• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Demonization of Oil

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In many discussions on current affairs, oil has basically been demonized and used as a cover-all club over the head of US policies.

Notwithstanding other motivations such as humanitarian, economic and trade goals, oil supply is definetly a factor in many policy descisions. And, rightly so.

I would like to hear from the people who keep beating the "It's about oil, therefore it's wrong" drum, and explain to the rest of us, how far down the scale of priorities you place the world oil supply, and why. Explain how keeping the oil supply flowing and affordable should be avoided.
 

Rae

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.
Aug 31, 2002
7,798
408
52
Somewhere out there...
Visit site
✟33,246.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Does the pragmatics of (a) we're going to run out eventually anyway, so it's better to work harder on alternatives so our society won't crash and burn when it does or (b) it's better to work on alternatives so we can stop dealing with tyrannical, nasty governments that torture their own people and stop enriching them with oil money give you any ideas?
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
Explain how keeping the oil supply flowing and affordable should be avoided. [/B]

Come, come, let us not näively pretend that the issue is as simple and clear-cut as that.

Firstly, the administration has been very careful to avoid the O-word in its statements on Iraq. If oil is a major policy factor, and the administration pretends that it is going to war over Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that Iraq owns the second largest oil reserves in the world, at best that would make Bush someone with very little integrity, and at worst, it would make him a liar.

Secondly, it looks like America is going to invade Iraq, oust its government, and install a "friendlier" government, and hopefully benefit from its oil reserves (who knows, maybe they will even sell the oil at a steep discount to the US--compared to what OPEC charges) ...which sounds just like what the British and the Spanish used to do in the 18th and 19th centuries? Imperialism is so passé...

Thirdly, when it comes to reconstruction, rebuilding the oil fields, and "managing" the oil reserves, guess with a puppet government (look at Afghanistan--the head of government has US special forces as his personal bodyguards: you can't get any more puppet than that), what companies will get most of the lucrative deals? George's and Dick's old buddies from Texas? Or some Chinese or Russian oil companies, which incidentally already have signed contracts with the Iraqi government, and are worried that the new US-installed government will tear them up...
 
Upvote 0

Brimshack

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2002
7,275
473
59
Arizona
✟12,010.00
Faith
Atheist
Demonization is pretending a person is insane when his actions are perfectly rationale given the circumstances in which he rules. Pointing out that oil supplies play a larger role than in our warfare than normally accounted is hardly demonization. Neither is it demonizing to point out that the role of oil in the Bush dynasties war plans has been misrepresented. But if you'd like a prioritization, I would say that I think it unacceptable to fight a war simply to lower the price of oil. I would also say that anyone advocating war as a means of keeping the oil flowing is hardly showing anything remotely akin to Christian ethics. That seems to be putting worldly matters rather ahead of right and wrong, etc. (And yet it's supposedly unbelievers and liberals that believe in situational ethics.)
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by TheBear
In many discussions on current affairs, oil has basically been demonized and used as a cover-all club over the head of US policies.

Notwithstanding other motivations such as humanitarian, economic and trade goals, oil supply is definetly a factor in many policy descisions. And, rightly so.

I would like to hear from the people who keep beating the "It's about oil, therefore it's wrong" drum, and explain to the rest of us, how far down the scale of priorities you place the world oil supply, and why. Explain how keeping the oil supply flowing and affordable should be avoided.

I think the first question that needs to be asked is:  are we, as a country, willing to use force against another country in order to take their natural resources against their will?

Or if we aren't going to out-and-out take the oil, does our need for petroleum give us the right to interfere in the govt and corporations of other countries, in order to get what we want out of them?

Does our need for oil give us the right to do either one of these things?

 
 
