"Peak Oil" refers to the fact that worldwide, per capita petroleum production peaked in 1979. Owing to population growth, even though we continue to pump more actual barrels of oil per day, the amount of oil pumped per person continues to drop.
It should be easy for Americans, who are all too familiar with skyrocketing gasoline prices to comprehend that a potential catastrophe looms on the horizon. It should be, but energy companies, auto manufacturers, and politicians are major players in a game of disinformation and distraction that has half of us convinced that global warming is scientifically questionable. And why shouldn't they be? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose in the short run by maintaining the status quo.
In the late 1990s, one of GM's annual reports focused on that company's efforts to open the Chinese market to American-made cars. The report bragged that GM intended to bring personal transportation to 1 billion Chinese. Investors had to love the idea of practically limitless profits. The oil companies had to be thrilled as well, because all those cars meant lots of gasoline consumption, and of course, profits.
The fact that the atmosphere didn't really need the waste products spewed out of a quarter-billion more cars was not discussed, nor any of the other environmental impacts of the business plan. All eyes were on profits.
At home, big oil cheered as auto makers, with help of weakened environmental standards, produced and marketed gas-guzzlers like turbo-charged pickups, SUVs, and Humvees, which Americans bought in droves. After the bombing of the World Trade Centers, Americans were barraged with advertisements for vehicles with low- and zero-interest loans. These promotions were almost exclusively for high-consumption vehicles.
Not that there were no efficient vehicles being produced. Toyota introduced both the Echo, a four-cylinder wonder that got 40 mph and the Prius, a gas-electric hybrid during this time, but the vehicles went nearly un-promoted.
Soon after WTC, Americans marched off to war in countries where petroleum production was the major business, coincidentally destabilizing governments and the oil markets, and causing gasoline prices to first double, and at times, triple. Transportation is not the only petroleum-dependent industry in the U.S., and the prices of agricultural products are beginning to rise with production costs, and as the demand for agriculturally produced fuels places upward pressures on the price of corn.
Meanwhile, the auto companies are well on their way to creating a Chinese version of the American dream, with a car in every driveway. Forethought is limited to getting the vehicles sold. The Chinese are faced with a rapidly growing demand for gasoline that has already outstripped domestic production.
At present, the U.S. military is present in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the current administration is eyeing Iran. Meanwhile, Chinese companies are scampering about Africa attempting to stake their claims to that region's black gold.
Enter Darfur. While the U.S. was patting itself on the back about its war on terror, the black population of Darfur was being decimated. Officially, it is not about the oil, but a powerful case can be made that the officials are lying.
Meanwhile, we burn as much gasoline as we can comfortably afford. Hybrid cars are expensive and still consume gasoline, and Iraq is beginning to look like a bed of quicksand. The Chinese want oil, and lots of it, and even if the average American citizen is unwilling to enter a world war over control of petroleum reserves, big oil companies and their homeboys in Washington D.C. are willing. The U.S. is in the process of establishing an African base of operations, which would make them ready. Being able to succeed is not part of the equation.
There is only so much oil on this planet, and the big kids have no intention of sharing. It may be a while before the popular peak-oil disaster scenarios come to pass, but the hand is writing on the wall. We need only to read what is written there.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Why Illegal Immigrants Come
A great article about the United States' lack of accommodation for new parents and my recent trip to Mexico have given me an insight about why illegal immigrants come here. It just suddenly added up, like a column of numbers. The clouds opened up, and the curtain parted, and I finally understood why all those people come here.
But first, a disclaimer. I know that not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico, or even Hispanic. Many of them are, and so most of what I have to say has to do with them.
Illegal immigrants don't come here because they are fleeing a terrible situation in their homeland, most of the time. It isn't because they can't make a living at home. It isn't even because they are desperately poor, although that is what we hear.
They've been brainwashed. Let me explain.
