What ARE we waiting for?

Borrowed from a Reader's Comment to an OP-Ed posting by A.W.R Hawkins on HumanEvents.com

Very well put op-ed piece, James A. Nollet from Poland. Very well put, indeed. (Also read the original post from A.W.R. It's a good one, too.)

Saying that America can't drill its way out of its energy crisis is like saying you can't dig a well to find water to alleviate thirst, or you can't plow a field to raise crops in order not to be hungry.

It is ABSURD on its face.

Then there's the John Kerry argument against ANWR (lamentably supported by John McCain), that it's pointless to drill in ANWR since by itself, it cannot lift America's energy crisis. By THAT illogic, America should never again look for ANY new sources of energy, since NONE, by themselves, can relieve America's energy shortage.

All steps to find new energy take America so much closer to the goal of being once again energy INdependent.

Pelosi and Reid do not like America's involvement in wars in the Middle East. I understand their opposition -- but then, why do they not see that America's current dependence on foreign oil is precisely what helps drag America into Middle Eastern wars?

So in 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invades Kuwait and threatens Saudi Arabia and even Iran; should Saddam get his hands on those oil sources, he's got over half of the world's oil under his thumb.

OBVIOUSLY the world had to stand up against Saddam and push him out of Kuwait. And please spare me the arguments that the Coalition was fighting for "oil." OF COURSE IT WAS FIGHTING FOR OIL! Oil is LIFE! Economies collapse, and real, ordinary human beings go jobless, hungry, cold, and even die when there's no oil. People shoot each other fighting for what oil's left.

But suppose the USA had been energy INdependent when Iraq invaded Kuwait? America then could have said to the world: "Dear World, we are AUFULLY sorry that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait ahd threatens all of your economies. And if you wish to go to war to remove him from Kuwait, we totally understand. We might even help you logistically.

"But what we will NOT do is send armed forces over there. Because we don't NEED to. Because we've already seen to our own energy independence. Because we now have no dog in this fight."

Woiuldn't Pelosi and Reid and Kerry LOVE such a position of non-involvement?

Every single American president since LBJ has let America down with regard to energy independence. I most of all blame Ronald Reagan the so-called "Great Communicator" for not calling upon America to do for energy independence what JFK did for landing a man on the moon -- by calling for a crash program of energy independence, mission to be accomplished within 10 years.

Not sure I agree totally with singling out Ronald Reagan here. But Jim's point is on-target...they have ALL let us down with regards to energy independence.

But maybe THAT'S a way to sell energy independence and drilling to the Dhimmicrats -- if they don't want any more future Iraq wars, then let them NOW support drilling (and other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, nuclear, coal gasification, sugar-from-Caribbean-islands-to-ethanol, etc.) and maybe America can indeed afford to sit out the next Middle Eastern war.

Let's think grandly here -- maybe, when the next Middle Eastern war happens and America actually produces SURPLUSES of energy, maybe AMERICA could actually SELL energy to the rest of the world. Wouldn't THAT do wonders for the balance-of-trade deficit?

James A. Nollet; Milkowice, POLAND

Drilling alone certainly isn't the answer, while finding and developing other renewable sources of energy certainly is. However, it won't happen overnight. While alternative sources of energy are being researched and developed (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc), America must find it's own sources of oil, rather than becoming more and more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Once we do become energy independent, the rest of the Middle East can return to the 7th century...what they all seem to long for anyway.