O-Trap;1298944 wrote:It certainly changed mine.

It definitely opened up a lot of people's eyes to what is out there outside of the US, and somewhat inside of the US.

O-Trap;1298785 wrote: Hell, it's the Middle East. EVERYONE has acted up before. Turmoil there is part of life. It's been happening for thousands of years.

I don't really disagree with this or the rest of your post.

I guess my perspective is pretty much everything has failed as far as policy there. About the only option left on the table was regime change. I think it's entirely defensible that Iraq was the time and place for it (which, incidentally, I was telling people back then that true or not, WMD was a distant secondary issue).

I still think it was the right move. Time will tell. I will agree that Iraq, and indeed the rest of the Arab spring, is not going in the direction we had hoped. But I do not think the region can be fundamentally transformed until the fundamental issues of poverty, ignorance and freedom are addressed. From that perspective, perhaps it's time to consider different tests/criteria with regard to sanctions.

gut;1300379 wrote:I don't really disagree with this or the rest of your post.

I guess my perspective is pretty much everything has failed as far as policy there. About the only option left on the table was regime change. I think it's entirely defensible that Iraq was the time and place for it (which, incidentally, I was telling people back then that true or not, WMD was a distant secondary issue).

I still think it was the right move. Time will tell. I will agree that Iraq, and indeed the rest of the Arab spring, is not going in the direction we had hoped. But I do not think the region can be fundamentally transformed until the fundamental issues of poverty, ignorance and freedom are addressed. From that perspective, perhaps it's time to consider different tests/criteria with regard to sanctions.

I think the problem is that we still perceive the responsibility of transforming the region as our own. I think we're commandeering responsibilities that we don't have a right to. If America, for example, was not heading the direction that China wanted them to, I don't think China would have the responsibility, or right, to try to send us in the "direction [they] had hoped." I don't think they have the right to actively try to transform it. I think that's both our right and our responsibility ... and I daresay that if they were to go about trying to do so the way we are, we'd probably take issue with it. They don't all like each other over there, but it's up to them to either fight it out or find a way to make it work.

Point taken, but it's not the best corollary when we start talking national security and, oh by the way, a boatload of oil.

I get what you are saying, but at the end of the day it's mostly all a 3rd world country. Sovereign country, sure I respect that but it's not a sovereign people.

gut;1300390 wrote:Point taken, but it's not the best corollary when we start talking national security and, oh by the way, a boatload of oil.

I get what you are saying, but at the end of the day it's mostly all a 3rd world country. Sovereign country, sure I respect that but it's not a sovereign people.

The oil, I don't think, justifies it any more than if someone was to invade us because we had something they wanted.

As for national security, I'm honestly ALL for keeping covert operatives over there to keep tabs on what is going on. I see a difference between making sure we know what they're doing and controlling what they're doing.

O-Trap;1300393 wrote:The oil, I don't think, justifies it any more than if someone was to invade us because we had something they wanted.

As for national security, I'm honestly ALL for keeping covert operatives over there to keep tabs on what is going on. I see a difference between making sure we know what they're doing and controlling what they're doing.

Fair enough.

But point of contention, you can't separate the oil from national security.

gut;1300397 wrote:Fair enough.

But point of contention, you can't separate the oil from national security.

Eh, I think you can ...

1. There are other sources of oil over there from "friendly" nations.

2. We have oil we could drill if push came to shove.

3. We really should wean ourselves off it as much as possible to make ourselves less dependent on such a hostile region. Remaining depending on said hostile region any longer than possible is a bad plan, whether or not oil is the commodity.

O-Trap;1300400 wrote:Eh, I think you can ...

1. There are other sources of oil over there from "friendly" nations.

2. We have oil we could drill if push came to shove.

3. We really should wean ourselves off it as much as possible to make ourselves less dependent on such a hostile region. Remaining depending on said hostile region any longer than possible is a bad plan, whether or not oil is the commodity.