If you earn $10 a day, you're poor. If I tell you that you can come to America and get a job making $10 an hour, you'll want to sign up. Now back to being "poor". If you earn $10 a day, and your rent is $10 a week, then 20% of your income goes to pay for housing, assuming a 5-day work week. But in the US, with your $10-an-hour job, you can live in an apartment that costs $600 a month, or $150 a week. You make $400 a week, so you spend 37.5% of your income on housing. Almost every category across the board will be the same. Low wages, low prices. When the prices outstrip the ability of people to purchase, the market dries up. Now think about it: Who is poorer, the person who has to spend 20% of his or her income on housing or the one who spends over 37%?
But in America, it's different. First of all, we have credit. Can't afford it? Someone will lend you the money, for a price. The poorer you are, the higher the price will be, but they'll stretch it out so it looks doable on the day you sign your life away.
I don't think the coyotes bringing people here tell them about the prices, only the money they'll earn.
When these people come here, they have no idea that bread could cost $3 a loaf. It costs 25 pesos in Mexico. They have absolutely no idea that they are about to get into a situation that is way beyond their control. Ever wonder why you find illegal aliens living 10 to an apartment? You can stop now. It's the only way they can make ends meet.
Every day while they live here, they are barraged with advertisements, some in Spanish, that tell them that the good life is just one purchase away, just the same as the rest of us. We all hear over and over how we are the land of opportunity, and most of us buy the propaganda as fast as the advertisers can spin it out.
In Mexico, things are different. Women take their children with them to work. Not all of them, but many. Everyone does something, and some people do several things. If you want to work in Mexico, all you have to do is look for a need and fill it. Sell fruit in the market, do laundry, iron for people, clean houses, wash windows. Mexicans are no strangers to work. Children work, old people work, cripples work. And in return, they all have a measure of dignity. A Mexican hotel keeper will sweep the street in front of the property to be sure that it looks clean and cared-for.
For most of them the work pays off. They have what they need, and maybe some of what they want. And, occasionally, like the rest of us, they do without some things. But corporate America is encroaching, and they are being informed of all the things they are missing, like iPods and video games (which are astronomically expensive there), and they are buying into the tricksters' three-card monty game by the legion.
They think if they can only get that big payday, everything will be better. Can you really say you think any differently? So they come. They put up with our abuse, give up their dignity, allow us to revile their culture, all in the hope that they, too, will strike it rich, just like everyone says they will.
It didn't happen for you. It won't happen for them. But they know in their hearts that if they just try hard enough, it will get better. Only it never does.
Remember when you were 18, and you wanted to do something stupid that no one could talk you out of? Remember finding out that everyone else was right? It's like that for them. Some of us never find out, or refuse to see. And as long as corporate America keeps assuring them that the grass is greener on this side of the fence, they'll keep on coming.
Pax.
But first, a disclaimer. I know that not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico, or even Hispanic. Many of them are, and so most of what I have to say has to do with them.
Illegal immigrants don't come here because they are fleeing a terrible situation in their homeland, most of the time. It isn't because they can't make a living at home. It isn't even because they are desperately poor, although that is what we hear.
They've been brainwashed. Let me explain.
If you earn $10 a day, you're poor. If I tell you that you can come to America and get a job making $10 an hour, you'll want to sign up. Now back to being "poor". If you earn $10 a day, and your rent is $10 a week, then 20% of your income goes to pay for housing, assuming a 5-day work week. But in the US, with your $10-an-hour job, you can live in an apartment that costs $600 a month, or $150 a week. You make $400 a week, so you spend 37.5% of your income on housing. Almost every category across the board will be the same. Low wages, low prices. When the prices outstrip the ability of people to purchase, the market dries up. Now think about it: Who is poorer, the person who has to spend 20% of his or her income on housing or the one who spends over 37%?
But in America, it's different. First of all, we have credit. Can't afford it? Someone will lend you the money, for a price. The poorer you are, the higher the price will be, but they'll stretch it out so it looks doable on the day you sign your life away.
I don't think the coyotes bringing people here tell them about the prices, only the money they'll earn.
