1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest!
The donation button is here.
https://goo.gl/aFggcs
  1. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
    Well, part of the problem is indeed oil. The U.S. economy depends on cheaper than average gas prices (currently about 25% cheaper). Not to mention it's a consumer society, which requires a bunch more oil.

    In the big picture, the U.S. must either change domestically or deal with this sort of foreign thing when it comes up.
     
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
    Also:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Try telling US citizens the following, and see how well it goes over with them.
    "OK, we'll stay out of crises in the Middle East, we also won't support any particular nation, political group, or religious group. That means we won't buy any imported oil. You'll pay $7.00+ per gallon for gasoline. Just about everything you purchase will be more expensive because the cost of oil affects the price of just about everything you buy."

    Of course doing the above is no guarantee that foreign terrorist groups wouldn't target US citizens and businesses abroad, and on US soil.
     
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
    There will come a time when it won't be a question of choosing whether or not to import oil.

    The way China and India are headed, the U.S. will have increasing difficulty competing for available resources.

    File:Top 5 Importers of Petroleum.png - Wikimedia Commons

    The solution, of course, is Canadian oil. But even now China is becoming increasingly invested.
     
  5. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I did not say that at all. What I actually wrote is not complicated and is easily understood. Your skills convoluting issues are impressive.
    --- merged: Oct 5, 2014 10:33 PM ---
    There is a difference between an unhealthy focus on the past and learning from the past. I think some are dwelling on the Bush Iraq war in a manner that is clouding their judgement to the degree that it is detrimental. For example - if our current situation warrants "boots on the ground" we need to put "boots on the ground" - we can not avoid that just so we can say we did not do what Bush did.

    I can discuss rood causes! What makes you think I, as a US conservative, can not?

    O.k., so why is Obama, not a conservative, engaging in war in Iraq? Why are "coalition partners", not US, engaged in war in Iraq? Or, are we saying we are not engaged in war? I am confused - I speak regular English, not the new Orwelian form of English.

    O.k. - and we can say the human race has been engaging in regime changes since the history of regimes. I would suggest that until we reach our next stage of human evolution, the human race will be engaging in future regime changes - US involvement or not.
    --- merged: Oct 5, 2014 10:37 PM ---
    Wow, what an interesting statement. What is the implication of such a statement? How does one measure the legitimacy of this statement? How can we test the premise? How does the US get cheaper than average oil, measured in US dollars????

    New technology, new sources of oil, less dependance, price stability...there is change occurring. Oh, and Canada is doing pretty well in this regard too.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2014
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm convoluting issues? I'm not the one talking about the butterfly effect and suggesting in convoluted terms that the U.S. toppling Saddam's regime had little (or nothing?) to do with ISIS being what it is today.

    This is probably a misunderstanding of what you mean. (You're not as clear as you think you are.)

    I don't deny that other factors are important (including serious factors not directly attributable to U.S. influence). But if you can't accept that U.S. actions are quite responsible for ISIS as it is today, then we probably shouldn't continue on this topic, as I require at least a basic foundation in fact.

    What I'm saying is uncontroversial. (Maybe it simply appears so to those of us outside of the U.S.)

    You can look up global gasoline prices quite easily using Google. The data I found indicates that U.S. gasoline prices are consistently well below the global average. If you find data suggesting otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.

    As for implications, consider the kind of conversations that happen when gas prices in the U.S. get "high" (as in higher than is deemed normal). In the media, you get doom and gloom regarding summer travel, the general economy, the impact on transportation for low-income families, etc. The implication is that if gasoline prices in the U.S. were to approach a global average of ~$4.80 per gallon, it would have a significant negative impact if no interventions were made.

    The average U.S. gas price was $3.29 per gallon in 2013. In many wealthy nations, they pay double that. What would happen if Americans needed to pay simply the global average? I think it would be devastating.

    New technology and new sources of oil require expenditures in research, development, and infrastructure. Considering how quickly things can change affecting oil prices, these are long-term issues. You can't rely on these things to deal with price shocks at the pump.

    As for the bigger picture, there are too many factors pointing to peak oil pressuring alternative energy sources. So regarding less dependance and price stability, it's more than about the oil, but oil will the the pressure behind the changes regarding alternative energy.

    This is another story. The picture isn't all rosy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  7. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I stated that there have been intervening events - things that happened (or did not happen) since the bush Iraq war that has had a bigger impact on where we are now. I would further argue that there are events that occurred prior to the Bush Iraq war that has had a bigger impact on where we are now, i.e. the origin of the Shiite/Sunni conflict.

    Yet, you seem to purposefully attempt to alter the meaning of what I write, and then respond to that altered meaning. I am trying to understand why you do this. It seems very inefficient to me - to put effort into reading/understanding/altering/responding to an alteration/defending the alteration/defending the response to the alteration. You are not the only one who does it, if I can understand why you do it, it will have broader application for me.

    I am not going to assume that you do not understand the concepts of intervening events, proximate and ultimate causation. I argue that the Bush Iraq war is not a proximate cause of ISIS nor the ultimate cause - but it is a part of a series of connected events. The premise of your argument has not been clearly articulated. I can not believe that your premise is based on the notion that if not for the Bush Iraq war, ISIS would not exist, that the internal Islamic conflict would have been resolved!
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
  8. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Toronto
    Good. You shouldn't believe that, especially not under the context you've developed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
  9. Shadowex3

    Shadowex3 Very Tilted Donor

    Afaik the US is the world's largest exporter of oil right now (or will be very soon), and purchases a majority of its oil from outside the mideast. We have cheap oil because our government subsidizes gas prices. We do need to get off it and onto renewables as soon as possible, but the middle east isn't THE single overriding reason for that.

    As to ISIS... they're a symptom. They exist because we killed off the guys that were there before and they filled an Al-Qaeda shaped hole. Al-Qaeda got big because we toppled the just as murderous dictatorship that had repressed everyone else beforehand. Bush II's war isn't just a proximate cause, it's a direct cause of the rise of ISIS. Yes Saddam was an evil murdering bastard but he ran a stable evil murdering country and he was the only one allowed to to anything evil. Everybody else had to go through him. Now it's a free for all.

    If you want to go further back you wind up in the proxy wars against the Soviets where we backed the most militant extremists and then dumped them with their country in shambles afterwards, and overthrowing the Shah of Iran in favor of installing a repressive dictator.

    But ISIS? They're a symptom. Kill all of them tomorrow and you'll get another group taking their place in a few years. The current politics and economics of the region itself is what produces groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, and others. The middle east is stuck in the same condition as post-versailles Germany but with even less development so you get religious reichs and toyota driving terrorists instead of secular ones cranking out tanks and u-boats.

    If we ever want to fix that it's going to take a recovery program the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Marshall Plan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2014