Control of the world's remaining oil supplies is going to be the fundamental question confronting us in the coming decades. Already the United States has a huge army in the Middle East likly to remain there forever. Are we going to opt for "regime change" in Iran, followed by Venezula? Is this "answer" to PO the correct one? Couldn't we adopt another less "militaristic" approach? How will China react to the United States taking control of the world's oil supplies by force? Do we really want to go down this potentially very dangerous road?
Isn't it obvious that the military solution to the oil-control issue is a morally reprehensible one?  And shouldn't that alone be sufficient to lead any decent human being to reject it out-of-hand?
Moral decency reserves are being discovered at an even more depressing rate than oil, Phil.
Yes...and, No. "Morality", it seems to me, is becoming as rare as hens teeth in our part of the world, especially in relation to our political leaders. Oil is worth more than blood. We are not only criminals, on top of it all we're grosslly hypocritical and ignorant. For example, most poeple in our part of the world simply don't know that in the war/siege/war/occupation of Iraq we've managed to cause the deaths of around 1,000,000 Iraqi men, women and an awful lot of children, especially children. We've justified this by saying it was "a price worth paying", to rid the world of Saddam. But the cost? We didn't pay it. The Iraqis did. Given the results, isn't the "price" morally speaking outrageous and totally unacceptable? On the great, golden scale of history one man for a million? And we have the gall to gall ourselves civilized, who are we kidding? Certainly not the people who live in the Middle East, they know about our dirty, secret. And then we wonder why they hate us? Just think how we'd react if an arab fleet sailed up the Thames, bombarded Lonon and caused even 10,000 civilian deaths?