Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
Long-term destruction to fuel a short-term addiction? I'll gladly let China bear that moral dilemma.
I salute high gas prices. I say higher, higher, HIGHER...until the nation cracks. Addiction sucks, but the only reason many stave off addiction is because it becomes too expensive/consuming.
It's a tough situation...I want to break my addiction, but I'm fearful of the alternative. Change, however valid and needed, is often painful. In response, I say suck it up and do what's right. Destroying one of the world's last wildernesses to prolong a bad lifestyle is not right. Big/Middle Eastern Oil is not the issue, we are.
Happy Earth Day 
- LostCause |
I agree with most of what you say; however, the moral dilemma is more complex than that, as far as I'm concerned. Most of my family lives and does business in Asia, and half of them are Asians, so I speak with the the particular type of prejudice a person with some experience can have when I say that I'd rather have the money in the hands of the USA than China. This is because the welfare of the world is better off in the hands of the USA. Money will determine who has the most influence, and China isn't building up its military arsenal to fend off any of the puny countries that are within 10,000 miles of it, nor are they known for their compassion for their own people. They are concerned that a
particular country with a huge amount of power is a someone they will have to reckon with in the future, because that
particular country wants freedom and stability for all the countries in that region. China doesn't.
Additionally, In the end, demand in China or the US is not affected by who gets the oil. If the China gets 10 billion barrels of oil, it will buy that much less, and there will be that much more on the market. The same goes if the US gets the oil. However, the profits will go to the country that recovers the oil.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.