So here's the scoop on oil. It is a finite commodity; it is non-renewable; and there is an opportunity cost associated with being exclusively dependent upon it.
While oil is theoretically finite, I doubt that we are approaching de facto limits. Our current estimated reserves are greater than the estimated reserves of 1970, after 30 years of ever-increasing pumping. As Sheik Yamani said, "The stone age did not end for want of stones, and the oil age will not end for want of oil." I have even heard scientists claim that certain oil resevoirs are refilling, though I don't know the rights of it.
Also, we are hardly "exclusively dependent" on oil -- coal, hydropower, nuclear, wind and solar energy plants are also in use.
So what better excuse is there to begin our transition away from Mideast oil and concentrate on alternative sources.
So, you're for drilling in ANWAR? -g-
These are all good long range suggestions. But they do not do away with the fact that the Persian Gulf is a strategic interest for the US here and now. Wishing otherwise won't make it so.
But I do find it peculiar that you would believe individuals arguing for deterrence as favoring for a weak America. It is the sort of twisted logic which lead the pro-Israeli lobby to label Jews who criticize Israeli foreign policy as self-hating. It is quite odd.
Because what I think many of these individuals favor is what Fonte calls "transnational progressivism", this generation's form of socialism. Such a vision cannot coexist with an American superpower, or not very well. So they favor whatever will weaken or tie down America.
I come to this conclusion from reading their arguments and deciding that the only real points of cohesion in them are what they are against: Bush, war, American power. They never argue over whether the Islamists or Saddam are a real menace; they just assume that if Bush says they are, it must not be true. So that lets them off the hook of deciding what to do about it.
That's pretty funny. I don't consider myself a liberal. I voted for Bush--a decision I am really beginning to regret. I don't believe holding a policy of deterrence is necessarily a reflection of weakness just as I do not view aggressive confrontation as position of strength. The answer is dependent upon the circumstance.
And I voted for Gore and am making the opposite trip. Nor do I believe that aggressive confrontation is appropriate in all, or even most, cicumstances. I just think it is necessary here, against Saddam (whom nothing else will persuade), and to counteract ten years of projected American timidity and hand-wringing. Volunteering for a position of deterrence -- a position which probably is doomed to fail -- would be a continuation of projecting timidity.
But even wars fail, Nadine, and sometimes the power to decisively reshape the political framework in a manner surpassing the most effective diplomacy may not be in our advantage or interest.
Nothing is guaranteed. But if you look at history, you will notice that periods when the diplomatic framework did shift decisively tended to follow wars -- which is why wars remain a powerful tool of statecraft. At least you're not hawking the peaceniks 'but wars never work' line. Welcome to reality, yourself. -g- |
