Why do we still buy their oil and their heroin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeseoUnTaco

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
290
That's my reaction to today's bombing in London. Trillions of dollars flow out of Western economies into the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the poppy fields of Afghanistan. Some of that money comes back into our countries in the form of bombs. We shouldn't be entangled with these people and we shouldn't be pumping trillions of dollars into their economies. We need to stop buying their oil and their heroin. Fortunately alternatives exist. We can switch to non-petroleum energy sources like nuclear, wind,, solar, bio-diesel, ethanol, and many others. We can switch our heroin addicts to domestic opiods like oxycontin. When will finally decide that the price of dealing with Saudis and Afghanis is intolerably high and we should change the situation?

(Just to be clear: I am not racist against Moslems or Arabs at all. However their societies and cultures right now are in a challenging situation where there is a conflict between those who want to turn time backwards to some holy past that never existed and those who want to continue the great Arab traditions of science, tolerance and intellectual curiosity. Until that internal turmoil is resolved, I am suggesting that we disentangle ourselves from them and stop pouring money into their countries.)
 
those who want to continue the great Arab traditions of science, tolerance and intellectual curiosity
.

I believe the appropriate term would be "reinvent". It's been a good long time since any of those traditions flowered independently of the West. Islamic intellectualism has been stagnant since before Lepanto.

It took a couple hundred years, many bloody Reformations and a Rennaisance to break the Church's stagnating hold on science and innovation in the West. I don't see Islam reinventing itself any more neatly, although they at least have a model to go by.
 
We seem to be a people that must be "pushed" to the edge of the cliff
before we see the light. If I say more it would be a rant or at the very
worse not PC. :banghead:
 
Because....

we didn't start working on alternative energy sources 30 yrs ago...still haven't really....No answer for the second part....
 
their societies and cultures right now are in a challenging situation where there is a conflict between those who want to turn time backwards to some holy past that never existed and those who want to continue the great Arab traditions of science, tolerance and intellectual curiosity
Wouldn't total withdrawal of our troops and economic resources from the Middle East cause the jihadists to win the conflict with the tolerant Arabs/Persians?

The fact is the reason the former are increasingly hateful of us is because the latter are becoming Westernized. This Westernization is a threat to them because it signifies the death knell of their type of fundamentalism.

If we're to succeed against the Jihadists then we'll need to commit all of our available resources - both military and economic - to this region. Otherwise the tolerant and liberal minded Arabs/Persians have no chance of winning. A good Turkish friend of mine (one of the latter tolerant sort) has two worries about Iraq. The first worry is that it was started by a Western government hungry for oil. The second worry is that the Americans will leave without finishing the job.
 
We've worked on a lot of alternative sources. I was but a wee lad in the '70's and I can think of wind, hydro, nuclear, LNG (well, it ain't OIL) clean coal, and geo thermal off the top of my head.

Aren't the Norgies working on tidal energy?

That various energy companys were either scared off the public radar by hippies or made "environmentally" de riguer by the same isn't for lack of trying.

If energy company's weren't crapped on for trying new things with environmental regs "for the children" they might have actually made them commercially viable by now.

But I don't want a wind farm anywhere I can see and I dislike dams. :D

Also, PEAK oil is a myth.
 
we didn't start working on alternative energy sources 30 yrs ago...still haven't really..

Thats not true.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.


One of Ronald Regans 1st act as president was to take the solar panels off the roof of the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed. Then he went about killing off the alternative energy programs that Carter started, and rolling back conservation efforts in the name of "de-regulation". Want to guess which oil industry connected member of Regans administration had a lead roll in pushing that agenda? Give you a hint, his name rhymes with "smush".

That same member of the Regan administration had strong contacts with the Saudi Oil barons, and Regans new energy policy centered around them...and buying their oil. In addition we started to make inroads to support another oil rich dictator in order to have access to his petroleum. That dictator’s name was Saddam.

Now, the legacy continues unabated.

