Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

I remember a scene in "Fahrenheit 911", just after Michael Moore had pieced together an impressive montage showing the Bush family's mega-lucrative oil ties with the Saudi royals and the bin Ladens; a scene in which Bush, about to board a plane, stops to
bash John Kerry for "not having an energy policy". The scene is
intended to imply that Bush's so-called "energy policy" amounts to a gigantic conflict of interest and essentially an abuse of his Presidential powers to further the Bush dynasty's self-interests.
But MM's clever editing aside, how could this be the whole story?
How could one family possibly exhibit that stratospheric level of overt, naked greed? Profiteering may indeed figure into Bush's policy decisions, but to what extent, really?

There is a deeper underlying problem to be dealt with. The U.S. has carved out an unreasonable and unsustainable "standard of living"; one which has turned it into a hopeless oil junkie (5% of the world's population consuming 25% of the world's oil), with virtually no attempts being made at conservation or developing alternative energy sources.

As a result, there will be an ever increasing dependence on imported oil; especially oil coming from unstable and unfriendly suppliers in dangerous parts of the world. The U.S. military's primary role will become protecting the flow of oil-- the disruption
of which could ruin the U.S. oil-junkie economy. Not only this, but the U.S. will face increasing armed competition from China, Russia,
and Europe to "stabilize" and "control" access to energy in not only the Mideast, but in Latin America, Central Asia, and other troubled
places.

Apparently, Bush and the neocons believe that any attempts at conservation and pushing alt. energy sources would be futile or inadequate and thus not worth their time, and that the best solution is to "get a jump" on the inevitable future competition from other industrialized nations by moving aggressively now to "secure" these volatile energy-rich regions, keep the oil flowing, and thus prevent the potential total collapse of the U.S. economy .

Are they right?

Michael Klare has written a new book entitled "Blood and Oil: The
Dangers of America's Growing Oil Dependency". I haven't read it,
but it's recommendations are summarized thusly:

1. Divorce energy purchases from national security commitiments.
Stop tolerating dictators and arming terrorist nations/groups for the
sake of cheap oil.

2. Reduce our dependence on imported oil. Dramatically.

3. Prepare the way for a transition to a post-petroleum economy that includes conservation, hybrid vehicles, public transportation, etc.

One of Klare's main points is that if we don't heal ourselves from the inside out, that no amount of guns, blood, or destruction will save us from the inevitable implosion of the unstable places where
oil is to be found.

Is he right?

note: Michael Klare is director of the Five College Program in Peace
and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, as well as a defense analyst for "The Nation" and N.P.R.

mnaz,

this is a most accurate analysis of the situation

The Saudi/Bush connection is indirect. But the American/multinational oil companies are deep in bed with the Sauds, and the Bush bunch are hooked up to that through Carlyle and Halliburton.

I'm wondering if Bush is re-elected, will we invade Venezuela or Iran or Sudan next? Junkies always seek a secure connection.

What ... you mean, like ... work at it? Spend our money to create alternative energy sources instead of letting some petty dictators do it for us? What a silly idea!

And don't we already have the way cleared for new pipelines through the Middle East so that we can access a great new source of Russian oil?

I think your reference Klare is probably right. We are dooming ourselves with our foolish foreign policy and our lack of interest in developing new sources of energy here at home.

As for your generic question: The only point I've ever been able to get from any neocons I know is that we ought to trust our dear and worthy leaders, no matter what they do, 'cause THEY know the way! Please ... I'm already starting to breathe hard thinking of my next family confrontation with the Fiery Neocon in my family.

let me get this clear, cat

it that Fiery or Fairy?

Is this really LRod? Please confirm ... doesn't sound like you ...

At any rate, there are few Neocons who appreciate the "Fairy" epithet and the "Fiery" person I was referring to is definitely "fiery" not "fairy". It was an allusion to a Litkicks persona I am sure you're familiar with ...

Ahh but how do we know that the next source of energy won't end up being greedly consumed by this country just like the last one. We should respect what Mother Nature gives us for if we don't we will have only ourselves when it is all gone.
_________________
Whole life insurance Forum

Thanks for your replies, everyone.

The U.S.-Saudi alliance goes back at least to the days of Franklin
Roosevelt, who pledged rather unconditional US support for the Saudi royals in exchange for unfettered access to 'affordable' oil.
Every American President since has played along with this.

As we know, however, the Saudi regime has never been big on human rights.... no dissent allowed, lack of basic rights for women,
etc. Yet another example of how the US is hypocritical in its selective denouncement of human rights violations as inversely proportional to its self-interest in the various nations perpetrating
these violations. This will always significantly damage the US case for "winning hearts and minds". It ain't gonna happen.

L.R: Most likely, secretive deals will be made with the sketchy regimes of some of these other non-Mideast oil supplying regions,
and American military actions will mostly consist of lower profile special forces deployments to guard oil fields and source-to-port pipelines, at least to start with. The overt aggression of the Iraq invasion might end up being a one-shot deal. It came with a built-in excuse in the hated and feared Saddam, but too much has already gone wrong, and there is no end in sight.... the political currency of broader, agressive neocon designs is being spent rapidly, or at least I hope so. But then again, that "fear card" is amazing! Perhaps it could be played again (and again and again).

Cat: I admit that I should do more research on the Central Asian oil situation, but I heard Mr. Klare (in an NPR interview) describe Russia (along with China and Europe) as more of a competitor
with the US for oil than as a supplier. I suppose he meant in the
not-too-distant future and perhaps not at this particular moment in time. He also tied this to the ongoing conflict in Chechnya, in which Russia refuses to let go for the strategic reason of access to the Caspian oil reserves.

Dave: Yes. As I mentioned, good old-fashioned conservation.....yes.... **gasp**..... conservation..... should definitely be part of any reasonable energy plan from now on.
This is where I think Carter was ahead of his time.... his Admin.
at least tried to promote conservation. And, as I recall, he took a ration of shit for it. Well guess what, you V10 Dodge- drivin'
mo fo's.... you're gonna have to change your evil ways....
Ha!..........Just kidding! (sort of).

Sorry, Mnaz, I am not so sure I made myself too clear. For that matter, I need to do an awful lot of my own political reading. I was referring to setting up a pipeline so that when Russia is ready to excavate the Caspian oil reserves, our country can be one of their customers. No doubt, Russia is currently a competitor for Middle East oil, at present, as they are not economically or politically ready to take advantage of their oil opportunities. Does that make more sense?

If I've got something wrong here, please let me know. Like I said, I'm not too up on this subject either.

mnaz I drive a Toyota.
_________________
Mercedes R231