General Discussion

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

i can appreciate your thoughts on the matter. and I do. you bring alot to the table to think about.

but (you know it was coming) OPEC and oil prices? oil is a traded commodity under the thumb of supply and demand. emerging markets have increased demand while supply remains steady. costs rise under those circumstances.

And yet OPEC controls supply........some might think that allows OPEC to control price?

Could OPEC increase supply to meet demand, thereby stabilizing prices and the US economy? Why do they not do so, as they did after the first Persian Gulf War? Why was OPEC formed, out of a desire for peace and love, or out of a desire for respect and power?

Who subsidizes "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists"? Is it Mexico, Japan, France, and South Africa? Or is it certain OPEC states in the Middle East? Who backs Israeli policies? Who has overstayed their welcome in Iraq?

What were the known objectives of the September 11th attacks? The World Trade Center, a symbol of American economic power, and the Pentagon, a symbol of American military power. Do you believe the attacks on American economic power and military power have ended? Is it over? If so, why are they still fighting? Hasn't anyone told them that we won the war?

Do we continue to "stay the course" and bury our head in the sand? Or should we talk to them?

Is oil a weapon? Who holds who over a barrel?

The last time we went to war with OPEC was following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. We lost, said never again, and our politicians talked alternative energy. Yea, right, we know how effective those words were. 

Do our politicians "get it"?

OPEC as a cartel has historically not be a successful one. And it has often been due to American influences in countries like Saudi Arabia that any embargo by OPEC nations has been only minimally influential. Oil is starting to lose relevance anyways as the price difference between it and alternate power systems are about parity now, which means sooner rather than later oil will become obsolete as a means to power the world's transit systems.


-- Brede

Originally posted by ladyattis

OPEC as a cartel has historically not be a successful one. And it has often been due to American influences in countries like Saudi Arabia that any embargo by OPEC nations has been only minimally influential. Oil is starting to lose relevance anyways as the price difference between it and alternate power systems are about parity now, which means sooner rather than later oil will become obsolete as a means to power the world's transit systems.


-- Brede

And yet what country is Osama Bin Laden from? What country finances Osama Bin Laden? What country provided the majority of hijackers?

The country we have the most influence in?

Interesting......

To answer your actual question.  (it seems like everyone else went on tangents)  We just have to look to 9/11.  President Clinton was very weak on terror.  He had chanced to really go after them and never did.  He sent missiles at targets that were of very little impact and what effect did that have?  It made them stronger, it showed them that they could stand up to the US and gave them the ability to commit 9/11.  Leaving Iraq and having terrorists have any type of victory would do the same thing.  The terrorists would point to this as a rallying flag to say that they won.  They would get stronger and would be able to bring the fight to us. 

Right now the terrorists are pretty busy fighting in the Middle East.  They haven't had as much ability to attack outside of that area.  So having the war going on has made America a safer place. 

Anyone that thinks the WAR is about OIL is just plain stupid.  All the WAR does is piss off OPEC which makes it harder on American Oil companies.  Yes Oil is turning out record profit but that is because there is record demand.  Their actual profit margin is down around 5%.  They make around 5 cents on every dollar in actual profit margin.  That isn't very high. 

The reason that this country is having an energy crisis is the fault of environmentalists.  We can't drill in America because it is bad for the environment.  We can't have Nuclear power because it is bad for the environment.  We can't build more refineries so we can get more gasoline out to the market because refineries are bad for the environment. 

I am sorry environmentalists but Wind Farms, solar power, etc are not feasible energy alternatives.  You want a alternative to Oil.  Then lets build tons of Nuclear plants.  We can turn around the countries demand on Oil and be more Nuclear focused like the France is.  France uses 80% Nuclear power.  Can you imagine if all of our homes, businesses, etc were all run on Nuclear power.  We wouldn't have any problems at all.  Then Gasoline prices could go way down in this country. 

---

Originally posted by Cabe2323
To answer your actual question. (it seems like everyone else went on tangents) We just have to look to 9/11. President Clinton was very weak on terror. He had chanced to really go after them and never did. He sent missiles at targets that were of very little impact and what effect did that have? It made them stronger, it showed them that they could stand up to the US and gave them the ability to commit 9/11. Leaving Iraq and having terrorists have any type of victory would do the same thing. The terrorists would point to this as a rallying flag to say that they won. They would get stronger and would be able to bring the fight to us.
Right now the terrorists are pretty busy fighting in the Middle East. They haven't had as much ability to attack outside of that area. So having the war going on has made America a safer place.
Anyone that thinks the WAR is about OIL is just plain stupid. All the WAR does is piss off OPEC which makes it harder on American Oil companies. Yes Oil is turning out record profit but that is because there is record demand. Their actual profit margin is down around 5%. They make around 5 cents on every dollar in actual profit margin. That isn't very high.
The reason that this country is having an energy crisis is the fault of environmentalists. We can't drill in America because it is bad for the environment. We can't have Nuclear power because it is bad for the environment. We can't build more refineries so we can get more gasoline out to the market because refineries are bad for the environment.
I am sorry environmentalists but Wind Farms, solar power, etc are not feasible energy alternatives. You want a alternative to Oil. Then lets build tons of Nuclear plants. We can turn around the countries demand on Oil and be more Nuclear focused like the France is. France uses 80% Nuclear power. Can you imagine if all of our homes, businesses, etc were all run on Nuclear power. We wouldn't have any problems at all. Then Gasoline prices could go way down in this country.