Read Carters speech. It's as relevant now as it was in 1977. And if we as a nation had bothered to listen to him, then our current problems today would not be anywhere near as problematic and pressing.



Bush&Abdullah.jpg
 
oil & drugs

one only has to look to south & central America (considered our friends :banghead: )

some oil producing countries that supply us with more oil than the mideast...but...they tell us they are very poor & qualify for 3rd world relief..and of course we buy it and give them additional millions each year in aid..then we forgive the debt...

but these countries have billions of US $ flowing from the US in the form of direct remittance from illegal aliens that send money "home"..mexico has admitted the second largest form of their income comes from these remittance...of course the drug cartels in these countries support and rule these countries..and their "income" is undeclared...but that's ok because everyone gets a piece of the pie...even the US drug war business..

we will stop using oil when there is no more oil...not a second sooner..

wolf
 
Jimmy Carter was, and is, a foolish and stupid man.

The current energy sources have been severely affected by the left-wings utterly rediculous opposition to nuclear power and new oil refinerys. We haven't built a new one in 30 odd years. Also, the burgeoning economies of India and China are creating a unexpected and huge increase in demand. It has nothing to do with the size of our cars or how warm our houses are, although the left dearly loves to blame Americans enjoyment of life as the cause of all evil in the world.

Bush has put forth a new policy where closed military bases will be used to build the new nuclear and refinery plants that we so desperatly need. That's the direction we need to move in.
 
Rant:
We are working on alternative fuel sources, but untill now it wasn't cost effective to do it. Electric engines wern't powerfull enough back then, all this technology cost more, and if a car company did decide to make a fuel-cell(which is the only real alternative), then no one would buy it at the 200k that it would've cost to make.

For non-vehicular power, nothing beats nuclear. But the same people who've been pushing the change to alternatives have been crying about how dangerous they think nuclear is. Don't get me wrong, I STRONGLY want them to get fuel-celled cars on the road, and I STRONGLY want them to build more nuclear power plants.

But I'm against anything like ethanol. Not only do I doubt we could produce enough ethanol to power however many million cars, but even if we could it would be horrible for the soil. In the same time it would take for oil to run out it would probably turn the entire MidWest into the Savana. The whole concept of running out car off energy derived from our food-growing land is, for the lack of a better term, stupid.

On the heroin topic. There isn't much we can do. Heroin is illegal as it is, and I doubt Afghanistan is making much money of the US(though I don't have any evidence to support that). I have to assume they mainly profit from India, China, and the like.

I feel we need to correct the situation over there. It's human nature to disassociate youself with that stuff, we did it before WWI, before WWII, before 911. We were fighting Communism in the Cold war, and we are fighting Anarchy in the "Blind war"(a little name I've given this). These groups live by darwinian ideals, they thrive in the Middle Easts anarchy, and even if they don't recognise what they're doing, they're trying to spread Anarchy. The whole, "We just want to be left alone" rhetoric is BS. Of course the Tyrants just want to be left alone, bet we can't do that because we know what such animals do when left alone. They kill, breed, and become ambitious.

So keeping our money to ourself is good. We need to be completely self sufficient. But that won't protect us. There's no sense in letting a rabid pit bull live in the corner of your house. I say, don't hit it on the nose, and stop feeding it, kill it. It's got rabies for gods sake. :banghead:

^ Thats a pretty big rant.
 
what is it you drive again????

that's why. we drive gas guzzlers.

if everyone in America improved their fuel economy 10% , we wouldnt need foreign oil.

i drive a motorcycle , and work with a diesel (uses less than gas for same size small stakebed), and if the price ever dips a little, could run biodiesel.

we SHOULD stop buying saudi oil. but we cant, we burn too much. i guess that's why we're in Iraq, hopefully we get to buy Some of our oil from a democracy eventually


PS= they grow poppies in Mexico too.
the drug thing well forget it i am no fan of heavy addicters like opiates
 
thorn, built into your comment--although I doubt you see it--is the implicit notion that oil = transportation only. However, only some 50% of a barrel of oil goes to transportation fuel. The rest goes to many uses, including consumer products.