All a great theory, just not remotely practical.

I agree with you about energy independence, but the policies aren't remotely close. The national security issue is not just a question of a source for our energy needs, but globally.

gut;1300411 wrote:All a great theory, just not remotely practical.

I agree with you about energy independence, but the policies aren't remotely close. The national security issue is not just a question of a source for our energy needs, but globally.

I was under the impression that most of the oil to the US comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Also, as I recall, the largest supplier from the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, and we didn't invade there. As such, the first point remains true. Of the oil we get over there, we still get plenty from a "friendly" nation. The other direct sources aren't there.

As for our own oil, it's only impractical at the moment because foreign oil is still a viable option. Removing the foreign source, and then we'd see how viable it actually is.

And I do know that we're not yet close, but the above-mentioned sources should ideally allow us to GET closer. I do think energy independence ... whatever that is ... should be pursued as a matter of national security.

O-Trap;1300417 wrote:I was under the impression that most of the oil to the US comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Also, as I recall, the largest supplier from the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, and we didn't invade there. As such, the first point remains true. Of the oil we get over there, we still get plenty from a "friendly" nation. The other direct sources aren't there.

As for our own oil, it's only impractical at the moment because foreign oil is still a viable option. Removing the foreign source, and then we'd see how viable it actually is.

And I do know that we're not yet close, but the above-mentioned sources should ideally allow us to GET closer. I do think energy independence ... whatever that is ... should be pursued as a matter of national security.

Approx. 10% of our oil comes from "volatile" Mid East states. But the point is it's a fixed supply, and where we get our oil is not independent nor ignorant of the rest of the globe. Just because we don't buy oil directly from Syria doesn't mean it's not an issue of national security. If we take all of Saudi Arabia's oil, for illustrative purposes, everyone else has to get their oil elsewhere. And so Syria matters, eventhought we don't buy oil from them.

gut;1300419 wrote:Approx. 10% of our oil comes from "volatile" Mid East states. But the point is it's a fixed supply, and where we get our oil is not independent nor ignorant of the rest of the globe. Just because we don't buy oil directly from Syria doesn't mean it's not an issue of national security. If we take all of Saudi Arabia's oil, for illustrative purposes, everyone else has to get their oil elsewhere. And so Syria matters, eventhought we don't buy oil from them.

Oh, again, I'm not saying they don't matter, but the connection involves more steps, and thus, more variables. This is why I completely agree with keeping abreast of the situation, but the direct connection to the nations that sell it directly to us are more immediate, I would suggest.

And whether or not other nations "need" oil, a nation's commodities are a nation's commodities to sell or use at their own discretion.

O-Trap;1300423 wrote: And whether or not other nations "need" oil, a nation's commodities are a nation's commodities to sell or use at their own discretion.

It's far more complicated. And in a way it's like saying a doctor can say "well, depends, how much money do you have in your wallet?"

gut;1300427 wrote:It's far more complicated.

It's only more complicated because we don't like that it might affect us negatively. We say it's more complicated because of the way it might affect us, but that begets a sort of hypocrisy, because we wouldn't dare accept another country behaving in the same manner toward us.

gut;1300427 wrote:And in a way it's like saying a doctor can say "well, depends, how much money do you have in your wallet?"

Problem is, if they say that to everyone, nobody will visit the doctor, and the doctor won't make any money, because everyone will either go to another doctor or will at least be looking for the first chance to go to another doctor. It bodes poorly for the doctor as well.

But again, it's only more complicated than that because we don't like how it might affect us. I don't think autonomy ends when it has results we don't like. I think it's our job to find a way to overcome the loss or need, just as it would be for any other nation if they had a need.

In a nutshell, when autonomy is king, survival of the fittest.

O-Trap;1300430 wrote: But again, it's only more complicated than that because we don't like how it might affect us. I don't think autonomy ends when it has results we don't like. I think it's our job to find a way to overcome the loss or need, just as it would be for any other nation if they had a need.

