Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bucky Katt who wrote (57064)	7/20/2005 10:51:22 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

If, as you postulate, that our military is little more than a petroleum protection service, and with the recent record high prices per barrel of crude oil, they aren't doing a very good job, are they? Sure, the U.S. Oil Protection Service, formerly known as the U.S. Military, is doing an excellent job protecting our oil supplies. When was the last time a major oil installation or tanker was destroyed by terrorists or other hostile forces? Never. Do you know how much more expensive oil and its derrivitives such as gasoline and heating oil would be if we weren't in the Middle East, Central Asia and Latin America protecting the supply lines? It could easily be double current prices, due to supply disruptions and decreased output. So, that $2.50/gal gasoline, could be $5.00/gal gasoline. I think the $2.50/gal gasoline should be more like $3.50/gal gasoline, as a $1.00/gal federal gas tax increase would make economic and budetary sense to pay for the military protection. The recent high oil prices (which are still far below the inflation adjusted high of $90/barrel set in 1981) are a result of supply and demand issues. Demand is growing quickly in Asia and healthily in the industrialized world. Prices would be even higher without our military mission to protect the oil supplies. It's no secret that the U.S. government has made the protection of oil supplies a central part of our foreign policy and military strategy for decades. Although this policy started in decades previous to the 1980s, it was codified by the Carter Doctrine in 1980, when President Carter said protecting the oil supplies in the Persian Gulf region was a matter of U.S. national security and any move by another country to interfere with those supplies would be tantamount to an attack on U.S. interests and be responded to militarily. Well, that's exactly what we did in 1990/1991 when Saddam decided to take over Kuwait (there was actually a policy paper by the Pentagon in the late 1970s that identified Saddam Huessein's Iraq as a potential future adversary and even speculated that he might try to take over Kuwait, something the Iraqis attempted to do in the early 1960s and were rebuffed by British military in Kuwait, so were we really surprised in 1990 when he invaded?). That's why we've had a growing military presence in the Gulf region for 15 years since the Gulf War. We're not there to protect the camel trade. Why do Americans have so much trouble reading between the lines of our foreign policy (even when it's clearly spelled out in previous statements and actions)? We're there for the OIL, and it's cheaper because our military is there.