The 30 year itch

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From 2003...

Quote:

Source

Quote:

In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."

Source

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 864 • Replies: 17

No top replies

Ok stop posting these. We get it; the conspiracy theory nuts are going haywire on the whole "war for oil" idea. Come back in 3 years and we'll see if you are right (which you won't be). But please no more bullshit posts about this.

0 Replies

El Diablo, no offense but you probably should take a survey course in American foreign policy. Oil is the US's primary interest in the region, that's no secret, and it has been since WWII. The democratization of the region is merely a means to an end. In order to ensure a stable supply of oil, it is necessary to have a stable region. Volatility is disastrous at best. But don't take it from me, here's a few links to some pre 9/11 middle east policy idea's. If you're interested, you should check out some of Brzezinski's articles on geopolitics and global economic systems. I hope this is useful.

the Baker Institute
PNAC

0 Replies

Thracian wrote:

El Diablo, no offense but you probably should take a survey course in American foreign policy. Oil is the US's primary interest in the region, that's no secret, and it has been since WWII. The democratization of the region is merely a means to an end. In order to ensure a stable supply of oil, it is necessary to have a stable region. Volatility is disastrous at best. But don't take it from me, here's a few links to some pre 9/11 middle east policy idea's. If you're interested, you should check out some of Brzezinski's articles on geopolitics and global economic systems. I hope this is useful.

the Baker Institute
PNAC

If this is such a problem then we should go and drill in ANWR and be done with it.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

If this is such a problem then we should go and drill in ANWR and be done with it.

Perhaps, but drilling ANWR won't produce more than 5% of our needs at most, bringing US production up to a total of 50% of consumption. That is, it won't come close to solving our problem.

And with Chinese and Indian demand for oil and gas growing by double digit percentage points every year, yes, it is "such a problem."

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
If this is such a problem then we should go and drill in ANWR and be done with it.

Perhaps, but drilling ANWR won't produce more than 5% of our needs at most, bringing US production up to a total of 50% of consumption. That is, it won't come close to solving our problem.

And with Chinese and Indian demand for oil and gas growing by double digit percentage points every year, yes, it is "such a problem."

I have heard more then 5%. I still think it is a better idea then our current situation.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

bayinghound wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
If this is such a problem then we should go and drill in ANWR and be done with it.

Perhaps, but drilling ANWR won't produce more than 5% of our needs at most, bringing US production up to a total of 50% of consumption. That is, it won't come close to solving our problem.

And with Chinese and Indian demand for oil and gas growing by double digit percentage points every year, yes, it is "such a problem."

I have heard more then 5%. I still think it is a better idea then our current situation.

Then the best idea would be to pour as many resources as possible into finding alternative fuel sources, completely negating our (and everyone elses) need for oil. Correct?

0 Replies

time to facilitate regime change and invade venezeula ? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

I have heard more then 5%. I still think it is a better idea then our current situation.

From whom have you heard more than 5%? 5% is the most generous estimate Ive ever heard, and most think it a bit of wishful thinking.

Even if it were 15%, however, that would still leave our consumption of energy at the mercy of foreign producers to the tune of 40% and the rest of the industrialized world's imports still growing and Chinese and Indian demand growing by double digit percentage points every year.

Certainly, the additional oil we would start producing may dampen projected worldwide demand somewhat -- and I have no problem with that as long as the oil companies pay a premium for the taxpayers' land -- but it also will not by any stretch of the imagination even begin to solve our energy dependence problem.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

time to facilitate regime change and invade venezeula ?

Funny, but I wouldn't be surprised if after 20 years of Chavez-ian Castro-light many Venezuelans on the Left were to be criticizing as proof of American evil-naturedness that we didn't get rid of that demogogue by force.

coachryan wrote:

Then the best idea would be to pour as many resources as possible into finding alternative fuel sources, completely negating our (and everyone elses) need for oil. Correct?

I think a "Manhattan Project" type effort might well be justified by our national interests. I find it amusing that this is not an absolute priority of the GOP, whom so many seem to think are responsible when it comes to US security.

0 Replies

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear - we already have the technology. We just aren't using it as much as we could. Further use of nuclear power would be a good first step to reduce fossil fuels. Ultimately, other alternative fuel sources will be used when it becomes economically attractive, which it isn't at present. We also need to address the huge environmental impact of things like solar and wind energy - the disposal and visual issues are daunting at present.