When these people come here, they have no idea that bread could cost $3 a loaf. It costs 25 pesos in Mexico. They have absolutely no idea that they are about to get into a situation that is way beyond their control. Ever wonder why you find illegal aliens living 10 to an apartment? You can stop now. It's the only way they can make ends meet.
Every day while they live here, they are barraged with advertisements, some in Spanish, that tell them that the good life is just one purchase away, just the same as the rest of us. We all hear over and over how we are the land of opportunity, and most of us buy the propaganda as fast as the advertisers can spin it out.
In Mexico, things are different. Women take their children with them to work. Not all of them, but many. Everyone does something, and some people do several things. If you want to work in Mexico, all you have to do is look for a need and fill it. Sell fruit in the market, do laundry, iron for people, clean houses, wash windows. Mexicans are no strangers to work. Children work, old people work, cripples work. And in return, they all have a measure of dignity. A Mexican hotel keeper will sweep the street in front of the property to be sure that it looks clean and cared-for.
For most of them the work pays off. They have what they need, and maybe some of what they want. And, occasionally, like the rest of us, they do without some things. But corporate America is encroaching, and they are being informed of all the things they are missing, like iPods and video games (which are astronomically expensive there), and they are buying into the tricksters' three-card monty game by the legion.
They think if they can only get that big payday, everything will be better. Can you really say you think any differently? So they come. They put up with our abuse, give up their dignity, allow us to revile their culture, all in the hope that they, too, will strike it rich, just like everyone says they will.
It didn't happen for you. It won't happen for them. But they know in their hearts that if they just try hard enough, it will get better. Only it never does.
Remember when you were 18, and you wanted to do something stupid that no one could talk you out of? Remember finding out that everyone else was right? It's like that for them. Some of us never find out, or refuse to see. And as long as corporate America keeps assuring them that the grass is greener on this side of the fence, they'll keep on coming.
Pax.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Israeli Irony: Darfur
Israel says it will no longer accept refugees from the Sudan who sneak across the border into that country from Egypt. The refugees will be returned to Egypt. The Israelis claim that country has agreed not to deport them, but Egypt says it will deport the refugees to the Sudan. The refugees in question are fleeing Darfur, and deporting them to the Sudan is a death sentence.
An Israeli spokesman called them economic refugees, who are not fleeing genocide, but rather the bad conditions of Egyptian refugee camps. The number of Darfur refugees entering Israel during the last year numbers less than three thousand, and public officials are concerned that the influx of destitute foreigners will strain the economy. They ought to be worried about being struck dead on their way to the temple.
Israel, which did not exist before 1949, was created to give the Jews who escaped the Holocaust a homeland. In creating the homeland, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced. Nearly 60 years later, many still live in refugee camps because their lands were given to Irael. If any country on earth should be willing to offer succor to the Darfur refugees, it should be Israel.
Israeli law confounds the issue further by refusing to grant asylum to persons fleeing "enemy states," of which Israel has no shortage. Sudan is one of them. Ironically, Israel is denying protection to people who are being persecuted because they are not Muslims, but such irony is lost on Israeli officials. In fact, one of their spokesmen asserted that Israel ought not be expected to right the wrongs of the entire world simply because it was founded by Jews trying to escape persecution. He did not use the word "genocide," which is what the Holocaust was and what Darfur is.
Not everyone in Israel agrees with the government position, but one wonders if the dissenters are likely to prevail upon the government to do the decent thing. Perhaps it is time for the U.N. to consider sanctions against any country that refuses asylum to refugees fleeing genocide. Whatever happens, expect Washington to kowtow to Tel Aviv, which, as the capital of the 51st state of the union, spends a great deal of money to ensure our acquiescence to whatever it does.
An Israeli spokesman called them economic refugees, who are not fleeing genocide, but rather the bad conditions of Egyptian refugee camps. The number of Darfur refugees entering Israel during the last year numbers less than three thousand, and public officials are concerned that the influx of destitute foreigners will strain the economy. They ought to be worried about being struck dead on their way to the temple.
