Bush doesn't want to development alternative energy sources because that doesn't benefit his oil cronies. Think of how alternative energy tech could have been advanced with the hundreds of billions spent/will be spent in Iraq. We could have, at very least, re-tooled US auto manufacturers for hybrid cars, an expensive proposition, and one that "secures US interests." Investing hundreds of billions in alternative energy would have been a great boon to the US economy as well. But it doesn't serve the interest of Bush's cronies.
If we're going to fight oil wars, at least be honest. If we ask Americans to give their lives in combat, the least we owe them is truth. But governments would rather make stuff up, always vilifying the opposing side. Also, if we are going to bomb continually for oil and/or economic interests, sooner or later, we're going to get it back. We've enjoyed the "across the pond" safety, but military technology is changing, making "across the pond" less safe. Small Mideast nations might not be inclined to retaliate, but conflict breeds hatred, and there are fringe groups, well organized, large terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda who are willing and eager to attack the US, even if their governments are not willing to do so. Or as in the case of Al Qaeda, there is state sponsorship, with Al Qaeda doing the dirty work.
You can't continue to bomb and meddle without reprisals, eventually.
One could also argue that neocon aggression is fueling a nuclear arms race. No.Korea flaunts their nuclear advances as a deterent to US aggression. And don't kid yourself, it has been a deterent. Iran is hot on the trail to becoming nuclear, or so the claim. As a closed society, no one really knows for sure what Iran has. Pakistan is nuclear. We make nice with them and give them lots of money. Israel is nuclear, and we're happy about that. Who knows how many other countries are actively seeking nukes. With the global perception of US as aggressive, imperialist superpower, there are probably many other countries. The long and the short of it is nukes are a deterent to aggression.
In a nuclear world, there must be cooperation with the international community, and the rule of international law must be upheld. Bush and Co. have repeatedly shown disregard for the international community, and the rule of law.
How any of this makes us safer, I haven't a clue. But I do know "benevolent global hegemony" will fail miserably. It benefits no one.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