I really don't follow. You are dealing with a limited resource. It's actually a global, not US, issue.

O-Trap;1300430 wrote: In a nutshell, when autonomy is king, survival of the fittest.

In a nutshell, you get it. Autonomy is not the issue - survival of the fittest is a global energy question. But curiously you get it but I don't think you understand why you get it.

And I know you are a smart guy. But I'm not following you here.

gut;1300433 wrote:I really don't follow. You are dealing with a limited resource. It's actually a global, not US, issue.

Indeed, it is, but it's not complicated because it cannot be boiled down to "what is mine is mine." It can. It's just that with a limited resource, one that we (I mean "we" as in all countries) have allowed ourselves to become dependent on, the ramifications of "what's mine is mine" could mean that we'd have to overcome the obstacle of not having it. We don't like that.

gut;1300433 wrote:In a nutshell, you get it. Autonomy is not the issue - survival of the fittest is a global energy question. But curiously you get it but I don't think you understand why you get it.

And I know you are a smart guy. But I'm not following you here.

Ultimately, the commodity we'd be missing isn't oil. It's the energy produced when we use the oil. If there was to be an oil crisis, which you and I agree is a possibility down the road, due to the resource being finite, it would be up to each nation to find its own way to exist on limited or absent oil. Even under those circumstances, I think autonomy needs to be recognized as a defining characteristic of the interaction between countries in that case.

In essence, if you're cut off from something you've been using, it's up to you to "build a better mousetrap." It's not up to you to make other nations continue to feed your need.

O-Trap;1300439 wrote:In essence, if you're cut off from something you've been using, it's up to you to "build a better mousetrap." It's not up to you to make other nations continue to feed your need.

I would agree with that to a degree.

However, like it or not as humans facing needs and/or demands, sometimes immediate survival outweighs long-term ingenuity. That generally leads to short-term irrational behavior like - oh I dunno - wars?

believer;1300487 wrote:I would agree with that to a degree.

However, like it or not as humans facing needs and/or demands, sometimes immediate survival outweighs long-term ingenuity. That generally leads to short-term irrational behavior like - oh I dunno - wars?

I agree that it DOES lead to it, but I would hope that we would know better than to think it SHOULD.

O-Trap;1298771 wrote:No beer today. Just bourbon that was given as a birthday present.

What kind?

O-Trap;1300712 wrote:I agree that it DOES lead to it, but I would hope that we would know better than to think it SHOULD.

But that's the heart of the matter. A massive disruption to the global oil supply likely leads to wars over the remaining available resources. You can argue that shouldn't be the case and everyone should fend for themselves. That's all fine and dandy, but the global "superpowers" are in no way equipped or capable of suddenly turning on a supply of substitutes, and certainly not overnight.

I also don't think energy independence is the easy answer it's made out to be. What happens in a world of cheaper, alternative energy that cuts off the one source of wealth/prosperity in the middle east? Do you really think the terrorists and radicals will be satiated and just go away with things crumbling around them? I tend to think such a condition is actually more favorable to radicals that exploit poverty and ignorance to gain power.

gut;1300915 wrote:But that's the heart of the matter. A massive disruption to the global oil supply likely leads to wars over the remaining available resources. You can argue that shouldn't be the case and everyone should fend for themselves. That's all fine and dandy, but the global "superpowers" are in no way equipped or capable of suddenly turning on a supply of substitutes, and certainly not overnight.

Oil isn't going to become a rare enough commodity to require that overnight. It will take time to diminish as an available resource. And given the resources available to said superpowers, they have as good a shot as anyone at creating or discovering a viable alternative. Again, this is assuming we don't tap our own keg at this point.

gut;1300915 wrote:I also don't think energy independence is the easy answer it's made out to be. What happens in a world of cheaper, alternative energy that cuts off the one source of wealth/prosperity in the middle east? Do you really think the terrorists and radicals will be satiated and just go away with things crumbling around them? I tend to think such a condition is actually more favorable to radicals that exploit poverty and ignorance to gain power.