Israel, which did not exist before 1949, was created to give the Jews who escaped the Holocaust a homeland. In creating the homeland, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced. Nearly 60 years later, many still live in refugee camps because their lands were given to Irael. If any country on earth should be willing to offer succor to the Darfur refugees, it should be Israel.
Israeli law confounds the issue further by refusing to grant asylum to persons fleeing "enemy states," of which Israel has no shortage. Sudan is one of them. Ironically, Israel is denying protection to people who are being persecuted because they are not Muslims, but such irony is lost on Israeli officials. In fact, one of their spokesmen asserted that Israel ought not be expected to right the wrongs of the entire world simply because it was founded by Jews trying to escape persecution. He did not use the word "genocide," which is what the Holocaust was and what Darfur is.
Not everyone in Israel agrees with the government position, but one wonders if the dissenters are likely to prevail upon the government to do the decent thing. Perhaps it is time for the U.N. to consider sanctions against any country that refuses asylum to refugees fleeing genocide. Whatever happens, expect Washington to kowtow to Tel Aviv, which, as the capital of the 51st state of the union, spends a great deal of money to ensure our acquiescence to whatever it does.
Friday, August 10, 2007
An Eerie Parallel. . .
Back in 1938, the German people were sick and tired of being sick and tired. They had had their traditional monarchical government forcibly removed and replaced with what appeared to them to be an impractical, inefficient, and cumbersome joke: the Weimar Republic. They had endured the Great Depression and economically stifling war reparations payments. They had also listened for years to the rhetoric of politicians who pledged to end the republic and bring back the glory days of Germany.
Soon, an Austrian with some rather extreme ideas would take hold of the German chancellorship and turn the built-up rage of the German people to accomplish the unimaginable. The truth is that it could have been anyone with a gift for public speaking. The rage of the Germans could have been turned to almost anything, but it wasn't. The situation and the time combined to make it possible to victmize an entire people, while the world looked on.
The United States has endured a great deal over the last 40 years. We were tired of Viet Nam and of being held up at the gas pump, having our consulate occupied in Iran, and generally not having the respect of the rest of the world back in 1984 when we elected Ronald Reagan president. We had become sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Reagan, who also had a gift for public speaking, had some rather extreme ideas about how to run the government, which included running it out of town, shutting it down, and basically abolishing the parts of it that were not of personal benefit to himself and his friends, the idle rich class. Reagan went to work on undoing every bit of domestic policy of the previous 25 years that benefitted ordinary people. His tactics were more or less transparent: appointing people whose interests were inimical to the departments they were to lead, cutting funding for schools and nutrition programs and the infamous "trickle-down" economic theory, which posited that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit the poor by stimulating business and creating jobs.
Reagan had a cadre of followers who believed fervently that he had the right idea, much in the same way that Adolf Hitler's followers did, but after Reagan was no longer in public life, his followers continued to put his ideas into practice. Former House Speaker Tom DeLay has said publicly many times that it was his plan to abolish government. It sounds extreme, but taken together,the actions of the conservatives in power are clearly aimed at exactly that.
Hitler needed help to get and stay in power, so his cronies organized a crew of ruffians, the S.A., or brownshirts, whose mission it was to disrupt the other parties' meetings. The brownshirts were murderous and ruthless. Hitler was often heard to say that "terror is salutary." Arguably, our government agrees with him.
Once Hitler came to power, he set about doing everything he had always said he would do, and to do so within the law. The promises he made included abolishing the republic and returning Germany to its former glory. They also included ridding Germany of its scapegoat group, the Jews.
So far, the United States has followed the pattern of pre-World-War II Germany with minor variations. We have found our situation intolerable and followed leaders who promised to abolish the alleged sources of our discomfort and return us to glory. We have experienced the "threat of terrorism" and have been induced to support an open-ended war against an ambiguous enemy, which is beginning to look like an expeditionary conquest.
Like the Germans, we have been given "reasonable" grounds for our foreign policy and bombarded with propaganda (now called spin) that aims to garner support for government policy. Like the Germans, our civil liberties have been curtailed. Now, also like the Germans, we have been given a scapegoat group, the illegal immigrants, on whom to focus our collective rage.
