*bump* for lack of a response
I'd agree with you if your argument made sense, but it doesn't.
Iraq has a tiny percentage of the world oil reserves... it's not like it's Saudi or something... it's not even second or third.
No matter who's in charge of Iraq, the oil will still flow... that's how they make their money.
We're turning Iraq right back over to the Iraqis... they're no more reliable than Saddam in ensuring oil flow; probably less so.
And what's with the "200 years" thing? In case you weren't aware (most people aren't), oil's done in 20-40 years or so. We're past "peak oil". The only question now is whether it'll be a soft landing or a hard one. Will we have switched out economy to alternative sources of energy before severe shortages start, or after?
sorry, missed that one. I don't know all the facts... I know iraq has the huge oil reserve, as hedge mentioned. IMO, it is to stabilize and secure the available oil for the next 5 decades, then provide a foothold in the mid east.
i try not to get too 'bigger picture', but I do see one world govt- or a tight coalition- coming about. I know China has a billion people and is a threat. I know India has a billion people, and we're exploiting that resource. I see that trend continuing. Mnfg apex of the world could be china, tech could be india. EUR has world of industry, and the US is very good at managing all of it. Sad to say, but IMO that is what it will be.
I do think there will be a tailspin should 911 info surface revealing it to be faked. High level officials in both ENG and GER have made public statemetns calling it an inside job. This may slow, or outright stop, US *expansion* into the middle east if we have our own fight at home to worry about, the possibility of men picking up weapons. But I seriously doubt that will happen, as the last 2 generations lack the giddyap to stand up and fight. Rant mode off...