"No Blood for Oil"

What a crock. What a stupid thing to say. Do the advocates for that sort of empty-headed glibness think that any form of human enterprise comes without a blood toll?

What they mean, of course, is they don't want to fight a war over oil. Okay, Your friendly Ostrich Killer can allow them that simple-mindedness. But let's play with the concept a bit, just for grins.

Everyone assumes that the US will eventually invade another in order to control its oil. Some think we've already done that. Despite having no precedent for that sort of thinking, let's pretend that there are invasions to control oil. Who would do the invading?

Answer: countries that most need oil. And who needs oil more than China? No one. And who has a bigger army than China? No one. And who's going to prevent China from doing it? No one. Does anyone think China wouldn't shed blood for oil?

Maybe it's time to think about the global picture here. Obviously the US isn't the only country that runs on oil. Maybe it's time to think about what the US should do if China, say, were to invade the Middle East for its oil. Should we deplore such villany? Should we go to war over it? Or should we just keep to ourselves and take advantage of our own abundant resources? - - Yes, we can support ourselves.

Your Ostrich Killer hopes some of you will lose the slogans and get a firmer grip on reality. Out.