Posted on 07/04/2008 9:23:56 PM PDT by ChessExpert
America has become an empire. Everyone says so.
This is a surprise to most Americans, since few imagined that they were building such a thing. But, as historians such as Walter Nugent and Robert Kagan have recently taught us, Americans have been at this imperialist expansionism for quite some time — really since the beginning of the republic. How else to explain that the United States has gone from a handful of agrarian colonies to a world-spanning colossus in the space of only a few centuries? As you read this, American military might is deployed across the planet. The U.S. Navy is literally larger than all of the other navies in the world combined. The United States military accounts for almost one-half of total global military expenditures. Never before in human history has there been such a disparity in power among sovereign states.
Now back to my question. Like any empire, the United States is powerful and pretty adept at conquest. In 2003 it conquered oil-rich Iraq. Critics of the war claimed that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs in Iraq so as to get their hands on the petro-wealth of the country. Chants of “No Blood for Oil” rang across American college campuses (or at least among the faculty members anyway). So, where is the oil? Iraq currently produces about 2.5 million barrels per day (down from around 6 million before the war). Americans buy that oil from the Iraqis on the open market. If the war was all about grabbing oil, then why don’t we own it? After all, Iraq was conquered fair and square. Why doesn’t the country belong to the conquerors?
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Maybe we need an imperial gallon.
Maybe we need an imperial gallon.
Maybe we should have stolen all the oil. I wouldn’t have minded.
To quote Sir Robin, "Aww, that's EEEEEEzzy!"
... Bush grabbed the oil for his oil buddies, and they are the ones getting rich. Learn the catechism.
You sound like a DU moonbat scapegoating Prsident Bush and the oil companies for something they have nothing to do with.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world’s energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we’ll be fine. Don’t worry about us. That’s not leadership.”
Senator Barack Obama
I wasn’t familiar with that quote. Thanks for posting.
It shows that Obama is a leftist, and somewhat inarticulate. His thinking is superficial, as befits a leftist.
His honesty in stating his views is a little surprising. Usually, American socialists have learned that honesty is not their best policy, if they are to be elected.
As I see it, there are two challenges to anyone who reads or hears his words. The first is to realize that he is fundamentally mistaken. That is the first and most important challenge because it precedes the second. The second challenge is to reply.
His orientation is on the distribution of wealth, without concern for production. He just wants to divide the pie evenly. That is fair enough if he grew and picked the berries and baked the pie, and it is his to divide. But of course that is not the case. Pies, or “energy” in this case, is not a fixed amount. Someone produces it and brings it to market. Producers are the one’s who must benefit most, if they are to continue. Obama thinks he can steal more from the producers, and they will just keep on producing as before. That is a mistake, and has been proven wrong again and again through history.
Here is one example. The early Jamestown colony had communal ownership of agricultural plots and even (”fair”) distribution of food. Production and consumption were divorced, as Obama thinks right. The fruits of production did not go to the producers any more than to non-producers. So no one produced, and they starved to death. This may be hard for some to imagine but it’s what happened. Their numbers had to be replenished from England. Then it happened again. This was repeated in Plymouth. In varying forms and degrees, this happens with every instance of socialism. It is one of the reasons why many countries are poor. If Obama becomes President and is successful in implementing his policies, poor countries will become poorer. He may still be satisfied, for having made America poorer.
At this huge movable feast promised by Obama, Howard Dean is the Maitre D’ and Obama the sommelier, holding the keys aloft to a table full of thirsty supplicants, hands outstretched and dreams of drunken pleasure awash in their heads.
That certainly sums it up directly for many who vote for liberals. If one includes among the supplicants those who want government to pursue THEIR favorite cause (”the poor,” “the environment,” etc.), your depiction covers them all very succinctly.
The Bum Rap on Biofuels
American Thinker | 5-13-08 | Herbert Meyer
Posted on 05/14/2008 3:59:06 AM PDT by Renfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2015711/posts
Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed
ethanol producer Magazine | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill
Posted on 05/17/2008 9:22:13 AM PDT by Kevin J waldroup
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017389/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.