Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion.jewish Subject: Middle East, Oil and the costs of Militarism Message-ID: <740@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 11:29:54 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.740 Posted: Fri Oct 25 11:29:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 07:26:28 EST References: <460@mhuxm.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 48 Xref: linus net.politics:11046 net.religion.jewish:2180 War is a singularly irrational and uneconomical institution. Yet people continue to defend it as somehow worthwhile. Sometimes their defense is cloaked in idealistic phrases like "saving the world for democracy". Other times it is cloaked in more blatantly self-interested terms like "saving Middle East oil for Exxon". This argument for self-interest is really quite absurd, yet here it is: > > There is, in fact, quite a bit of doubt over who benefits more > from this relationship, the U. S. or Israel. One analysis > by Edward Teller (quoted yesterday on PBS's Firing Line > with William Buckley) has it that the U. S. could not hold > out from war with the Soviet Union over the Middle East for > more than five years following any (G-d forbid!) destruction > of Israel. This is because without Israel, there is no > democracy in the Mideast which has the right to defend itself > against Soviet aggression. Without Israel an "Exxon War" > would ensue as the Soviet Russians advance into the region. > You may not get the entire gist of this scenario from the > above, but there can be no disagreement with the conclusion > that Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast and therefore > the only democracy which can legitimately use military force > to oppose the Soviets should they threaten Israel. > Over the past 5 years every child, woman, and man in the U.S. has paid $4348 in order to pay over a trillion dollars to prepare for War. Part of this trillion dollars has gone to pay for "Rapid Deployment Forces" to be able to go to war immediately in several regions of the world at once. Several hundred billion dollars has gone to build yet more nuclear weapons. Billions have gone to provide arms to governments all over the world. Even if one argues that some of this money must be spent preparing for war in our own defense, the question of "what is the return on our investment?" for billions of dollars spent to protect such things as Middle East oil is never asked. Imagine that those billions were spent on research, development and production of alternatives to Middle East oil. Such investment, besides avoiding all the destructive consequences when arms are actually used (e.g. oil fields blown up and set on fire,etc.), might very well provide alternative energy sources that could provide energy for both ourselves and the rest of the world. Instead of investing in destruction, we could be investing in *production*, in the creation of new wealth. The oil companies undoubtedly find huge military expenditures to protect their economic wealth at the taxpayers expense worthwhile. It is not so certain such expenditures help either the ordinary taxpayer or the victims of the arms we buy or provide. tim sevener whuxn!orb