If every US auto got 50 mpg, we'd still need right at the same amount of oil, total, just for the products and byproducts of the chemical/petrochemical industries. Sure, gasoline would be cheaper, but we'd still be dependent on foreign oil.

We import some 50% of our petroleum needs. Explain to me how a 10% or 20% improvement in automotive fuel efficiency would have us not importing oil?

:), Art
 
Better clear up some missunderstood ideas about the drug part of your post 'Taco:

Oxycontin is a brand name for extended release pills containing the drug Oxycodone. Percocet also contain oxycodone. Oxycodone is a semisynthetic opioid that is made from thebaine.

Thebaine is found in the opium poppy and the companies that make oxycodone get it from poppies from the area in question. It would be very hard to make sure all the poppies going to oxycodone production were NOT funding terrorists at some point.

Plus herion users don't want to inject oxycontin because its 'gakked' with time release beads and would clog up the blood vessels.

Otto Snow has a good book called Oxy about all this and synthesis of oxycodone from thebaine and extraction of thebaine from poppy.

The solution is to grow our own poppies right here in the USA along with pumping oil from our own wells.
 
and hemp oil can be used to dilute diesel, but if you think the government is going to legalize drugs after spending billions to say they are bad, you're deluded.
 
Energy prices are tied directly to profit margins. Even if we reduce our oil and gas imports by 10, 20, or 50 percent, prices will rise to make up for the lose of volume. No matter what we do, as long as we import energy,we will pay more and more for it. :(
Our foolish, failed "War On Drugs" guarantees that drug profits will be astronomical. When we stop treating drug addiction as a crime and start treating it as an illness, these drugs will go away.
Flame away.
 
I don't know about heroin, but in a world where most major transportation and much of the infrastructure is based on liquid fossil fuel (oil), then as oil supplies run out, the only countries that will remain functioning for a time will be those countries that still have oil stores. In other words, it would be tactically stupid to be burning up all of our own oil when where is other oil in the world to use up first.

We may think we are at their mercy right now for oil, but if we use our own oil and run out, then we won't just be at the mercy of foreign oil, but likely fall into economic collapse, thereby making our own country vulnerable to economic problems and to actual attack.

The smart leader would bank his own stores and pay the short term costs of buying from abroad, thereby never wasting stores needed for defense and running the country that will inevitably be needed at some future time.

It is really best to use of the resources of your enemies and your less close allies than to use up all of your own.
 
It is really very simple. Follow the money.

Fuel cell technology is growing except that nobody makes hydrogen cheaply.

Back in WWII the Germans, among others, ran many vehicles using a process I think is called "Wood Gasification". The oxygen starved products of combustion get drawn down through a bed of coals and there is a chemical reaction of which I know nothing except that out the bottom comes

CO
and
H

maybe it's Hsub2 (how would I know?)

So they cleaned these gasses and fed them into their carburators and ran their cars on these gasses. Along with Oxygen, that is.

Biomass could be converted to Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide and if somebody could figure out a cheap local way to separate the two, then the fuel for a fuel cell would be as available as your back yard.

Relax, nobody will. There's no money in it.

Remember the movie, "Back to the Future II"? Maybe the wrong name, but Doc opened up a trash can, threw in a few aluminum cans and other trash and recycled the energy to power his "Flux Capicitor". Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

How could somebody sell a car that runs on grass clippings without the oil companies or other elite putting a contract put out on them? We all need to be oblidged to the oil companies and utilities. Otherwise we may end up having some liberty.

Follow the money.
 
Not all fuels are energy sources.

Thas right! Not all fuels are energy sources.

Ethanol is NOT an energy source. It takes as much energy to make it as you get back from burning it. Actually alcohol is a poor fuel. It has a low energy content, a low boiling point, it absorbs water, and it is corrosive.

Cuirrently, the same goes for hydrogen because it's costly to separate.