There's no question Iraq is about oil - oil supply is about national security when you get right down to it. However, there is a vast difference between ensuring a friendlier supply of oil (what we are doing in Iraq) and taking over the oil supply, which is what was implied in the original post.

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

I think a "Manhattan Project" type effort might well be justified by our national interests. I find it amusing that this is not an absolute priority of the GOP, whom so many seem to think are responsible when it comes to US security.

With no concern for the environment, and with an extensive family history in the oil sector, is it entirely surprising they're (literally) fighting tooth and nail for greater access to the world's oil?

0 Replies

El-Diablo wrote:

Ok stop posting these. We get it; the conspiracy theory nuts are going haywire on the whole "war for oil" idea. Come back in 3 years and we'll see if you are right (which you won't be). But please no more bullshit posts about this.

We don't have to wait that long, simply provide me with a few links that, beyond a reasonable doubt contradict, or even disprove all us conspiracy theorists. There are quite a few links above that support my initial posting.
Your turn. :wink:

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
time to facilitate regime change and invade venezeula ?

Funny, but I wouldn't be surprised if after 20 years of Chavez-ian Castro-light many Venezuelans on the Left were to be criticizing as proof of American evil-naturedness that we didn't get rid of that demogogue by force.

probably so. they nearly got that going on their own a few months back. they just need to keep trying.

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear -

Two problems with nuclear:

1) Security ... someone manages to hit a plant and start a meltdown and you can have an entire coast uninhabitable for millennia.

2) The waste product is impossible to get rid of. Put it in the mountains in Nevada and it sits there for 10,000 years. Any problem and, well, so much for Nevada. Eject it into outer space until, one day, your rocket or what have you explodes in the atmosphere. Uh oh, I think our number's up.

And maybe 3, that is, people get quite sniffy about how it's pronounced.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

probably so. they nearly got that going on their own a few months back. they just need to keep trying.

Heh, yeah, but we got in a lot of trouble in the region just for not discouraging a coup.

0 Replies

Quote:

We don't have to wait that long, simply provide me with a few links that, beyond a reasonable doubt contradict, or even disprove all us conspiracy theorists. There are quite a few links above that support my initial posting.
Your turn. Wink

Lol but that's why you guys exist. We can't completely prove you wrong but it's motives and we will see in time if you are right. How can i get a link to show you bush's motives? I dont and It can't be done though many of the "oil theorist" do provide these links which have not but speculation and logic (which by is flawed in many ways but not horribly).

0 Replies

Bayinghound wrote:

Quote:

) The waste product is impossible to get rid of. Put it in the mountains in Nevada and it sits there for 10,000 years. Any problem and, well, so much for Nevada. Eject it into outer space until, one day, your rocket or what have you explodes in the atmosphere. Uh oh, I think our number's up.

I've got a fair amount less than 50 miles from me right now - doesn't bother me one bit. The fear of nuke waste is caused by lack of education on the actual issues and is not warranted. As to the security issue, that can be dealt with as well - we do have operating nuke plants in the US already, and Europe has a lot more. The technological advances in the last several decades have been incredible. It's a lot more attractive option than solar (which, for the same energy output, creates a MUCH higher volume of hazardous chemical waste) and wind power (which is LOUD and UGLY to live near, not to mention the acres and acres of land required to get sufficient output and the safety issues when the blades shatter from fatigue). It's such a shame to burn petroleum for energy when it's such a great raw material for any number of useful things.

0 Replies

I agree with you on nuke power being a good thing, what with the safety increases in the past few decades, Idaho, but this:

Quote:

(wind power) which is LOUD and UGLY to live near, not to mention the acres and acres of land required to get sufficient output and the safety issues when the blades shatter from fatigue

Is simply untrue.

My grandmother lives quite near a huge wind power generation plant in west Texas. And I do mean huge, the towers are immense. But they make almost no noise, and don't require more average acerage to put up than a nuclear or large coal plant. And the blade fatigue issue, well, I've been studying wind generation for a long time and I've never heard this brought up as a serious problem.

As for the ugly part, I and many others happen to like the streamlined look of the power plants, and what's even prettier is the zero emmissions they put out.

A combination of nuclear, improved focusing solar, and wind generation is where I see the US in 30 years time, with luck. With real luck, we can see microwave satellites and geothermal capping being utilized.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

it may just be embracing my inner trekkie, but nuclear does seem to be the only thing we presently know much about that could be integrated on a per use model.

i envision where each home will have it's own "l'il nuke 5000" power generator.

doubt if that will be common this century... damn!

0 Replies

The 30 year itch

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know