With much respect, and in response to:
Sam on November 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am
commented on
Bush and the writing of HISTORY

even if bush wanted, he can not take the oil from kuwait, since kuwait is an ally of saudi arabia which in turn is an ally of the US (how good or bad is debateable).The fact remains: If Bush would consider the option, he would have the entire world against him. So it’s easier to make it around the backdoot, secure the oil in Iraq, have a permanent puppet regime there and with it a presence and then slowly but surely sack syria, iran, and other potential enemies so Saudi Arabia is surrounded. and then he can put pressure on them.
Further more Iraq is not to underestimate with it’s contribution to the oil market. While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia<- source: US Energy Information Administration (EIA). (unless they are just doing liberal propaganda)

Love ya to death Sam… but gotta clue you in on this…
Because I have heard these arguments for years… WAR FOR OIL, etc., I wanted to respond to this with its own Post.

“he can not take the oil from kuwait”
Do you think if we wanted we could not take Saudi Arabia, too? I’m not trying to be confrontational, but after years of being called imperialist, war mongers – and worse, I find it hard that even the nuts on the left, think Saudi Arabia would be much of a battle.

We FREED KUWAIT.

We are trying to FREE IRAQ…

“he would have the entire world against him”
From all the nuts on the left and the mainstream “Media” … I thought, the entire world IS against us…

“permanent puppet regime”
Might want to tell that to “The millions of Iraqis who came out for the elections were voting their hopes for an end to violence and occupation, and a better life”
“surely sack syria, iran, and other potential enemies”
So, your saying we went to war in iraq for OIL, and that our intention was to also take out Syria and Iran, just so we can pressure Saudi Arabia? Damn… Seems like taking the long way around to get there, if you ask me… Think we could take SA pretty easily, if that is what we actually intended.
< sure to get comments on that last statement… ; ) >

Let me tell you how the Democrats and the American left look at the energy business. The thing that you have to understand is, it ain’t about America. All this talk about alternative energy and hybrids, that’s not about making America better. All this talk and conversation is not about making America cleaner.

The way they think:
Power = votes; getting as many people in their base to vote for them as possible, as many independents.

By keeping the oil that we have, that we could drill and would decrease dependence on foreign oil. By keeping our oil in the ground and untapped, they become heroes to the environmentalists. Then when the shortages, the necessity to import and that suppression of supply is depressed, what happens to price? Look at the price of oil now.
Some of it’s speculation; some of it’s supply and demand. The price is going to continue to go up. And what happens then? When the low supply, the artificially low supply — there needn’t be a low supply given our reserves that are untapped — that low supply drives up the price, they become the heroes of the poor and the freezing.

How do they do that?
Because they then attack Big Oil for gouging. And, of course, everybody hates Big Oil, just like they hate the boss.

So you’ve got people in the Northeast who use home heating oil and the price is going up because we’ve got an artificially depressed supply, thanks to Democrats. Those people have to pay through the roof for their heating oil, and the Democrats become their champions. They don’t solve any problem unless Hugo Chavez comes to the rescue and sells it cheap.

So the very people that are causing rising prices benefit twice from causing it.

A: the environmentalists love them and give them lots of money, and
B: the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, the freezing, think the Democrats are the ones standing up for them.

That’s the way they look at it.

They’re not interested in improving America’s lot in the world, particularly not when a Republican is in the White House.

Whether people want to admit it or not, fuel and oil are the — well, oil is the fuel of democracy.

You take oil out of our equation, like fossil fuels out of our equation, out of our economy, and you tell me the number of businesses that are going to survive as they currently are.
You talk about staggering, and yet there are people out there that are attempting to get this done over time, not overnight, but over time, and that’s not the answer to our problems.

And of course all of this business of conservation and hybrid cars, it’s all based on the fact that, “We don’t have much oil left, we’re going to have to do something fast.” It’s just the opposite. There’s all kinds of oil out there so then the environmentalists say, “Well, it’s polluting, it’s dirty, it’s like filthy,” blah, blah, blah, “it’s exploitative,” all of that, and yet…
it is what our society is built on, and the world’s as well.
——————————–
“A Bottomless Beer Mug: Why the World is not Running Out of Oil.”
Just an excerpt, to get ya started…

“Peter O’Dell of Rotterdam’s Erasmus University points out that since 1971, over 1500 billion barrels of oil have been added to our worldwide reserves. Over the same 35-year period, under 800 billion barrels were consumed. One can argue for a world which has been running into oil rather than running out of it. What makes the estimates go up continuously is a combination of economics and innovation.” Let me give you a word for that. It’s called capitalism. “The IEA explains the process this way. Reserves are constantly revised in line with new discoveries, changes in prices, and technological advances. These revisions invariably add to the reserve base. A few decades ago the average oil recovery rate from reservoirs was 20%. Thanks to remarkable advances in technology this has risen to about 35% today.” Let me give you another word for “advances in technology.” It’s called “capitalism.” Capitalism is out there finding all this oil. He also says this under the section called The New Age of Discovery. “But there is a more practical fallacy embedded in the gloomy forecast, too. ‘I challenge the idea that the era of discovery is over in oil,’ says one expert. Thanks to the Cold War and other political constraints on western investment, much of the world has yet to be explored with the aid of the latest technologies. Most of the oil still undiscovered thanks to the Cold War and other political constraints on western investment, called environmentalism. New word for political constraints on western investment, environmentalism. Already, the industry, (the oil industry), is exploring underwater at depths that were unimaginable a decade or two ago. In the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, oil rigs now float atop 3,000 meters, or 10,000 feet of water. These marvels of engineering [capitalism] are stuffed with the latest in robotics, electronic sensors, and satellite equipment using fancy multilateral wells that twist and turn in all directions, they can hit giant underwater oil pockets miles away from the rigs.”

There’s more oil being discovered out there. It’s just a question of profitability and getting it, and eliminating the political constraints of western investment, i.e., environmentalism. Because that’s what’s holding us back.

There’s so much oil out there that we have enough that we could go get on our own, that we wouldn’t need to be nearly as dependent on the Saudis and other foreign sources as we are.

But, it is my contention, that the people on the left in this country who are bemoaning our dependence on foreign oil actually wish to encourage it.

They want us held hostage, particularly when a Republican is in the White House.

Thanks for contributing SAM, welcome anytime…
Warmest Regards,
PL