06-15-2003, 04:19 AM
I'm quite sick of debating this, but I feel compelled to point out one thing that seems incredibly apparent to me.
The war in Iraq was not about oil, and to say it was seems rather naive to me. It makes no sense as the economy (AKA "oil economy) from the perspective of America would not be (and hasn't been) affected in any positive way. The fact that mere days after the start of the war, the prices of nearly all petroleum products (most notably gasoline) has rizen considerably more than "normal" fluctuation. (+- $1.20 to $1.65 or more in my area) I realize that an increase in cost doesn't always mean a negative change. (For example recovery from a depression almost always requires inflation.) However, because of the percentage of oil imported is so much greater that that produced domestically, there is no way that such a change in prices could reflect a positive change for the US.
The war in Iraq was not about oil, and to say it was seems rather naive to me. It makes no sense as the economy (AKA "oil economy) from the perspective of America would not be (and hasn't been) affected in any positive way. The fact that mere days after the start of the war, the prices of nearly all petroleum products (most notably gasoline) has rizen considerably more than "normal" fluctuation. (+- $1.20 to $1.65 or more in my area) I realize that an increase in cost doesn't always mean a negative change. (For example recovery from a depression almost always requires inflation.) However, because of the percentage of oil imported is so much greater that that produced domestically, there is no way that such a change in prices could reflect a positive change for the US.
"Once you have tasted flight,
you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there
you have been, and there you will
always long to return."
-Leonardo da Vinci
you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there
you have been, and there you will
always long to return."
-Leonardo da Vinci