The question remains of whether or not we are willing to continue to follow the path the Germans took in the first half of the Twentieth Century to full-blown genocide. We lack only the right leader.
Soon, an Austrian with some rather extreme ideas would take hold of the German chancellorship and turn the built-up rage of the German people to accomplish the unimaginable. The truth is that it could have been anyone with a gift for public speaking. The rage of the Germans could have been turned to almost anything, but it wasn't. The situation and the time combined to make it possible to victmize an entire people, while the world looked on.
The United States has endured a great deal over the last 40 years. We were tired of Viet Nam and of being held up at the gas pump, having our consulate occupied in Iran, and generally not having the respect of the rest of the world back in 1984 when we elected Ronald Reagan president. We had become sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Reagan, who also had a gift for public speaking, had some rather extreme ideas about how to run the government, which included running it out of town, shutting it down, and basically abolishing the parts of it that were not of personal benefit to himself and his friends, the idle rich class. Reagan went to work on undoing every bit of domestic policy of the previous 25 years that benefitted ordinary people. His tactics were more or less transparent: appointing people whose interests were inimical to the departments they were to lead, cutting funding for schools and nutrition programs and the infamous "trickle-down" economic theory, which posited that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit the poor by stimulating business and creating jobs.
Reagan had a cadre of followers who believed fervently that he had the right idea, much in the same way that Adolf Hitler's followers did, but after Reagan was no longer in public life, his followers continued to put his ideas into practice. Former House Speaker Tom DeLay has said publicly many times that it was his plan to abolish government. It sounds extreme, but taken together,the actions of the conservatives in power are clearly aimed at exactly that.
Hitler needed help to get and stay in power, so his cronies organized a crew of ruffians, the S.A., or brownshirts, whose mission it was to disrupt the other parties' meetings. The brownshirts were murderous and ruthless. Hitler was often heard to say that "terror is salutary." Arguably, our government agrees with him.
Once Hitler came to power, he set about doing everything he had always said he would do, and to do so within the law. The promises he made included abolishing the republic and returning Germany to its former glory. They also included ridding Germany of its scapegoat group, the Jews.
So far, the United States has followed the pattern of pre-World-War II Germany with minor variations. We have found our situation intolerable and followed leaders who promised to abolish the alleged sources of our discomfort and return us to glory. We have experienced the "threat of terrorism" and have been induced to support an open-ended war against an ambiguous enemy, which is beginning to look like an expeditionary conquest.
Like the Germans, we have been given "reasonable" grounds for our foreign policy and bombarded with propaganda (now called spin) that aims to garner support for government policy. Like the Germans, our civil liberties have been curtailed. Now, also like the Germans, we have been given a scapegoat group, the illegal immigrants, on whom to focus our collective rage.
The question remains of whether or not we are willing to continue to follow the path the Germans took in the first half of the Twentieth Century to full-blown genocide. We lack only the right leader.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
It's About the Coffins
I am sick and tired of hearing about illegal immigrants. Not that there is no problem; there are millions of people in this country who don't belong here. Unfortunately, someone has spread the vicious rumor that most of them are of Hispanic extraction. The real problem is not illegal immigrants; it's dead Americans.
The conservatives in charge of the government are drumming up a groundswell of support for immigration reform so that they can continue sending your sons and daughters to Iraq and Afghanistan. There, they are converted into dead sons and daughters and sent back in coffins.
The people in charge are not particularly malicious. They probably don't laugh with glee over the latest body count. On the other hand, war is very good for business, and if they can keep the political debate focused on something other than war and its human cost, U.S. soldiers will continue to deploy and to come home in boxes. Consequently, everyone has the words "illegal immigration" ringing in their ears, in the same way as the words "9-11" and "Saddam" rang in our ears while the U.S. government ramped up for its invasion of Iraq.
So while everyone is worried about the United States becoming a third world country, and about all the people who won't even bother to learn English, the flag-draped coffins are off-loaded each week at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and we don't even get to find out how many of our children we're losing each day. All this so that a few people who are already wildly rich can make a few more dollars.