---

Originally posted by olddaddy

 

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

 

Originally posted by olddaddy

 

Originally posted by Man1ac
........To put this into analogy, America is basically the big bully you get at school who picks on the 3th and 4th graders and especially beat up and pick pocket the little rich kids.

You make this sound immoral, rather than good, sound Jack Simple sense. I mean, if a bully had any brains, rather than beat them up and steal their money, he'd be selling them religion so they got down on their knees and gave him their money. That's why the wimp kids in school become the televangelists, they have to out think the bully. 

 

the govt. does not sell religion. its the people who choose to follow religion and/or a particular minister/televangelist. the people elect politicians, republicans in this instance, to be anit-abortion. that  and to appear 'god fearing'. thats why republicans are so quick to oust a member that engages in 'immoral' conduct.

 

in regards to democrats, their message, to these 'jack simples' is to choose death not life.

 

You misunderstood my post. I was using religion as an analogy in my reply, not stating that the government sells religion. The analogy was the people with brains have to out think the bully with brawn. 

My point is that "Jack Simple" reverts to bullying, or military force, as a first resort, rather than trying to think their way through other options first. 

For example, Iran, both McCain and Bush want to bomb Iran. However, rather than isolate and not engage Iran, which marginalizes them further, Nixon showed in establishing relations with China that by engaging them and opening them up to the global supply chain they could be controlled. 

So, if, besides supplying oil, Iran was allowed into the global economy as a player, rather than being marginalized, it would be Iranian mathemeticians, scientists, and engineers that would be participating in product developement, and stimulating their economy, much like India today does, or providing products in the global supply chain, much like China does. Neither China, nor India, are a threat to world peace, it would hurt them economically to disrupt the economic chain. Similiarly, Iran would have a great deal of political and economic pressure on them not to disrupt the global supply chain from those that they do business with if Iran showed an inkling to go to war.

The idea is to sit down and offer Iran the carrot as an incentive to be a player in the world economy. They may start off working for the west, but, like Japan, Korea, China, and India, they would eventually emerge as players in their own right. The Persians as a people have always been very smart, and very industrious. Let them into the market, grow the economic pie by growing their economy, and I'm sure they will see the benefits of being an economic player over having/using the bomb. 

Nuclear weapons can only be used if a country is willing to sacrifice it's population and industrial base to retaliation. It is a diplomatic weapon which cannot be successfully used to win a military conflict. Nuclear weapons do not create a win-lose scenario, they create a lose-lose scenario. Offering Iran the opportunity to engage in the global supply chain as a player creates a win-win scenario. It brings Iran to the negotiating table in future conflicts, and gives them the economic clout rather then the nuclear threat. Yes, we will have to sit down and negotiate trade with them, rather than dictate trade. Is that a bad thing?

 

 

Nuclear weapons are just as much a political weapon as any of the other uses you mentioned.   If not more so.   When was the last time 2 nuclear nations went to war.  Just give Israel or help Israel develop their weapon at the same pace to insure mutual destruction of both nations.

Iran can have their weapon and achieve the same economic strength if they make the right choices.

      We are the only nation to have used the weapon so far.  Who the hell are we to say who should have them.  It all boils down to Oil and fear.

Edit to clerify.  I am not agreeing with any of the statements you quoted in your reply Olddaddy.  Just making a response towards your reasoning is all.   It just seemed to be like the typical response from any politician for whatever reason.  Its most definately not the only one.  Basically my stance is lets just stay  out of it all together.  Let the rest of the world deal with a situation for a change.  

Originally posted by JayBirdz  

Nuclear weapons are just as much a political weapon as any of the other uses you mentioned.   If not more so.   When was the last time 2 nuclear nations went to war.  Just give Israel or help Israel develop their weapon at the same pace to insure mutual destruction of both nations.

Iran can have their weapon and achieve the same economic strength if they make the right choices.

      We are the only nation to have used the weapon so far.  Who the hell are we to say who should have them.  It all boils down to Oil and fear.

 

Edit to clerify.  I am not agreeing with any of the statements you quoted in your reply Olddaddy.  Just making a response towards your reasoning is all.   It just seemed to be like the typical response from any politician for whatever reason.  Its most definately not the only one.  Basically my stance is lets just stay  out of it all together.  Let the rest of the world deal with a situation for a change.  

I consider diplomacy and political to be the same thing, though I guess they could be considered different, as diplomacy to me means foreign interaction, though I recognize that political warfare can be waged against one's own population as well as against foreigners. In my statement, I chose the word diplomacy because I do not believe nuclear weapons would ever be used against one's own population.

My understanding is that Israel already has produced several nuclear weapons. They collaborated on developement with South Africa, another nation that is strongly believed to have nuclear weapons. So I don't think Iran is ahead in the race, I think Israel is.

I believe Iran's fear is that Israel has nuclear weapons, and does not appear to be under the control of the United States like they were during the Cold War days. Iran may very well feel that they personally need control over nuclear weapons to convince Israel that their use by Israel would result in an immediate and decisive nuclear response. That is, the use of nuclear weapons by Israel is a lose-lose situation. They may feel that there is no check and balance on Israel by the United States, giving Israel the perception that the use of nuclear weapons is a win-lose scenario benefiting Israel.

On the other hand, we are concerned about no checks and balances on Iran.