Most Canadians have seen the images of the War in Iraq on television or in print. Not being part of this war, we feel free to offer critical commentary of both sides. Praising the United States for liberating the country from a horrible dictator, scolding them for imperialist ambitions, supporting the Iraqi insurgency in the belief of a citizens right to depend their country, and calling the US outright liars for basing the war on what appears to have been knowingly false information.

In our free society, each of these, or any opinions, are acceptable. However with each of these opinions often comes a contradiction between beliefs and actions. It this hypocrisy, which in its mildest form could be considered harmless, but in greater degrees, exposes an inability that exists for many to examine the true root and consequences of their beliefs.

Case in point. While it is not an uncontested fact that the War in Iraq exists largely because of North American dependency on oil, it is quite easy to prove that this motivation has played a crucial role in the rational for war taking. In this example, we will assume that oil is an accepted reason for this invasion.

Since this war is about oil, and the need to secure sources of the natural Resource outside of North America, it can then be said that North Americans consumption of oil is unsustainable if we were to limit ourselves to consuming only the oil that exists within our own borders. This can be shown by a multitude of studies, and the governments own admission that it relies on 60% of its oil from foreign sources.

With increasing global trade, it was possible to secure this resource through an open market. With many of the oil producing Countries pumping more than was necessary for their own population, it made sense to export the oil to those countries that needed it and make a profit on it.

Where the problem begins to arise in when those countries who unquestionably supplied the oil, see their production decline, their own needs increase, and export less. This forces us to look at other countries to import oil from. As is often the case with many actions in life, we do what is easiest at first. The case of oil is no different. We first drilled the easiest places to explore, and initially approached the safest, most stable countries because it made the most sense. Now that these primary sources are becoming exhausted what is left are politically unstable countries that in many cases, do not want to exploit their oil resources at an acceptable rate, or do not want to export to certain regions of the world.

Demand has now strengthened as supply becomes tighter. In the global context, demand has become so strong that it will soon push past supply and create a perplexing situation which we are now seeing.

When demand is higher than supply, there are two options. The first is reduce demand, in our own case, cut the consumption of oil to a sustainable level. The second is to offer a higher price than someone else, and compete for the limited supply. This theory is a rather simple economic principle.

The real world however proves differently. In North America, this option has been faced. We could have cut Oil Consumption and reduce our dependency. Instead, the option that was chosen was to Continue our same modes of usage, and, instead of offering a greater price for a limited commodity, war was waged to force countries into submission through the use of force and increase the flow of oil in that method.

Which is were we return to the case in point of hypocritical actions. It is, in most cases, unjustified for one to support a war that is about the control of natural resources, yet, still drive around in a large SUV and continue consuming more oil that North America can sustain using were it not for the securing of international resources through military action. A perfect expression of this would be an anti-war bumper sticker on the back of a car.

Canadians very often display this contradiction of beliefs versus actions. We protest against Bush and the United States foreign policy. We mock or ridicule them, look down on them because they continue to let what many call an 'unjust war' continue. Yet with our economic integration with the United States, we also fail to address how Canadian companies make money selling to Defense Department, or how we benefit from this war ensuring that oil prices do not rise to even greater prices than they currently are (they will increase greatly, but that is a separate issue).

The demonstration here is not to point out the faults of people and accuse everyone of being a hypocrite. No one is able to operate in a manner that is free of contradictions. War though is not an issue to take lightly. It inflicts a great deal of pain and suffering too those involved, or caught in the cross fire. When choosing our belief and position on this latest war, we owe it too ourselves not just to base our judgments on knee jerk reactions, but to take a deeper introspection on it.

Even if one opposes the war, believes that it is about oil, yet cannot give up their car or reduce their oil consumption in the short term, the acknowledgement of this conflict at least allows a person to continue to reflect and make a deeper decision about their own life, beliefs and actions. While it may seem trivial, it has great benefits for all of society in creating dialogue and discourse that is deep, rich, and more sincere, and goes beyond just absorbing what information is thrown at us.