Is Libya War Waged to Protect Oil Interests?

Congressman Ron Paul asks a very valid question:

[W]e must ask why this administration was so eager to embark on this Libyan operation in the name of ‘humanitarianism.’ Governments in Bahrain and Yemen have this year used military force to put down democratic protestors. The Saudi regime, which practices Sharia Law, has also been repressive, yet we have not intervened there. These countries continue to sell us oil, while Libya had begun to turn their exports toward Russia, China, India, and Brazil.

Could this war largely be about protecting our oil interests at the expense of our Constitution?

It appears so.

The truth about Gas Prices

If you ask almost anyone how they feel about oil companies and gas prices, chances are you will be met with the usual diatribe about greed, market manipulation, and lack of disposable income that keeps most people thinking oil companies are the most evil and economically abusive institutions around. But is that really true?

Gas prices are going up—no one disputes that. But the fact is, even at these prices we still get a bargain at the pump.

As of this month, the national average cost of gas is $3.67 per gallon. In comparison, the average 20 oz bottle of water costs about $1.99. That comes out to $11.94 for a gallon of water! That’s around three times what you would pay for the same amount of gas! Sure, it costs money to manufacture uniform bottles filled with safe drinking water, but it’s child’s play compared to drilling for oil, refining and transporting it, dealing with security risks involved, and then getting it to the gas station and providing consumers with the means to fill their tanks without blowing themselves up.

But maybe you don’t drink bottled water and would prefer to compare to orange juice. A gallon of moderately priced orange juice can cost anywhere between $5.00 and $8.00 a gallon! Is your sweet tooth bothering you? The average cost of pint of ice cream is currently $3.79. That’s $30.00 a gallon! 

Government Disincentivized Oil Company Responsibility?

Did a government program not only lessen the incentive for oil companies to safeguard against oil spills but also add to the price of oil at the same time?  This may be the case given the facts spelled out in a recent New York Times article.

The article notes the following:

The federal government has a large rainy day fund on hand to help mitigate the expanding damage on the Gulf Coast, generated by a tax on oil for use in cases like the Deepwater Horizon spill. ... Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government. The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.

To what degree does this "rainy day" fund actually represent another example of the unintended consequences of government policies?

Changing it up a little

Or we could just switch our emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, and then maybe to North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, depending on which one acts up the most.  Novelty is always appealing.  So this sounds like a plan, right?