Thoughts behind my topic question:
I believe that it is safe for me to say that modern nations are dependent on the natural resource of petroleum. A clear statement but used as a colorful metaphor it is the blood that flows through the arteries of both the U.S. and Canadian economies. Without it our economic engine would seize up. And the security of the free trade of this ingredient of industry has clearly been deemed a national security interest.
I'll cite the Carter Doctrine when the president sent U.S. Navy vessels to escort the free trade of oil out of the Persian Gulf. And I'll also cite Operation Desert Shield/Storm where under the noble cause of liberating an invaded country of Kuwait the U.N. coalition was really there to prevent Saudi Arabia from being invaded for their oil and thus the domino effect of other nations capitulating to the imperialism of one dictator controlling the main sources of this world's natural resource, ie Hussein. (The presence of u.S. troops on Muslim holy land is now the cause for the war declared against the U.S. by Al Queda). I'll cite that Japan attacked China in pre-WWII to gain her oil fields in Manchuria. I'll cite Japan attacked America because of the U.S.'s oil embargo against Japan's need for the fuel to expand its imperialistic notions. i'll cite Germany going after Russia's oil fields to fuel her expansion. And going a bit further back to the birth of our two nations citing a different natural resource - was fighting for the secure and free trade of a natural resource (of fur) worthy of shedding blood over.
So, to sum up for a debate question - a question I would love if a ballsy reporter posed it to both Presidential candidates would be;
Is securing the free trade of a natural resource vital to the functioning of your nation worth shedding blood over? Or more simple put, Is shedding blood worth the dependency of oil?
I believe that it is safe for me to say that modern nations are dependent on the natural resource of petroleum. A clear statement but used as a colorful metaphor it is the blood that flows through the arteries of both the U.S. and Canadian economies. Without it our economic engine would seize up. And the security of the free trade of this ingredient of industry has clearly been deemed a national security interest.
I'll cite the Carter Doctrine when the president sent U.S. Navy vessels to escort the free trade of oil out of the Persian Gulf. And I'll also cite Operation Desert Shield/Storm where under the noble cause of liberating an invaded country of Kuwait the U.N. coalition was really there to prevent Saudi Arabia from being invaded for their oil and thus the domino effect of other nations capitulating to the imperialism of one dictator controlling the main sources of this world's natural resource, ie Hussein. (The presence of u.S. troops on Muslim holy land is now the cause for the war declared against the U.S. by Al Queda). I'll cite that Japan attacked China in pre-WWII to gain her oil fields in Manchuria. I'll cite Japan attacked America because of the U.S.'s oil embargo against Japan's need for the fuel to expand its imperialistic notions. i'll cite Germany going after Russia's oil fields to fuel her expansion. And going a bit further back to the birth of our two nations citing a different natural resource - was fighting for the secure and free trade of a natural resource (of fur) worthy of shedding blood over.
So, to sum up for a debate question - a question I would love if a ballsy reporter posed it to both Presidential candidates would be;
Is securing the free trade of a natural resource vital to the functioning of your nation worth shedding blood over? Or more simple put, Is shedding blood worth the dependency of oil?