles of moldy, old kip.

[SinisterBlueCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'U')S could have a way better oil-deal with Hussein than without.. . He would give away everything just for letting him be. The invasion wasnt about oil for your SUV, at least not mainly for it. It had another reason

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', 'i') apologize. mostly when i talk with people about this sort of thing, they think "having to do with oil" means allowing them to continue driving their SUVs!

[seldom_seen]

Most people don't support the war in Iraq for obvious reasons, but they're also not starving.

What if people in the US were actually starving. A widespread famine from coast to coast based on increased population and decreased agricultural output. There just wasn't enough food to get to everyone's mouth.

The POTUS comes on television and says "My fellow Americans, these are hard times for all of us. Our topsoils are depleted. The only way to increase our agricultural output is to use military force to seize our god given oil that lies under the countries of the middle east. I also want you to know that anyone that signs up for military service will get three meals a day."

Am I mistaken in thinking that this would be a very popular war? Like a 90+ approval rating. If a war in the middle east will save your babies life, isn't that worth more than all the sheiks of araby or the princes of persia?

[I_Like_Plants]

Absolutely.

In fact, if no wars for oil means in the US it's bicycles and Birkenstocks for most of us, most of us would be beating the war drums to death.

I'm ready for bicycles and birkenstocks, but almost all 'Merkans are not, not at all.

[Twilight]

I doubt the public support profile would look any different to how it looks now. Massive initial endorsement, followed by a wait for return on investment. And wait. And wait. Discouragement. And cutting of losses. Traditionally the "sell" in an impoverished nation with no democratic outlet takes the form of uprising or minimisation of cooperation with the authorities. The psychology of investment doesn't alter a great deal even if you're cutting zeros off the amount of wealth people have.

[RonMN]

I doubt we'd have to be "starving"...just cut 5% of the gasoline supply so there wasn't quite enough & a few winter days with no nat-gas & everything would be hunkey-dory with the iraq war...and any other wars we decided would improve our life-styles.

Yup! 98+ % approval ratings!

[ClassicSpiderman]

One of the criticisms of US foreign policy in the Middle East is that the US government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain a military presence there which can be seen as an energy subsidy (that protects the energy supply and allows oil companies to modernize oil extraction in Iraq). The huge US naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz is classic gunboat diplomacy aimed directly at Iran.

The US has to import 60% of the oil that it uses, but according to statistics most of this does not actually come from the Middle East, but from Canada, Venezuela, etc. However, if Iran chose to reduce oil production to a halt, it could wreak worldwide economic havoc by doubling the price.

If the Iraq war is a direct (or indirect) consequence of making sure to maintain the "American way of life", this 'subsidy' does not only benefit Americans. What about other countries that import a lot of oil who have stayed out of the whole Iraq mess? Why aren't they paying their fair share?

I admit, there is a certain amount of sarcasm in this post, but my point is this: as beneficial that US foreign policy may be to corporate interests and artificially lowers the true cost of oil for US consumers, it is the US citizens who bear the burden of seeing their tax dollars spent on military adventurism that also artificially lowers the price of oil for other countries (China, several European countries, etc).

If the US were to completely drop the oil subsidy (in the form of military outlays), it would certain hurt the US economy, but it would hurt it's competitors' as well (such as China). If we agree that George Bush is a sociopath and wants to bring down the whole world with him, the greatest death blow that he could do to his critics and enemies would be proclaim he's turned a new leaf and he will heed the call of "Yankee Go Home".

[emersonbiggins]

To be fair, the Europeans weren't exactly getting their oil from the Iraqis at gunpoint before the war started. We sure are.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy aren't they paying their fair share?

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClassicSpiderman', '
')If the US were to completely drop the oil subsidy (in the form of military outlays), it would certain hurt the US economy, but it would hurt it's competitors' as well (such as China).

[Alcassin]

This is funny, yeah, let them pay for US mistakes... Did US pay Russians for their war in Afghanistan? Preposterous.

[gmin]

it's like your taxi driver's speeding so he can unload you fast and then pick up his wife on time. your protests fall on deaf ears.
the driver's stopped by a cop and gets a speeding ticket, will you help paying for it? the driver's speeding could have saved you time.

other powers objected the war before it started, they liked their solutions better. and they don't love US any more than you would love a taxi driver.

[Mircea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClassicSpiderman', 'O')ne of the criticisms of US foreign policy in the Middle East is that the US government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain a military presence there which can be seen as an energy subsidy (that protects the energy supply and allows oil companies to modernize oil extraction in Iraq). The huge US naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz is classic gunboat diplomacy aimed directly at Iran.