What will they do? Probably something similar to what organized crime does here in the US. When alcohol became legalized after prohibition, they weren't able to corner that market anymore, so they found something else. When Middle East controlled resources are no longer the cash cows they are today, they'll find an alternative or struggle.

If such a scarcity of oil were to come about, I have no doubt that war would take place, and I am fully in support of my country defending itself.

O-Trap;1300941 wrote:When Middle East controlled resources are no longer the cash cows they are today, they'll find an alternative or struggle.

Struggle. They have not used the oil wealth to build economies, for the most part. It's also not like pumping the stuff out of the ground is cost-less, either. Maybe in that scenario you can placate the power brokers simply by paying them off. Because there's not a sustainable source of wealth the ruling class can just tap into given they are dealing mostly with 3rd world resources/human capital.

You're prohibition example, while it's mostly apples-to-oranges, does raise an interesting corollary: the mob didn't just go away, they focused on other criminal enterprise. And that's what I would foresee happening in the middle east, using terrorism as a sort of means for extortion in some form.

It's not as if terrorism requires some sort of huge capital investment, nor do I believe that oil resources are really propping it up.

gut;1300976 wrote:Struggle. They have not used the oil wealth to build economies, for the most part. It's also not like pumping the stuff out of the ground is cost-less, either. Maybe in that scenario you can placate the power brokers simply by paying them off.

You're prohibition example, while it's mostly apples-to-oranges, does raise an interesting corollary: the mob didn't just go away, they focused on other criminal enterprise. And that's what I would foresee happening in the middle east, using terrorism as a sort of means for extortion in some form.

It's not as if terrorism requires some sort of huge capital investment, nor do I believe that oil resources are really propping it up.

The comparison you drew is the one I was intending. The apples-to-oranges elements weren't intended to be part of the parallel. The parallel was that when a source of income went away, they found an alternative. I think those in the Middle East who are currently profiting from oil will do the same.

O-Trap;1300978 wrote:I think those in the Middle East who are currently profiting from oil will do the same.

How or what, other than terrorism/extortion? This isn't the US where a loss of manufacturing jobs sees the resources and human capital allocated to IT, etc.. There is absolutely nothing to replace the vacuum created from a loss of oil wealth. They don't have an educated or skilled lower/middle class to suddenly, or even gradually, transform their economy. They aren't going to suddenly or gradually morph into a 1st world developed economy, they are going to regress into 3rd world status which will only serve to magnify issues with terrorism and radicalism.

gut;1300427 wrote:It's far more complicated. And in a way it's like saying a doctor can say "well, depends, how much money do you have in your wallet?"

So you disagree that commodities are the property of the nations and people who they belong to?

Their resources are theirs to use or sell, just as ours are. Someone threatening military action against the US if we refused to sell our resources would be just as wrong as the US doing that to others. We do not have a right to the worlds goods.

gut;1300979 wrote:How or what, other than terrorism/extortion?

I'm not sure any of us can know until it happens.

gut;1300979 wrote:This isn't the US where a loss of manufacturing jobs sees the resources and human capital allocated to IT, etc.. There is absolutely nothing to replace the vacuum created from a loss of oil wealth.

This perspective probably wasn't foreign to those aforementioned mobsters at the end of prohibition. And yet, they survived by hook or by crook. Again, survival of the fittest.

gut;1300979 wrote:They don't have an educated or skilled lower/middle class to suddenly, or even gradually, transform their economy.

No idea what they'll do. Not our responsibility (or right) to make sure they'll be okay, though.

gut;1300979 wrote:They aren't going to suddenly or gradually morph into a 1st world developed economy, they are going to regress into 3rd world status which will only serve to magnify issues with terrorism and radicalism.

Based on the state of the current third-world nations, I'm not sure it can be furthered, but either way, they'll end up destroying each other or members of them will attack big nations that will level them in return.