Happy Oil Dependence Day

We are drowning in the “impostures of pretended patriotism,” used to cover the lies that got us into Iraq, the defense of torture and the violation of our basic liberties. In the name of patriotism, we presume a God-given American right to reorder the world to our liking, masking the vice of unfettered greed as an obligation of national security.
Any doubts as to this later governing impulse of our imperial ambitions were shattered with the recent news that US advisers to our puppet government in the Green Zone of occupied Iraq have worked out agreements for American oil companies to gain control of Iraqi oil fields. But, then again, what did we expect when we elected a Texas oil hustler, and a failed one at that, to be our President?

Only in an America dumbed down by constant propaganda about our innate moral superiority will anyone any longer believe that we didn’t invade Iraq for the oil, even though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to the Bush Administration from the board of directors at Chevron, where they named an oil tanker after her. Like Vice President **** Cheney with those Halliburton contracts, Rice has stayed true to her corporate sponsors. That’s what the US invasion of Iraq accomplished; for the first time in more than three decades after Iraq joined a worldwide trend of formerly colonized nations gaining control of their own resources, Big Oil is getting its black gold back. It was always about the oil–that’s why “we” invaded Iraq–only “we” aren’t getting any, at least not at a reasonable price. The oil companies are.


There are so many half-truths, untruths and outright lies in the opinion piece that I don’t know where to begin. Then again Robert Sheer is a left wing hack.

Why are you posting opinion pieces as a news item?

I only posted this thread because I read it on www.peakoil.com (here) and I liked the title of “Happy Oil Dependence Day” (as I laughed when I read that title). I thought the people here would at least appreciate the title of it (although one is welcome to disagree with its content.) Isn’t it correct that we are dependent on oil for our way of life (and of course, in a day, it will be the Fourth of July)?

I am not currently interested in promoting any particular political agenda here… I am concerned with the motif of resource depletion now. As you can infer from my other posts, I think this problem is apparently insurmountable.

The solution:

DRILL HERE! - America, even if it means drilling right through the polar bear’s head.

DRILL NOW! - Today

PAY LESS! - Who can argue with that . . . uhhh, well maybe the hate America crowd.

Well said, KMac…

I bet the guy who wrote that doesn’t have to drive 45 miles to get to work, and 45 miles to get home every day.

Your point?

But if you do not like work, let’s encourage the transition from the “society of avarice” to the “society of sloth.”


Brazil has used their own natural resources to become energy independent. Sugar based ethanol and off shore drilling … HUGE oil and natural gas deposits.

The next country that may become energy independent might be Hungary … by very deep drilling for natural gas in the Mako Trough … a thin area of the Earth’s crust where is easier to access natural gas coming up from the mantle.

Very deep drilling means deeper than 20,000 feet. A “normal” gas well is generally less than 10,000 feet.

Read more here: messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?channel=Personal+Finance&boardId=70178&func=6&articleId=31123

The original WSJ article is on a paid site, but this blog has the article and accompanying discussion.

Anyway, yes, it is very possible to drill our way to energy independence.

God put the oil and gas there for us to find and to develop and use. But the deep oil and gas requires some extra intellectual effort to find.

Read here for more on oil (and natural gas) independence … especially on really deep drilling:


My point is I drive everywhere I go, and I don’t whine about the gas prices, yet he probably lives a few blocks away from where he works and you can almost feel his rage as you read his article.

Thats my point.

The truly sad thing is that Americans seem to only be concerned with the prices they pay at the pump (and ignore the fact that any domestic exploration would not impact prices in the near future).

Why do we turn a blind eye to the tens of thousands of civilian lives that have been lost and ruined in Iraq due to our invasion?

How about our own troops?

Prices are going up, not down. Who is really benefitting from the invasion?

Certainly not your average American (who is more likely to be a member of the armed forces).

At least the super affluent and elite of this country (with vested interests and connections to big oil) are getting something out of the invasion…:rolleyes:

Happy Independence Day

in the 1950s a gallon of gas cost 25 cents

a quarter … 25 cent piece … is a quarter ounce of silver

today a gallon of gas costs 4 dollars. which is a quarter ounce of silver

so… no change in the relative price

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you one of the “hate America crowd.” Sad

But the government is telling us there is no inflation. Your seeing rising prices is just an illusion. :smiley: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

To the contrary, I love America. It is one of the few places I can freely state an opinion which questions and criticizes the the ruling elite and their selfish policies and only have to worry about the persecution from my fellow citizens for utlizing this right which is characteristically American. This quirk never ceases to make me laugh and thank God that I am an American.

Yes, the war was for oil. This is a no brainer. Markets do control prices-scarcity being one of those variables controlling the price of a commodity. Given the large oil reserves in Iraq, who benefits from the turmoil there (read high prices)? Who would benefit from controlling those reserves? It would seem to be a win-win situation for big oil companies. Funny how their interests are entrenched within our political system and its politicians.

Since its a “no brainer,” then you should be able to provide ample proof.

I don’t think any sort of fact or opinion I could post here could sway you. You will see what your political filter allows you to see. Perhaps you should argue with someone like Alan Greenspan (someone you probably admire):

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”


i didn’t ask for opinion; I’m asking for facts. When you use praises like “no brainer,” you are implying fact.

lol…like I said earlier…:rotfl:

Actually, my use of the phrase is congruent with its definition, e.g.:

Something that requires little mental effort or intelligence to perform or understand (phrases.org.uk/meanings/no-brainer.html) or perhaps:
e.g. “Something that is absurdly simple or easy and requires little thought” (Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, bartleby.com/59/4/nobrainer.html).

I am sorry you don’t like or agree with the phrase. The gist of it consists of an easily made inference or common sense. Hope that helps.

Perhaps you should contact Greenspan; he has arrived at the same conclusion. He probably is privy to more of the details of the issue than am I. Good luck!

I don’t really believe it was a war for oil. If it was a war for oil, why go to Irag? Why not go to Africa, where the oil supply dwarfs the Middle-East’s, and where the nations are even weaker from in fighting? A war for oil in Iraq does not make sense. I believe that it was a vendetta against Saddam by George Bush Junior for that whole incident with his father and Saddam.

Or maybe it was a war fought for a staging groun to launch an invasion into Iran.

I’m not in power, so I do not know. But I know a war for oil in Iraq would be foolish when there is so much elsewhere that is easier to take.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.