kakki wrote The U.S. to get away from its dependency has for years now been importing from South America, Mexico and Canada and I think even some regions in Asia.>
Currently we importing 24% of our oil from the Middle East - a lower proportion since the 70's, but up a third in recent years. Production in Mexico and Canada is expected to peak in the next decade. kakki wrote The oil guys are especially eyeing oil production in Russia next now that we are not Cold War adversaries any more. Which begs my question - with so many other sources and opportunities why would the U.S., as opposed to the primary customers such as Europe and Asia, want to tangle with a volatile situation and madman if it were only for oil?> I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read, non-OPEC oil production is expected to decline sometime in the next decade - production from new reserves may just be replacing oil from declining reserves. <kakki wrote> I know that Iraq has big reserves and that if the western customers had better access the prices would go down (not neccessarily good for the oil companies, though).> Not necessarily bad for oil companies either, prices bottoming out would be bad, but - increased production leading to lower prices could lead to increased consumption, lower transportation costs. And then there's that gleaming possibility of diminishing the influence OPEC has on the global market. <kakki wrote>And of course another reason for U.S. involvement has been to help protect the countries of Israel and Kuwait and help be some kind of mediator in peace negotiations in the entire region gong back to Nixon. Yes, I agree with you here - particularly with regards to protecting Israel. This of course has influenced U.S. policy of the decades and though I believe oil is a primary reason for our involvement in the Middle East, it is not the only one. <kakki wrote> Indeed. Like I've always said - if it were up to me we'd leave the entire region on it's own. But part of me also thinks that if we did that and the whole region disintergrated into war, genocide and chaos, I don't know how good I'd feel about myself for turning the other way, either. Kind of like post-colonial Africa... > But it is impossible to not acknowledge the former and present ties they have to the energy industry. <kakki wrote>Of course, but saying because they were involved in the energy industry that they are only confronting Iraq because of the oil is kind of like saying JFK only confrtonted Cuba and launched the Bay of Pigs invasion because his family wanted to get its monopoly on Havana rums and casinos back.> Sorry, I didn't make it clear - I don't believe their only confronting Iraq because of their personal ties in the energy industry. <kakki wrote> Many countries are concerned about Saddam's bio, chemical and nuclear weapons. Someone from Canada just sent me the UK's report on Saddam's weapons and how he has used them on his own people - it is long and I haven't had the chance to read it but he tells me it is absolutely chilling.> Yes, it's awful, I agree, but there was a time when we chose to look the other way, when it was to our perceived benefit. And there are many who believe that Saddam does not pose an immediate threat to the western world, that he is less capable of such than he was before the Gulf War. Jenny U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