The Mexican and Salvadoran and Irish and Chinese illegal immigrants are not our problem. The warmongers in Washington and their cowardly colleagues who will not stand up and turn the national debate to what really matters are our problem. Dead American soldiers are our problem.
Christ said, "The poor you will always have with you." As long as people perceive that life is better here than it is where they are, they will continue to come, legally or otherwise.
None of the promoters of the war in Iraq risks anything. They are betting our children's lives. They tell us it is the price of freedom, but it is really the price of greed. Don't let them fool you. It's about the coffins. It's about your children dying before their time. It's about oil and greed, and it has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Every time you hear "illegal immigrants" remember that they don't want you to think about the coffins.
Because friends, it is all about those coffins.
The conservatives in charge of the government are drumming up a groundswell of support for immigration reform so that they can continue sending your sons and daughters to Iraq and Afghanistan. There, they are converted into dead sons and daughters and sent back in coffins.
The people in charge are not particularly malicious. They probably don't laugh with glee over the latest body count. On the other hand, war is very good for business, and if they can keep the political debate focused on something other than war and its human cost, U.S. soldiers will continue to deploy and to come home in boxes. Consequently, everyone has the words "illegal immigration" ringing in their ears, in the same way as the words "9-11" and "Saddam" rang in our ears while the U.S. government ramped up for its invasion of Iraq.
So while everyone is worried about the United States becoming a third world country, and about all the people who won't even bother to learn English, the flag-draped coffins are off-loaded each week at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and we don't even get to find out how many of our children we're losing each day. All this so that a few people who are already wildly rich can make a few more dollars.
The Mexican and Salvadoran and Irish and Chinese illegal immigrants are not our problem. The warmongers in Washington and their cowardly colleagues who will not stand up and turn the national debate to what really matters are our problem. Dead American soldiers are our problem.
Christ said, "The poor you will always have with you." As long as people perceive that life is better here than it is where they are, they will continue to come, legally or otherwise.
None of the promoters of the war in Iraq risks anything. They are betting our children's lives. They tell us it is the price of freedom, but it is really the price of greed. Don't let them fool you. It's about the coffins. It's about your children dying before their time. It's about oil and greed, and it has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Every time you hear "illegal immigrants" remember that they don't want you to think about the coffins.
Because friends, it is all about those coffins.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
An Alternate Path for Iraq
Two recent editorials in the Washington Post explored alternative roles for the United States in Iraq. Both Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Julia Taft made important points in their desire for a change in U.S. policy.
Lugar rightly claims that forging a united Iraq will be difficult, if not impossible, because deeply rooted divisions exist between the various factions there. Lugar fails to take into account that these divisions are much older than Iraq, and that allowing Iraq to become several separate states could be the answer to our prayers.
Americans come from a largely homogeneous society. Unified by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition and language, they find it difficult to comprehend that Iraq has only existed in its present form since the end of World War I. Comprised of three distinct cultural groups, Iraq could comfortably partition itself into Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish states. Ms. Taft would rightly point out that this would create legions of refugees. Lugar would worry that oil might stop flowing, and that U.S. and Israeli security interests might not be served.
When making policy vis-à-vis foreign states, the United States must remember that its own needs and desires are not paramount. The citizens of a country have the right to choose their form of government and the kind of society they wish to live in. In supporting other countries' attempts to accomplish their goals, we build good will. Business owners place a monetary value on good will, and the United States would be wise to heed their example.
It stands to reason that three smaller Iraqi states would be less of a security threat than a single, unified Iraq. Political factions unable to form a unified front to supply electricity to their own people are unlikely to unite in agression against their neighbors. Furthermore, the Israelis are armed to the teeth and well able to defend themselves.
Fears about disruption of the oil supply are unfounded. As long as there is money to buy oil, oil will flow. OPEC was founded on this principle, and will make sure that oil supplies are stable.
Finally, the United States owes reparations to the people of Iraq for destabilizing their country, and supplying security protection for refugee populations moving from one area to another is an appropriate way to make such reparations.
