Which would be cheaper
It's always cheaper to set up a surogate, puppet industry on defeated land in the long run.
Has the oil industry ever made trillions of dollars to compensate for the debt in trillions of dollars to fund the previous wars that were allegedly for oil
Was more oil exoended in the previous wars to alkegedly get the oil then has been extracted so far as a result of these wars?
Depends how you think about, oil is a strategic resource. GAE has always subsidized it's own oil prices with export markup offset. That's the real cost/benefit analysis for this problem.
And remember, most of the investment costs are paid for by investors, public offerings on stock exchanges.
You dumb this down too much and you get retarded answers.
Like i heard a normie just last Friday saying that prices of oil at the pump has stabilized somewhat in EU. EU govts are subsidizing, by cutting taxes and duties, this shit during the "transition period" which they bank on will end soon.
And remember, most of the investment costs are paid for by investors, public offerings on stock exchanges.
You dumb this down too much and you get retarded answers.
Like i heard a normie just last Friday saying that prices of oil at the pump has stabilized somewhat in EU. EU govts are subsidizing, by cutting taxes and duties, this shit during the "transition period" which they bank on will end soon.
The war option is only cheaper if you win the war.
Follow
The war option is not necessarily cheaper if you win the war
If it costs twice as much oil to win the war as the amount of free oil you get to take as plunder for winning the war than you actually lost more oil then if you never went to war in the first place
Going to war uses more oil than not going to war
But if you don't win, war is always the most expensive option.
