Brazil, China and India need more oil. Certainly China will not allow a take over by al-Qaeda.
So it's alright to have Chinese troops in Saudi Arabia?
Can you say "Armageddon"?
2) The amount of oil available is diminishing and rapidly. Even if ME oil reserves last 20 years, and I don't think they will, the international economic power you claim is a fast diminishing one. Look at the reality of ME oil. It's influence is on the wane.
So let's see.. economically speaking you're claiming that a lower global supply of oil, combined with a ever increasing demand equation, equates to diminishing economic power for the ME oil producing states??
That just doesn't make sense. If anything, with oil prices on the increase, and some projecting $100/barrel oil, their international power INCREASES!!
We are tied down in Iraq and resources could be better used in Afghanistan.
Used to do what?? Invade Pakistan?? Do you know that we don't have any actual port access to Afghanistan? Everything has to either be flown in, or shipped in via Pakistan.
And here you want to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan for some undefined mission??
Cut the head off and the body dies. If it's a Medusa then use resources to cut all the heads off.
So maybe you DO want to invade the "badlands" of Pakistan, and/or Saudi Arabia!! Because those two countries are currently the primary sources of Islamo-Fascist activities.
I think it's best that we continue to encourage Pakistan to moderate and constrain their Islamo-Fascist factions without causing a civil war to erupt. We should also continue to seek to defend the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to prevent re-infiltration of Taliban and AQ forces. And I think the number of troops we currently have there are accomplishing this mission.
Let the Iraqis deal with the problem, they have a vested interest in getting rid of al-Qaeda and the terrorists.
Oh? what part of the Iraqi population has such a vested interest? Certainly the Shi'a.. Certainly the Kurds. Increasingly the Sunnis... But as I've mentioned previously, I suspect that the Ba'thists and Zarqawi have formed an alliance, primarily supported by former Iraqi Intelligence Members, who have a vested interest in undermining and toppling the government. And I have a belief that the "quid pro quo" will be to permit Zarqawi to use Iraq as base of operations from which to conduct further terrorist operations.
One has to recognize that Iraq is about ME oil. That can be changed by reducing US dependence on ME oil.
No kidding... And here I thought it was all about camel racing and polygamy.
However, the US is only dependent upon 10% of it's imported oil being derived from the M-E. So where is the rest of the 90% of that M-E oil being sold??
And let's not forget that, EVEN IF Saudi oil production does drastically decrease, it will make that country EVEN MORE volatile given that 50% of its population is under 20 years of age. Saudi Arabia has a tremendous burden in continuing economic growth in order to provide jobs for these people. Because it's certain the Kingdom is not going to be able to continue providing monetary subsidies and stipends.
Thus, I still fail to see where anything you're presenting is a solution that is far better than what is currently being pursued.
Hawk |
