Why Is Oil Worth Fighting For ?

Why Is Oil Worth Fighting For
Arab News ^ | 30 October 2004 | William F. Buckley Jr


Teresa Heinz Kerryâ??s reference to â??greed for oilâ?� can be passed over, and is being passed over, as routine political hyperbole. But maybe the time has come to examine the words and their meaning. This is so because â??oilâ?� is widely used as the great engine of human avarice. In years â?? and centuries â?? gone by, the devil word was â??gold.â?� It was gold that brought out the reserves of evil in men. It ranked with and even exceeded love and sex. Oil could not, of course, go through hobgoblinization until its uses were discovered. But now it is used as the commonplace agent of evil.

What needs to be said about oil is that it IS worth fighting for. We would all agree that air and water are necessities. Without them life instantly ends. Without oil, life does not end, but life radically changes.

If one contemplates oil as simply an agent of energy, the idea becomes instantly clearer. Every advance by mankind against the material duress of life is most easily expressed in terms of energy spared. Electrical power is generated in part by coal, by running water and by nuclear energy. But much of it is created by oil and gas. What is it that a people are willing to fight for? The security of home and hearth come first, and that is achieved mostly by weaponry; but weapons that seek to have their effects beyond the range of a cartridge of gunpowder do so, on battleships and airplanes, by the propellant force of oil.

If you are willing to die in order to protect your local hospital, then you must be willing to die for oil, because without electricity, your hospital wonâ??t take you beyond a surgeonâ??s scalpel, and a surgeon is helpless without illumination, which is provided (in many places) by oil.

To say that we must not fight for oil is utter cant. To fight for oil is to fight in order to maintain such sovereignty as we exercise over the natural world. Socialism plus electricity, Lenin said at the outset of the Soviet revolution, would usher in the ideal state. He was wrong about socialism but not about electricity. Electricity gives us whatever leverage we have over nature. To flit on airily about an unwillingness to fight for oil suggests an indifference to the alleviation of poverty at the next level after bread and water. Throw in, perhaps, the wheel. That too is an indispensable scaffolding of human power over nature. But then comes all the power not generated by the muscles of human beings and beasts of burden.

Oddly, those who speak so lightly about oil are often the most reluctant to explore seriously alternatives to it. In the history of discovery, only one such has materialized, which is nuclear power. Although nuclear power proceeds inconspicuously to light most of the lamps in France and promises to do as much in China, a mix of superstition and Luddism stands in the way of developing the nuclear alternative here.

Meanwhile, we must get on with oil, and the reserves of it are diminishing, and such great storehouses of oil as exist are mostly in the Middle East. The idea that our effort in Iraq is motivated by lust for its oil fields is easily dispelled by asking who is today profiting from such oil as is being produced in Iraq. The answer is: The Iraqis. The great need now is for increased security forces deployed to protect the oil from the nihilists and from those who reduce any consideration of oil to politics. What is achieved, that any sober judgment will approve of, by the destruction of oil fields, the kind of thing that Saddam Hussein tried to do in Kuwait in 1991?

Itâ??s unlikely, given the spook that now attaches to the mere mention of oil, that the presidential candidates will say wholesome things on the subject. But it would bring fresh air to international discourse if we heard from either or both that oil is a great natural bounty, and that we must encourage its production, guard against its despoliation, and honorably defend it as worth a total national commitment.

â?? W. Buckley is founder of the American conservative weekly National Review.

For modern societies,oil is a strategic asset-interference with oil supplies or extortion over such a critical component of modern societies,is a cause for grave concern,which can lead to war.

Thanks to America's sap-sucking,tree-hugging environazi's,America has not invested in nuclear power or domestic oil and gas drilling and production venues as we should have done.

Because of the environazi's,America is more dependent on foreign oil supplies and lacks the refining capacity that we need..all of which-leads to higher gasoline prices,heating oil prices and increased costs across the board,for all goods manufactured from oil.

It's time,past time,to develope our domestic resources of oil and natural gas,build more refining capacity and build more nuclear plants,as well as alternative sources of energy.

With Kerry and the environazi's in charge,America's dependence on foreign oil supplies will increase,the Strategic Oil Reserve,will be raided and costs for everything across the board,will increase..couple that with a socialist agenda that requires heavy taxation-and you have a recipe for disaster.

