<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Phil wrote on 8/18/05:<BR>
<BR>
"But it might interest you to note that Norway is the third largest exporter <BR>
of oil. Canada has the second largest reserves. So if invading countries <BR>
for their oil was the idea, invading Norway would look pretty good as would <BR>
invading Canada."<BR>
<BR>
The tar sands oil in Alberta are difficult to extract and turn into usable energy forms, and will probably not be extensively developed until after the cheaper and easier to access oil reserves in the world are more depleted, unless global military and/or political problems deny the US and its allies access to Middle East and other sources of oil. New technology may change this picture. From Forbes.com:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html">http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html</A><BR>
<BR>
"Also, in spite of recent technological advances, extracting oil from the tar sands remains a slow process. Oil from the tar sands cannot be extracted and refined into useable oil quickly enough to replace other readily accessible sources from elsewhere in the world. In 2004, oil from the tar sands accounted for just over 1% of global oil production. Further technological advances will be necessary to close this gap."<BR>
<BR>
Invading Canada of course is a joke. But consider that even if the US wanted to invade Canada to protect the tar sands oil reserves, why bother? We already have a huge military presence here in the USA protecting "friendly" Canada anyway. And besides, the oil reserves of Iraq and Saudi Arabia are larger than Canada's, easier to extract and of higher quality. And unlike Canada's oil reserves, they are clearly under threat of control by ideologies and potential future regimes in the Middle East hostile to the US and its allies, such as the funding from the extreme Wahhahism in Saudi Arabia for Islamic terrorism, which had far more to do with the 9/11 attacks than the fantasies of Saddam's involvement. <BR>
<BR>
There is the potential for cutting off Middle East oil supply to the US and other allies under some future scenarios. For example, again, the Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia is a threat to the stability of the Saudi government, and to US interests in Saudi oil reserves, which could result in Saudi Arabia turning against US oil interests, that a US military presence in Iraq can guard against:<BR>
<BR>
>From the Council On Foreign Relations web site:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.cfr.org/pub6178/michael_mandelbaum/us_faces_dilemma_on_saudi_policy.php">http://www.cfr.org/pub6178/michael_mandelbaum/us_faces_dilemma_on_saudi_policy.php</A><BR>
<BR>
"But the rule of the Saudi royal family rests on another, internal bargain. The regime has embraced as its official ideology a radical form of Islam known as Wahhabism, which preaches intolerance for, indeed hatred of, all others - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - who do not subscribe to its precepts. It is as if, says the eminent historian of the Mideast Bernard Lewis, the U.S. government were promoting the ideas of the Ku Klux Klan. "<BR>
<BR>
>From the point of view of using military force to protect the largest and highest quality oil reserves in the world, both for the energy needs of the US and its allies, and to prevent these oil reserves serving the ends of ideologies or governments opposed to the USA, the US invasion of Iraq and building military bases there makes sense, if only the Iraqis and the rest of the world would cooperate with our agenda as we wish. <BR>
<BR>
In saying this I am not supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but only pointing out the logic involved in the invasion from the point of view of protecting US energy interests and global political/economic hegemony regarding the largest, highest quality and easily accessible oil reserves in the world, those in the Middle East.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>