World's best lubricant for machinery of war: oil

World's best lubricant for machinery of war: oil
How quickly we tend to forget! Americans deride the Germans for not endorsing President Bush's desire to initiate a pre-emptive war with Iraq.
After World War II the United States of America under the auspices of the United Nations recognized the fact that WWI and WWII were initiated by Germany. They concluded that this should not come to pass again. The common consensus of opinion was to disarm Germany and render it incapable of accomplishing another such dastardly deed. The world community decided to make Germany a democratic and pacifist nation. Germany has thrived under these conditions. We deployed troops to Germany to ensure that Germany adhered to those conditions.
Now President Bush would like the Germans to comply with his idea of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. I feel that this is somewhat inconsistent with the conditions that the U.N. placed on Germany after WWII.
As for France, Russia, China et al, their motives are very apparent to me. These countries along with some lesser nations have entered into agreements with Saddam Hussein to open up and drill oil wells in the huge oil reserves south of Baghdad, Iraq.
Russia has plenty of oil in its Ural mountain oil reserves but accessibility is the problem because of terrain, climate, etc. In Iraq accessibility is no problem and with the Persian Gulf nearby transportation is cheap and readily available.
Oil has always been the major reason of confrontation between the developed countries. It was the main reason for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. That attack was in retaliation for the embargo that the United States set up against Japan.
Oil has caused more turmoil than any other commodity since the development of the automobile era. We must divorce ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil. The fuel cell is the answer. There are many trucks, buses, automobiles and power plants using fuel cell technology today.
What's so great about Great Britain today?
Hardly a day goes by without some news about United Kingdom, Tony Blair or the British royal family in The Vindicator. I feel that U.K., its royalty and politicians are given far too much importance and get more coverage than they deserve.
Let us look at the facts:
1. The nation of United Kingdom (population 60 million) is far less than half the size of Texas (population 20 million).
2. Economy of the state of California exceeds that of the nation of U.K.
3. Since the fall of the British Empire, United Kingdom today is not a superpower or a world power. At best, it is a second-class European power.
4. The U.K. has hardly any moral authority. United Kingdom was directly responsible for black slave trade, potato famine of Ireland (a weapon of mass destruction), massacre of innocent unarmed civilians in Amritsar, India, rift between black and white population over land in Zimbabwe, and religious fighting between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, etc. Today, every fourth child born in U.K. is born out of wedlock. Hardly any member of the British royal family has escaped from divorce, drugs and alcohol abuse.
The world is full of nations with better profiles than the above. How much news do we get about our great neighbors, Canada and Mexico? How much news do we get about other great nations such as Japan, Thailand, China, India, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Denmark -- just to name a few?
When the United Nations was established in 1945, United Kingdom was one of the "Big Four" nations, along with United States, Soviet Union and France. However, since the forced liquidation of the British Empire half a century ago, the United Kingdom is an overpopulated, tiny offshore island nation. What qualifications does it have to be a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations in the 21st century?
Lot of debate is now going on as to why Saddam Hussein should not possess the weapons of mass destruction. In fact, why should any nation -- including the overpopulated tiny offshore island nation of United Kingdom -- possess the weapons of mass destruction?