Oh, about saving fuel with "efficient" cars: Transportation takes about 1/3 of our oil consumption. Private transportation takes about 30% of that. So less than 1/3 of 1/3 is less than 1/9. To make it easier, lets say it's 1/10. So if we save 10% of our private transportation fuel, we've managed to reduce our oil consumption by a whopping 1 (one) percent.

Alternative energy sources are generally not workable when you consider the amount of energy you'd really need.

The answer remains nuclear, but the moonbats will fight it every step of the way.
 
We import some 50% of our petroleum needs. Explain to me how a 10% or 20% improvement in automotive fuel efficiency would have us not importing oil?

ACK! ok first my data is like 15 years out of date. sorry . regardless, cars could be getting massively better mileage. sounds like people defending their SUVs to me. complely dodge the fact that we suck down endless more fuel for transpo than is really necessary
yeah hemp oil, whatever, we'll end up importing it before it is legal here. biodiesel can be made from soy, corn, anything.

how many people get 15 mpg that could get 30. tons.
whether my numbers are exactly right or not, do we also get
50 % of our oil from saudi arabia? isnt it less than that?
i thought that was the question
, and part of why i said our intention is to form a dem in Iraq to get oil from, and that if we improved our MPG, we could cut out SAUDI oil. all foreign oil? that would take more work/ sacrifce than the avg American would ever tolerate.

all anyone can really do - be one person doing their part to conserve.

if everyone actually cared enough to do a little , we could probably axe a foreign source or two
 
Mr. Linux and Gun:
Oxycontin is a brand name for extended release pills containing the drug Oxycodone. Percocet also contain oxycodone. Oxycodone is a semisynthetic opioid that is made from thebaine.

Thebaine is found in the opium poppy and the companies that make oxycodone get it from poppies from the area in question. It would be very hard to make sure all the poppies going to oxycodone production were NOT funding terrorists at some point.
I did not realize that Oxycodone was derived from natural opium poppies. Learn something every day. I did look up Oxycodone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone . It's simple stuff, no more difficult to synthesize than any other common pharmaceuticals. They could synthesize it from scratch, at a production cost of pennies per dose I would imagine. No need to buy poppies from anywhere. Or we could grow plenty of poppies right here in the good old US of A.
Plus herion users don't want to inject oxycontin because its 'gakked' with time release beads and would clog up the blood vessels.
Right, I think it should be sold in pre-packaged single-use ready-to-inject syringes. That's the safest way to do that. Think of what we would save in taxpayer-supported medical bills, law enforcement bills, and everything else. And it would cut off the legs of the Taliban.
The solution is to grow our own poppies right here in the USA along with pumping oil from our own wells.
Yes, let's grow some poppies, or maybe just synthesize this stuff from scratch.

As for pumping... fossil fuels are dirty fuels. We have so many alternatives now that are price-competitive or cheaper. Even if we use only domesticly-produced oil, domestic oil prices are affected by world oil prices. Say for example, if domestic oil producers could sell it in the US for $60 but sell it in Europe for $80, it's going to be a challenge to convince them to keep it here. I'm all in favor of finding alternatives that are price-competitive, rather than doing what we're doing now, which is having taxpayers pay the enormous indirect costs associated with keeping oil at its current prices. These indirect costs include paying for a regime change in Iraq, dealing with terrorists, on and on.
 
Dealing with terrorists of the Islamist stripe has little to do with where we buy our oil from. They wouldn't hate us less if we moved every American out of the region entirely. As long as Western Civilization exists, and as long as they realize how much better our civ is than there's is at providing those little things like freedom and comfort, the violent ones will hate us and have plenty of depressed, envious recruits to draw from.

As long as we exist we are a threat, idealogically, to both the Wahabbists and their Luddite ilk AND the regimes who fear loosening their despotic grip and allowing a secularized freedom. The two are parasitically related and drawing each other downward.

Oh, I'm all for fuel efficiency, I can drive my car more and longer for the same cheap prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top