United States attacks Canada to seize tar sands region

May 8, 2011 | By | 4 Replies More

Let’s see. What oil rich region should the United States next invade? Hmmm. Politicians and oil companies are increasingly telling us that our future oil lies in the tar sands of Canada.   Only one thing lies between the United States and that oil: Canada might not simply give us their tar sands.  Problems like these, however, are ready-made for the United States military solutions. Hence, today I imagined that we might soon see the following news story.

Image by Erich Vieth dangerousintersection.org

I don’t really believe that the United States has any plans to invade Canada, but I am trying to make a few serious points with this image.

We all know how to pull this sort of land grab, because Americans are well-practiced in simply taking land from other people (ask Mexico and native Americans, and check out the size of the American Embassy in Iraq).  We are experts at inventing the need to go to war.  Here’s a simplified version of the plan:  We claim that there are weapons of mass destruction in Canada.  We claim that there are French terrorists threatening America; we are good at inventing stories that serve as excuses to go to war.  Our mass-media goes along with the ploy because they are amoral conflict-mongers.  Eventually, the United States simply takes over the tar sands region of Canada.   Or at least that’s how it goes in my imagination.

It’s increasingly clear we have entered peak world-wide oil production, but American politicians don’t not dare to urge American citizens to cut down on their use of energy. Conservation is widely seen as un-American because it is usually framed as an approach that deprives Americans of their life-style, even though conservation and renewable energy makes far too much sense on many levels. And all of this crazy framing of the debate takes place while reputable scientists are offering solid evidence that with current technology and reasonable conservation measures we could now begin replace much of American fossil fuel usage with renewables.

If I had to place a bet, though, I would put my chips on a future where Americans continue, as long as they are financially and militarily able, to engage in profligate oil usage (we use more than 9,000 gallons per second, enough to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool every minute of every day).  They will do this despite the fact that tar sands oil is an environmental disaster in the making .

Share

Tags:

Category: American Culture, Energy, Environment, Sustainable Living

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. dave says:

    Geez, Erich. Really? I know you're being hyperbolic to make a point, but isn't such outlandish hyperbole exactly the kind of meaningless word-dreck that this blog was supposed to counteract? Where is the meaningful dialog? Where is an actual topic worth debating? What kind of response would you expect to this? I would offer up three possible responses, each of them as meaningless as the next:

    1. Yeah! I hate the American War Machine! We had better do something before those poor sweet defenseless Canadians get hurt! It's Bush's fault!

    2. No way! Screw Canada!

    3. Wow– what kind of goofy conspiracy dreamland do you live in, little boy? Is obsessing over the crimes of the American war machine actually developing into a slight fetish for you?

    Take you pick on which response you like. None of them get you anywhere, unless you actually wrote this as a serious contemplation that the US would militarily attack Canada, our closest ally. If that's the case, then it's worse than I feared.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      Dave: This was an attempted piece of satire expressing my outrage that American politicians and media disparage conservation of natural resources and they love war. My evidence being an outrageously expensive multi-country occupation in the Middle East. You might think my harmless attempt at humor to be juvenile, while I see U.S. foreign and energy policy to be equally so, massively damaging to the U.S. economy, immoral, justified by dishonesty at almost every turn.

      My daughter is going to a fledgling public school which is struggling mightily to finish constructing a $22 million building. It is an expensive but worthy project. Every week in Afghanistan alone we spent at least $2 billion, enough to build 95 of these schools. These are such warped budgetary priorities, to choose needless war while there are real needs that desperately need that money.

      We are constantly subjected to propaganda and oil is our only answer, and that there actually isn't an impending energy crisis. Why disparage conservation, even though every drop of energy saved is the equivalent of a drop you don't need to produce. And, again, war is constantly seen as an answer to social and political problems, even though it is usually the equivalent of using a chain saw to do surgery. It is a massive spewing of lies that is endangering our way of life to serve the short-term financial cravings of politicians and the companies that own them. We need to be quantum leaps smarter and more honest in order to save this country.

      Fair enough?

    • Erich Vieth says:

      And just to be clear, my post was not about going to war with Canada. I am not suggesting that this has any chance of happening.

      As for the impetus for my post, there are many, including this: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/04/trump-iraq-oi

  2. Tony says:

    I agree with the author, however we cannot possibly ever leave that country after we occupy it, even after the natural resources are exhausted. We must maintain armed military bases and security contractors to ensure freedom and democracy.

Leave a Reply