posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:10 AM
There is a growing schism between the major oil producers and the major oil consumers. It is apparent that the modern oil consumer nations cannot
function well without the major producers supplying the oil. But the suppliers have an advantage in that they can hold the world hostage to their
demands and desires.
What to do.
One option is to withhold, through pricing, the one great commodity that the west has in abundance. Food. Just as OPEC in the '70s flexed it's
muscles, and became a policy maker through the embargo, so too could the west, with it's greater resources in food.
But too avoid being blamed, the guilt must be laid at the feet of those who will suffer the worst. To this end, encourage oil consumption, thereby
raising prices on gas, and in turn, on food. Add to that, encourage some of the food sources to be used as fuel, again raising food prices due to
shortages in the marketplace. Food can therefore become the new oil.
And it can all be blamed on the oil producers themselves. Justification can be argued that they started the spiraling of inflation by unreasonably
raising the price of oil, so any resulting hardship from food shortages are the fault of these oil producers. The very ones most likely to suffer.
Much like a boxer is willing to accept a certain amount of punishment in a match, counting on his overall conditioning to allow him to outlast his
opponent, so too the west could feel that in a confrontation with the middle east, it can last longer on a short fuel supply than they can on a short
food supply. (Unfortunately, there will and is now, collateral damage from such an idea, and nations not involved suffer along with any intended
region. But such is the nature of conflict, and I doubt such considerations would have much bothered any planners of such actions.)
This type of thinking would go a long ways towards explaining many policy decisions of the past years:
The protracted war in Iraq could be to assure enough destruction to make food shortages a prime issue when we do leave.
Iran could also be engaged destructively for the same reason.
The seed vaults could be an insurance policy for the west.
The moratorium on oil extraction, even under safeguards, from environmentally sensitive ares could be seen as a reserve of resources for later use.
Military buildup in the west could be a way of having enough material and supplies to last through a period of readjustment as famine closed the oil
producers down for a while.
And the list goes on.
War is not always waged with bullets and tanks. Strategy takes many forms, and keeping objectives secret as long as possible by misdirection and
illusion is wise. Are we now seeing this idea coming to fruition? Are food riots the first sign of the new power shift? Was this seen as the only way
to break the stranglehold of the Mideast on the rest of the world?
I am interested to know if anyone has found evidence of such a conspiracy/policy? What things make this idea likely to have been at least considered
by some group? What would it explain in terms of the western politics in the last two decades? Why would it have not been implemented?
And I realize I have lain no groundwork other than supposition for this idea. I bring it out for discussion as a possibility; to see what the many
minds here can see that I have not. To see if this might be an avenue worth deeper investigation.