In my crazy Torogian world,Texas will secede from the Union,and defend the Strategic Oil Reserve and refineries,from federal authorities..I would expect,that Louisianna and the rest of the Southern States-will join with Texas in secession. Thanks to the environazi's in Kalifornia,with their bans on off-shore drilling and no new refineries in the past 3 decades,Kalifornia will be unable to supply the Federal Union with enough oil. Alaska,will be welcome to join the New Confederacy,of course..thereby making the Federal Union situation even more dire.

Sounds like a pretty good idea for a book,huh ? Maybe even a made-for-tv movie of the week..lol.

Have a good one...Torog :D

" Sounds like a pretty good idea for a book,huh ? Maybe even a made-for-tv movie of the week..lol. "

Dang..maybe I should git ahold of Mel Gibson and see if he might be interested in my idea..I herby officially claim all rights to this here idea. :D

Good luck with that idea there buddy :D

Oil is used in thousands of ways and it is becoming harder to find , it WILL run out.

Because of this other forms of creating or harnessing energy need to be found , nuclear energy suffered set backs because of incidents like Long Island and of course Chernobyl. The other avenues being explored are Hydro, Solar, Wind and of course Hydrogen cells, oil will gradualy be phased out and energy production will be a major priority . The inability of the US to provide sufficient energy at a reasonable price will see a decline in the economy and brown and blackouts will become more common , this is why America (gov) feels the need to gain control over the existing stocks of oil even if it means fabricating bullshit about WMD and pretending they are there to liberate the people of Iraq. If Saddam was attacked as claimed because he had ties with Bin Laden then surely Bush should also be implicated.

http://www.bushnews.com/binladens.htm
http://icpj.org/afghanistan.html

are you justifying the war on the basis of oil?

Thanks to America's sap-sucking,tree-hugging environazi's,America has not invested in nuclear power or domestic oil and gas drilling and production venues as we should have done.

Thanks to Sellafield (60miles off east coast Ireland)
the people of Co.Louth have a 13% higher rate of cancers and birth defects than other parts of the country.

Sellafield is now more dangerous than ever. If it is hit by terrorist attack, or if an accident occurs, Dublin, Dundalk and Belfast will be uninhabitable. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, England, Scotland and Wales will also be badly affected. Like Belarus, which received 70% of the fallout from Chernobyl, Ireland did not ask for this nuclear power base to be built beside us. Itâ??s up to us all to try to shut Sellafield down.

Be careful what you wish for Torog, Thanks to British Nuclear Fuels the Irish Sea is now the most radioactive in the world :(

http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/tour/irishsea.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holotrope

are you justifying the war on the basis of oil?

---

Howdy holotrope,

Nope,I ain't-however,oil is a critical component of the overall picture-and therefore cannot be ignored when planning strategically.

The main reasons for protecting the oil assets,was to prevent another disasterous enviromental event from the destruction of the well-heads,as was done in the first Gulf war,by saddam. The second reason,was to preserve the integrity of the well-heads,in order to continue to provide a source of funds for the Iraqi economy,in a post-saddam Iraq,critical for reconstruction and needed repair of infrastructure.

All 15 members of the UN Security Council,voted unanimously to authorize the use of force,in order to git saddam to comply with over 12 years of UN resolutions-therefore,the invasion of Iraq,was authorized by the UN.

Saddam,had the means,motive and opportunity,to pose a clear and present danger to the US,it was President Bush's duty,not to gamble on American security with a known and proven madman,in the form of saddam. Every time that saddam fired on US fighter jets,it was an act of war against the US,he was allowed to git away with that crap for years,because of a spineless UN and a spineless Clintoon.

Att. Tony Blair

Att. Prince Charles

Howdy LuLu,

Of course,you make some good points,I don't like enviromental pollution either-however..what's the alternative to Sellafield ?

Clean-burning coal plants ? Natural Gas ? Hydro ? Solar ? Oil fired generators ?

Is Sellafield's spent fuel management,the result of poor British control ? There's little incentive,on the part of socialist lackeys to manage such situations..competitive private industry,would do a much better job at spent nuclear fuel management,than an un-motivated,lackadaisial,socialist goverment.

Current technology,is capable of producing a safer,cleaner nuclear power plant..but such possibilities are always stymied by environuts.

Someday,hopefully,fusion nuclear power plants will be possible-instead of the current fission-based plants..even better yet,anti-matter plants would be possible..maybe even Tesla-based power sources..until then,we are basically stuck with what we currently have in terms of energy production.

Also,Ireland doesn't have enough space for solar power or wind power..I would be interested in your take on this subject.