Lugar rightly claims that forging a united Iraq will be difficult, if not impossible, because deeply rooted divisions exist between the various factions there. Lugar fails to take into account that these divisions are much older than Iraq, and that allowing Iraq to become several separate states could be the answer to our prayers.
Americans come from a largely homogeneous society. Unified by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition and language, they find it difficult to comprehend that Iraq has only existed in its present form since the end of World War I. Comprised of three distinct cultural groups, Iraq could comfortably partition itself into Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish states. Ms. Taft would rightly point out that this would create legions of refugees. Lugar would worry that oil might stop flowing, and that U.S. and Israeli security interests might not be served.
When making policy vis-à-vis foreign states, the United States must remember that its own needs and desires are not paramount. The citizens of a country have the right to choose their form of government and the kind of society they wish to live in. In supporting other countries' attempts to accomplish their goals, we build good will. Business owners place a monetary value on good will, and the United States would be wise to heed their example.
It stands to reason that three smaller Iraqi states would be less of a security threat than a single, unified Iraq. Political factions unable to form a unified front to supply electricity to their own people are unlikely to unite in agression against their neighbors. Furthermore, the Israelis are armed to the teeth and well able to defend themselves.
Fears about disruption of the oil supply are unfounded. As long as there is money to buy oil, oil will flow. OPEC was founded on this principle, and will make sure that oil supplies are stable.
Finally, the United States owes reparations to the people of Iraq for destabilizing their country, and supplying security protection for refugee populations moving from one area to another is an appropriate way to make such reparations.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Joe Lieberman's Criminal Irresponsibility
An article in the Jerusalem Post states that U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) is calling for the United States to attack Iran immediately. According to the Post, in an interview with CBS, Lieberman said that "Military action will accomplish two goals: The destruction of Iran's nuclear plans and an end to terror attacks against US soldiers in Iraq."
The honorable gentleman from Connecticut proves that anyone can turn a blind eye on anything, given sufficient motivation. At a time when public opinion here and abroad is overwhelmingly against the war, Lieberman is arguing for expanding that war. He overlooks the simplest of facts: If there were no U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Iranians would have no U.S. soldiers to kill.
Lieberman believes that expanding the war in the Middle East will keep the conflict off U.S. soil. There is no evidence that this is true; furthermore, antagonizing Arab countries is what got us into the quagmire of Iraq in the first place. Invading another sovereign country will not suddenly make them decide that they would rather be our friends than our enemies.
As long as we send U.S. soldiers to the Middle East, the people who don't want us there will continue to send them back to us in boxes. Lieberman's urgings for expansion of an unpopular war, even when supported by his "facts" about Iran, verge on criminally irresponsible.
Might does not make right. From the point of view of the Iraqis, the people engaging our soldiers are attempting to repel the invasion of a foreign agressor. The U.S. needs to pack up its marbles and come home.
The honorable gentleman from Connecticut proves that anyone can turn a blind eye on anything, given sufficient motivation. At a time when public opinion here and abroad is overwhelmingly against the war, Lieberman is arguing for expanding that war. He overlooks the simplest of facts: If there were no U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Iranians would have no U.S. soldiers to kill.
Lieberman believes that expanding the war in the Middle East will keep the conflict off U.S. soil. There is no evidence that this is true; furthermore, antagonizing Arab countries is what got us into the quagmire of Iraq in the first place. Invading another sovereign country will not suddenly make them decide that they would rather be our friends than our enemies.
As long as we send U.S. soldiers to the Middle East, the people who don't want us there will continue to send them back to us in boxes. Lieberman's urgings for expansion of an unpopular war, even when supported by his "facts" about Iran, verge on criminally irresponsible.
Might does not make right. From the point of view of the Iraqis, the people engaging our soldiers are attempting to repel the invasion of a foreign agressor. The U.S. needs to pack up its marbles and come home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Ann Weaver Hart
- I love my country, that is why I criticize its absurdities; I love my freedom, that is why I do it publicly.
