|
I'm not going to rehash all the things that many of us have stated before.
I will, however, clear up some points that seem to be unclear:
1) It's not a question of if Bush and his administration are tied to oil interests--they are. I can't dream of anyone, right or left on the political spectrum, who would deny that after following the money.
2) Whether Bush is tied to oil interests or not is immaterial to oil prices dropping. Let's leave the ties, alleged or otherwise, the Bush family has to the house of Saud off the table for a second. The fact remains that we don't own oil companies, so it's not as though government procurement of oil resources is going to result in lower prices. Unless, of course, we operated under a socialist economy. We don't, however, so whatever riches that might be gained, assuming "war for oil" was speaking to profit motive, would be made by the corporations--not drivers.
3) Energy resources have been driving our foreign policy since the industrial revolution. Oil has specifically motivated us in more recent decades. This is not limited to the United States, however; rather, the entire Western hemisphere has been carving developing nations for its needs for centuries.
4) "war for oil" has a two-part component to it:
a) some people believe that corporations have vested interests in pushing for monopolization of energy resources. Given that, they argue that wars abroad to secure such resources are really extensions of corporate welfare--and a type of neo-colonialism. Usually this is achieved via economic methods (hence the "neo" as opposed to classical colonialsm), but more recently, as our economic clout ebbs, we are resorting to classical forms of colonialism--good ol' warfare.
b) others may or may not agree with the above assessment. Regardless of where they stand on corporate ties to warfare, however, this second group understands the realpolitik necessity of securing new sources of oil reserves. That is, they understand the power OPEC has on our current oil supplies as well as the upcoming demand from developing nation-states, such as, the billion+ people in China.
Despite their recognition for the necessity of securing oil sources, they dispute that our current action is the best recourse to secure new resources. They view this long-term plan as ultimately self-defeating in that it will perpetuate the same type of political blowback that colonialsm has already spawned--namely, and most poignant to US citizens now, domestic terrorism. The rest of the world has already come to understand this because they have had to deal with domestic terrorism for much longer than we have, hence the nearly world-wide opposition to our (and their own governemnts') involvement.
Their point is that warfare to secure necessary resources is colonialsm--not that Bush just wants to get rich and enjoys killing people to do it. There is no tinfoil hat position here, this is all well researched and you can ask me for a list of sources if you are seriously interested in learning more.
In no instance, other than the US transforming to a socialist economy with guaranteed energy for its citizens, would either of these scenarios result in lower prices for common drivers.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|