Have a good one...Torog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holotrope

are you justifying the war on the basis of oil?

---

I'm not sure if this was directed at me or Torog??
Either way I will choose to give my take on the subject.
The war on terror is a smoke screen to deflect from the real goal the seziure of the oilfields of Iraq and Afghanistan , there never were weapons of mass distruction (distraction more like) , Saddam was never a threat, the bloody yanks put him and the Taliban into power in the first place.
The US thinks it can use bully boy tactics to dominate all other countries (Vietnam) or will use underhand tactics to undermine a "hostile" goverment and then place someone in power more sympathetic to the US , the real danger in this world comes not from the middle east or China but from the insanely aggressive nation known as the USA.
Another thing about war is what a boost for the economy , how many Americans have gone out and spent good money on "home protection" ?
Gun sales are up , bulletproof vests are selling like hot cakes and the arms manufacturers are all happy little bunnies.
As a final note if anyone is interested take a good look at this link.


http://nogw.com/illuminati.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Is Sellafield's spent fuel management,the result of poor British control ? There's little incentive,on the part of socialist lackeys to manage such situations..competitive private industry,would do a much better job at spent nuclear fuel management,than an un-motivated,lackadaisial,socialist goverment.
Have a good one...Torog

---

So privatised companys perform better than state funded??
Explain then why since privatisation all of the companys listed here have earned massive profits yet deliver a much worse service.

Electricity companys (formerly state owned0
water companies (formerly state owned)
Telephones (formerly state owned)

That added to the fact that other state owned companies and assets have been virtualy given away and where does the goverment make up this sudden drop in income??? That's right more bleedin taxes.

If you are a property magnate (local councils rent houses and use the income to finance other projects) what would be best
A Hold onto a lucrative piece of real estate and reap the benefits.
B Sell all your houses so you no longer have an income.

And people in the UK wonder why the taxes are so high , simple realy succesive goverments have sold off all your assets to the highest bidder , state owned means owned by the people, not in the hands of greedy shareholders whose only interest is more profits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

I'm not sure if this was directed at me or Torog??
Either way I will choose to give my take on the subject.
The war on terror is a smoke screen to deflect from the real goal the seziure of the oilfields of Iraq and Afghanistan , there never were weapons of mass distruction (distraction more like) , Saddam was never a threat, the bloody yanks put him and the Taliban into power in the first place.
The US thinks it can use bully boy tactics to dominate all other countries (Vietnam) or will use underhand tactics to undermine a "hostile" goverment and then place someone in power more sympathetic to the US , the real danger in this world comes not from the middle east or China but from the insanely aggressive nation known as the USA.
Another thing about war is what a boost for the economy , how many Americans have gone out and spent good money on "home protection" ?
Gun sales are up , bulletproof vests are selling like hot cakes and the arms manufacturers are all happy little bunnies.
As a final note if anyone is interested take a good look at this link.


http://nogw.com/illuminati.html

---

Howdy psychocat,

I see that you've chosen to stop thinking about the alternatives to US policy,and have chosen to spout the standard fare from those who are in favor of terrorist appeasment and terrorist States.instead.

Don't you realize,that the alternative to spreading democracy,is the spreading of brutal islamofascist and commie regimes ?

Do you really hate your freedom that much ?

Do you really believe that islamofascists and hard-line commies,will give up their cherished and stated goals,if we would just look the other way and/or appease them-in order to be safe from their brutal agenda's ?

Do you really believe,that bribing the fox-will save the chickens ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy psychocat,

I see that you've chosen to stop thinking about the alternatives to US policy,and have chosen to spout the standard fare from those who are in favor of terrorist appeasment and terrorist States.instead.

Don't you realize,that the alternative to spreading democracy,is the spreading of brutal islamofascist and commie regimes ?

Do you really hate your freedom that much ?

Do you really believe that islamofascists and hard-line commies,will give up their cherished and stated goals,if we would just look the other way and/or appease them-in order to be safe from their brutal agenda's ?

Do you really believe,that bribing the fox-will save the chickens ?

---

The US can't seem to get away from PARANOIA , they are constantly scared of commies, reds under the bed, the yellow peril, the Islamic states , the Vietnamese , each other and almost everything else.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so fucking scarily insane , democracy is a choice so ramming your ideals down someone elses throat is hardly democratic is it???

Howdy psychocat,

You state:" state owned means owned by the people, not in the hands of greedy shareholders whose only interest is more profits."

