"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?


You and I have no clue. If we did, they wouldn't be effective.
But, tying up resources and attention of terrorists in Iraq helps.

If they're so effective, then why have there been attacks in England, Spain,
and Bali?



It also, (and here's where you will flip out) assures our access to oil
(although we are not currently taking advantage of it.) We still get the
bulk from other sources.

Obviously, we need access to oil. This is why Truman went to great lengths
to make sure our diplomats, and representatives of our oil companies were
all over the Saudis like cats on mice at the end of the war. We built that
country, and edged out our biggest competitor: The British.



You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this
nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and our
Achilles's heel.

You are good at asking questions. Let me ask one of you that's probably
uncomfortable for many to answer.
If suddenly the US supply of oil dried up .... Saudi Arabia said "Screw
you".... and the rest of our sources of oil withdrew from the market ....
would you support military action to secure oil for the US?

Eisboch


Sure. Why not? But, I'd pick the country which also posed the biggest
security risk in other ways.