Murphy's Golden Rule: "He who owns the gold makes the rules."
In this case, it's the nation that controls the oil rules the world.
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a small (90 pages-- small for the government) document that outlines why America needs
to establish a strong military presence in the Middle East in order to control the flow of oil.
That's a noble goal for a nation that was built on the idea of "Manifest Destiny," that we should take what we want when
we want because we want it. (Sorry. I meant to say, built on the ideal of Freedom for All.")
Think about this: We are the only nation that has established a military presence on every inhabited continent.
All six of the inhabited continents. Why might we do this? To keep our borders safe. Because you never know
when those rabid Swiss will invade Germany and threaten to take over Kansas from their headquarters in Bonn. That is
why we need to have entire cities of troops in forgein nations. To keep them free from invaders.
(Chances are that didn't trigger the big red flag and "Waitaminnit" response that it should have. Chances are you
said, "That makes sense." That is a problem.) We have invaded sovreign nations and established a military and
cultural presence. The fact that "we're America dammit" should keep us from doing such things. We have a standing
military large enough to take over Europe and most of Asia. In one shot.
"Our military budget, by the way, is bigger than that of 'the next eight spenders combined, and 22 times the combined
military budgets of our fiercest enemies -- Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq and Sudan,' according to an article by Frida Berrigan,
a research associate at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Policy Center, posted on commondreams.org." *
The next question is why we need the control of the oil. It would give us economic superiority (excuse me while
I laugh my ass off at the irony of that statement). Control of the oil would keep the prices low for the oil companies,
whose interests the government serves.
SIDE RANT: This country was founded on the ideal that the government would serve the People, its citizens.
Who does this nation serve now? The big corporations, the ones that are laying off workers in droves. The ones
that have bilked American workers out of billions of dollars in retirement funds. The ones that paid to get the people
who are in office into office. Half of Washington has ties to Enron or one of the other corporations that recently died,
taking with them the hopes and dreams of the workforce. There is no money in serving the interests of the people.
There is no power in freedom. This nation is now by, with, and for the Dollar. (Everything, from local policy
to international affairs is decided by the amount of money to be had. It's not about "national security." It's
about corporate greed and political clout.)
Hokay... Where was I...
Ah, yes. Why it would be bad to control the oil.
One, it only serves the interests of the oil companies. (Bush? Wanting to keep oil companies happy over the
interests of the people? Why, he'd never do that. It would be a conflict of interests, since he's heavily invested
Jesus, can't we freakin' get a common citizen in office, someone who doesn't have a portfolio that rivals the amount
of the National Debt?
Two, the rest of the world would be pissed off. It has been a long-standing tradition that no one nation should
control the flow of oil. It's like the unspoken pact between predators and prey. That water hole is safe, there
is no fear of being eaten when getting a drink. We take control of the oil, the rest of the world will be invading us.
Yes, they would. Don't get smug in your assumption that America is the biggest, baddest kid on the block.
America is just a bully, and can be brought down by all the little nerds.
But that may be what the Novus Ordo Secularum wants. Remember that we have troops stationed on every inhabited
continent? That we have the largest military and the most advanced (second, maybe to Israel)? That would give
us the excuse needed to just take the nations of the world by force. (We refused to be held responsible under the UN's
international crimes laws...)
We helped many of the countries that we've peacefully invaded build their economies. Does that give us the right
to keep a military presence there (the excuse is "to protect our interests")? Your neighbor helps you re-roof your garage.
Does that give him (or her) the right to park a couple of cars in it?
The one thing that frustrates me is that Americans are arrogant enough and egocentric enough to believe their own bullshit,
that just because we spent more money on military than most nations spend for food and education that we have the right to
tell them what to do. Might doesn't make right.
Might makes a police state, might makes hamburger out of perfectly good human beings.
We do not have the right to have any military presence in another nation. We do not have the right to dictate
foreign policy to another nation.
England tried that. And failed (except in the instances of their unlawful occupation and cultural genocide of
Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, Scotland, and Ireland). The Roman Empire tried that. And failed. The Soviet
Union tried that. And failed.
What makes us any better? Bigger guns? We sure as hell aren't the superior culture. Or freedom-loving
It's time for a revol.