State-owned,means that there is no incentive to make a profit,nor invest in improvements except to reduce the cost to the State. As a share-holder in a private company,you at least have a voice in operations of that company.

As for the 'greedy'.they can be restrained and held accountable for their actions,through legislation of laws that prevent abuse at their hands. You have no recourse to sue a State-owned industry..thereby holding them accountable for their decisions.

Have a good one...Torog

And what about my statement on paranoia and democracy??

psychocat, it was directed at Torog, I agree with your points, and agree that Bush hid behind the evangelical crusade mentality as well as the Orwellian "foreign threat" mechanism in order to gain support for violent uncalled for attacks just to serve his own agenda- No different than the terrorists he's supposed to be fighting. Now torog, I understand the influence that oil has over the economy- indeed that's why Bush is refusing at this very moment to ease up the oil-price choke hold on the world by releasing some of the US strategic oil reserves. THIS kind of self-interest and selfishness can be understood- while I don't respect it- it is indeed America's right to use those reserves when they will benefit America the most. America, however, does NOT have the right to OCCUPY and INVADE a SOVREIGN nation just to protect their own economic interests. If the only immanent threat was economic, I think we've just highlighted the avarice-driven nature of your current administration, NOT justified a war. If you can with a clean conscience consider 100,000 Iraqi deaths a reasonable means to the end of keeping your economy that little bit stronger, then all your "principles" that your faith is supposedly teaching you are as corrupt as Bush's. Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

The US can't seem to get away from PARANOIA , they are constantly scared of commies, reds under the bed, the yellow peril, the Islamic states , the Vietnamese , each other and almost everything else.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so f*cking scarily insane , democracy is a choice so ramming your ideals down someone elses throat is hardly democratic is it???

---

I prefer free,democratic societies to dictatorships,democratic societies,have the best chance for preserving human rights-are you saying that only some people deserve to have freedom-and the rest-are simply doomed ?

Because of America..you ain't speakin german and marching in goose step-America ,helped to liberate over a billion people in the 20th century,we've got a good start in this century,by liberating over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Without the US,Europe would quickly fall to the commie chinese and Russians-so pick what you stand for..Freedom or brutal oppression..it's your choice.

Yeah sure , thats why the chicken shit yanks didn't come in till it was all over .
The mess made on Omaha beach is proof of the incompetence of yanks at war.
Not content with killing brits (friendly fire?? what's fuckin friendly about a bullet up the arse from some trigger happy John Wayne wannabe) they use napalm indiscriminately , bomb and terrorise civilians and generaly make a complete hash of everything.
Vietnam - complete cock up
Pinochet - American backed dictator
Saddam - Ditto
The taliban - Ditto

Not satisfied with being useless (who else celebrates their defeats (The Alamo? Pearl harbour?)) hollywood then tries to re-write history to make it look like the yanks were the only allied force and tries to steal the thunder of other nations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/773913.stm

lol celebrate defeats. you idiots.
the world could be fueled at the current level with other technologies, we're not that dumb. they dont involve power struggles though.

id like to drown you in a barrel of fucking oil torog.
yeah i know u'd blow my head off first.
whatever, you make me cranky. :mad:

thats basically asking if money worth fighting for

boiled in oil.
thats more like it.

let me get this straight, instead of putting 130 billion dollars into research for other means of energy lets use that money to go to war with other contries so we can get a good price on their oil while we refuse to pump most of our own. I however value human life way more than some fossil fuel so don't even think about asking me to fight for you, because I know I can live without oil. It wouldn't be easy, but if it were a choice of fighting for oil or simple living without oil I would choose living without oil. oh and if I was to die because some medical complication that couldn't be resolved because the hospital doesn't have electricity tuff luck thats life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imotep

lol celebrate defeats. you idiots.
the world could be fueled at the current level with other technologies, we're not that dumb. they dont involve power struggles though.

id like to drown you in a barrel of f*cking oil torog.
yeah i know u'd blow my head off first.
whatever, you make me cranky. :mad:

---

Howdy Imotep,

Actually,you gave me a good laugh..thanx..lol. I'd like to point out,that I probably wouldn't shoot ya-if ya tried to drown me in a barrel of oil..lol..I'd rather make it a fair fight instead..if you could beat me-I'd deserve a good dunking I reckon..lol.

I tell you what,I sure wish I wasn't old and crippled-cuz I'd sure love to go back to roughnecking,they're paying 16.00$ an hour,for floor-hands now !

Have a good one...Torog :D