Out of curiosity a hypothetical question

OPEC decides to cut off all oil deliveries to the USA. America begins to shut down. Long lines at gas pumps and gas reaching fifty dollars a gallon. Freight deliveries have stopped because truckers cannot afford fuel expenses. Electricity costs triple in many cities and inflation soars completely out of control. The USA's normal activites come to a standstill. In the USA's national interest it is decided to attack Arab countries containing oil so we can maintain our way of life. Is this a justified attack. If it is and Iraq is not, where is the line to be drawn? Or if the government said right up front we were attacking Iraq to maintain our oil supplies would that have been acceptable?

I don't see it.

that's kinda how it sounds to me?

I'm just saying that because we need to keep our eyes on the whole picture; things are afoot here in the Americas, too.

is that we have the technology to run a much cleaner and effective world. The reason we aren't using it, the energy is basically free, a very difficult way to make money for corporations. As an example. In the 50's we knew that if we held a fluorescent bulb in front of radio waves it would glow, turn itself on without any connection to anything else. The government has been involved with corporate interests for a very long time. It just didn't EVER have to be like this.

ENERGY MARKET first and foremost, and only secondarily about the supply/demand issues. Assuming that peak oil is a looming reality (and that abiotic oil is a myth--something I am unsure about), we knew over 30 years ago that we would invariably hit this geopolitical bottle neck; we knew that basing an advanced industrial/technoligical civilization on non-renewable resources would ultimately lead to exactly where we are now. So, why go there (here)? The answer is simple: It isn't only that renewable energy sources are 'free' but THEY ARE DECENTRALIZED. Energy distribution decentralized. A level playing field is no way to maintain hegemony, you see.

the flame is going to flicker out soon.

Once people figured out there was a finite supply the push to get off them immediately should have started.

But they didn't, they were morons. And now the dusk of civilization is happening because of their shortsightedness.

Now that we have invaded a nation w/o justification, you will not find
one person in the world who can say that Iraq is better off now than 5 years ago and we have created a breeding ground for terrorists. Do you think the people in London and Madrid and Egypt are grateful to us for this?

the basis for an invasion would be much sounder than for Iraq. Of course, the US blockaded Japan before WWII, and by the same token the attack on Pearl Harbor was legitimate.

A Saudi shutoff is extremely unlikely, however. The Saudis are fully aware of the consequences of such an act. Even after the 1973 Israeli-Arab War, they didn't completely shut off the oil. And the Saudis are just as dependent on oil money as the US is on oil.

If the U.S. economy shuts down, so does Canada and Western Europe then Japan and China. That "global economy". Within this there could be lots of different frictions and finger pointing. So many different national interests all at stake at once could be a caldron for all sorts of unilateral actions.

The flaw in your supposition is that others control that oil. The ebb and flow needs to be there for the shell game the real big money plays...and are firmly in control. If there's a shut off in this country, we shouldn't be looking at Teheran or even Saudi Arabia...the shots would have been called in Washington.

Though at the rate Bushler is pissing people off and with the size of the growing anti-US coalition, OPEC may eventually feel safe enough to embargo the US outright (which I'm sure they'd be far beyond happy to do once they feel safe enough from the US to do so).