This page will display the current arguments regarding the Green Party.
In a way I welcome an oil embargo on the United States, in that it will finally make us focus seriously on alternative energy sources. For too long we’ve been dependent on oil imports. Dependency on imports of any kind from any nation is a dangerous thing; when a nation is dependent on a thing as vital as the basis of its transportation system, military, and countless commercial items and the nations depended on are at best cold and wary and at worst outright antagonistic-well, it’s time for the dependent nation to discard such a reliance. There are a lot of alternatives to oil. I don’t need to give an in-depth description of each, as I’m sure everyone knows of them, but the most promising are solar energy (the price of which continues to drop), wind (the price of which has fallen drastically and which is now more efficient than ever), products like ethanol (a corn based fuel source), and nuclear energy (which is now safer than ever). Another source-and don’t spurn it without hearing me out--is hemp. Yes, hemp is technically marijuana. However, there is a female marijuana plant and a male plant. One contains the drug THC and the other does not. This non-drug plant, hemp, has so many uses that it’s frankly ridiculous for it to be illegal. In fact, it was one of America’s most produced crops before it was outlawed. It can be made into clothing, rope, paper, fuel, etc. The paper it makes is actually of a higher quality than that of trees, and takes only a season to grow instead of 10 years. The fuel it makes is just as efficient as petroleum-based products and is infinitely renewable. With hemp, anyone can grow his or her own fuel. In fact, this is one of the major reasons hemp was outlawed in the first place. Oil barons back in the day wanted no challenges from such an easy and reliable source as hemp, so it was outlawed. So I think that in one way an embargo would be good for us, if we take the opportunity to free ourselves from the shackles of oil. Unfortunately I can definitely see our government being incensed about a lack of oil literally to the point of war again. That said, I don’t think there will be a serious embargo against the United States. Saudi Arabia has already come out and said that it will not pursue such a policy, and as it seems lately that the Saudis have been growing in influence in the Middle East I highly doubt that OPEC will vote to place an embargo on the United States.
This really depends on a couple of factors. First, how much support does the leader have among his people? If the leader enjoys a large amount of support, say a majority or more, then the United States should in most cases leave him or her alone. If the leader was put into power through some form of legitimate elections, he most likely has the support of at least 51% of the people in his country, meaning that his subjects agree with his policies and his actions and the outcomes that they have. If the citizens don’t support their leader and want to depose of him but do not have the power to do so, someone must get involved and assist them in their plight. If a country appreciates what its leader is doing, then in most cases the United States should leave him alone. This leads to the second factor. What if the leader’s positions and actions are such that some people in the country suffer extreme abuse or feel constantly threatened? What if citizens of other countries are suffering abuse or feel threatened? In these cases I think someone has to stop him. Look at Hitler’s Germany of the 1930s. A majority of the population supported or was not threatened by his policies, but a minority of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, retarded people, etc. were not only threatened but slaughtered. Such a man and his followers must always be stopped by those nations with a global conscience. However, evil on par with Adolf Hitler, fortunately, does not come along very often. One must also consider what the consequences of assassinating the leader would be.
What then about the cases of Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein? I have Palestinian friends here in Berkeley whose relatives say that most people do not support Yasser Arafat. They might support his positions, like having a real Palestinian state, but they do not approve of his actions (or lack thereof). However I don’t think that they want to depose of him. The surrounding and battering of his compound by Israel has coincided with (I hesitate to say “caused”) an increase in Palestinian demonstrations not only in Israel but also throughout the globe. I think that, although he may not be supported as a political leader, he is supported as a symbol of Palestinian autonomy and pride. It seems to me as though he wields very little actual power, but like the British monarchy he is still popular. If one takes political support and social support and moral support all to be different things, then I think Arafat is supported only in one category, the social. However, to assassinate him would be a huge mistake because it would provoke the Palestinians who support him only as a figurehead into being more violent. In addition, his policies and actions seriously threaten Israeli citizens and the state of Israel. Overall, I think though, Arafat should not be killed. He enjoys at least some modicum of support and the consequences of his death would be only more outrage, violence, and support for his causes, so that instead of lessening Israel’s problems, they would only be exacerbated.
As to Saddam Hussein, I very much doubt that he has much public support at all. I cannot believe he has social support as a social representative of the Iraqi people, or that with his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs he enjoys moral support, or that with his disregard for the well being of his people he enjoys political support. His leadership of Iraq threatens multiple nations, most importantly for us in America the United States. It is true that the consequences of his assassination would be dire, however. It is reported that he has below him an even more vicious person, so that if he were to be killed his second-in-command would make sure he was revenged. It is also reported that his third in line is even more insane, and his fourth even more so, and so on and so on. Obviously we do not want an even more crazy person controlling Iraq and its weaponry. If in some way we were to take care of his whole government, or assassinate him in such a way that his death seemed completely natural, I think that it should be done.
I don’t, by the way, feel that the United States should be the one to assassinate him. I’d feel much better if the international community did it. Most people see the United Nations as a peacemaking body but with men like Hussein in power peace can’t really exist, at least not for any desirable periods of time. If the UN will have no part in it though, we should do it.