Upvote 0
CAMERON SIMPSON <!--endbyline-->

<!--story--><!-- This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version
2.7.5 -->THE US said yesterday that it plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades the country and it is looking at the possibility of using oil production to pay for post-war reconstruction. However, last night it was warned that it would "reap a terrible whirlwind" if it went ahead with this strategy in a second Gulf war. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,told NBC's Meet the Press: "The oilfields are the property of the Iraqi people. And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door." Mr Powell said that revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq". Administration officials also say they planned to keep the United Nations oil-for-food programme running, at least temporarily, to ensure that post-invasion oil dollars are spent on the country's basic needs. International oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell would want to take part in any rehabilitation of the country's oil industry, analysts said. However, as the Bush administration neared a decision on whether to take military action to eliminate Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Mr Powell said it was seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis with North Korea. The apparent inconsistency in US foreign policy towards Iraq was seized upon by George Galloway, Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin. He said: "The point of the invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil. "They are no longer hiding the purpose of aggression, and they are fooling themselves if they think they are fooling the Arab population. I am speaking from Egypt, where a US state department poll has just revealed that only 6% of Egyptians have a favourable view of the United States. They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this." Iraq sits on top of the world's second largest oil reserves, but war and a decade of sanctions has withered its oil infrastructure and official exports. The Bush administration is carefully weighing how oil policy in a post-Saddam Iraq might affect oil prices, officials say. Its decision could have implications for the fragile global economy. Increasing Iraqi oil production may help Western nations that consume oil, including the US, by lowering oil prices. However, it could hurt key US oil-producing allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, by reducing their revenues from oil sales. As UN arms experts searched four suspect sites in Iraq, Washington signalled it was increasing the pressure on Baghdad by sending more troops, aircraft. and ships to the Gulf. US officials said Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had signed an order to move thousands of troops, dozens of strike aircraft and probably two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Gulf, starting early next month. The deployment would at least double the 50,000 US military personnel already near Iraq, and more might be sent in February, US officials said. US and British warplanes yesterday attacked two Iraqi radar sites after Iraqi forces moved them into the southern "no-fly" zone, the US central command said, adding that the radar system posed a threat to allied patrols over the zone. More than 100 UN weapons inspectors are now in Iraq, but the 200 searches they have carried out since November 27 have apparently uncovered no trace of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes Washington insists Iraq is pursuing. Mr Powell, indicating frustration with the inspectors' slow progress, said: "I think that this can't go on indefinitely. The president has not made a decision yet with respect to the use of military force or with respect to going back to the United Nations. "Of course we're positioning ourselves - positioning our military forces for whatever might be required."(sorry, can't post link yet, from "The Herald" in UK)
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ahh...I've provoked some interesting responses. ;)

Let's put aside any particular policy issues or motive speculations for the moment.

Keeping this in the context of world stability, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most important, how would you rate the importance of oil supply, and why?

Rae, I agree with your overall idea of alternative energy sources, but that's a topic for another discussion. The reality of today's policies does depend on oil, so I would like to keep this thread focused on oil.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by datan
Come, come, let us not näively pretend that the issue is as simple and clear-cut as that.

Agreed. But at the same time, let's not be so jaded and cynical to pretend that the underlying and overriding reason for every policy that involves oil, is nothing more than greed and evil.
 
Upvote 0

Michael0701

Harley Ridin' Believer!!
Nov 13, 2002
719
6
65
Tax Free Delaware!!
Visit site
✟23,417.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Keeping this in the context of world stability, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most important, how would you rate the importance of oil supply, and why?"

10

As of today it is the natural resource which makes or breaks world economies. Gas and oil are a part of the lives of 99% of the worlds population.

Having said that, why is it so hard to believe that if we do go to war with Iraq that it will be for trying to stabilize the political scene in the middle east? To try to ensure the survival of Israel.
 
Upvote 0

IslandBreeze

Caribbean Queen
Sep 2, 2002
2,380
75
43
✟25,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by DeputyDan
I think you are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG..... its not about oil.... its about CHEAP oil.................


We have enough oil in oil slate in Utah to provide all of the United States needs for 150 years. But the cost would make gas at the station $8 to $10 a gallon.

Really? How do you figure that? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Michael0701
"Keeping this in the context of world stability, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most important, how would you rate the importance of oil supply, and why?"

10

As of today it is the natural resource which makes or breaks world economies.

Not really.&nbsp; The strongest economies in the world today are not resource extraction economies.&nbsp; They are information, value-added, and service based economies.

Gas and oil are a part of the lives of 99% of the worlds population.

So is paper.&nbsp; But are you willing to go to war over it, in order to keep the prices cheap?


Having said that, why is it so hard to believe that if we do go to war with Iraq that it will be for trying to stabilize the political scene in the middle east?

It's hard to believe, since if we were interested in stability, we wouldn't have been backing some of the despotic regimes over there for 20 years or longer.

It's also hard to believe, since if we were interested in stability, we wouldn't be making alliances with dictatorships like in Pakistan.&nbsp; You sow what you reap&nbsp;- that's how we got the Taliban.

To try to ensure the survival of Israel.

When did that become *OUR* job, anyhow?
 
Upvote 0

Michael0701

Harley Ridin' Believer!!
Nov 13, 2002
719
6
65
Tax Free Delaware!!
Visit site
✟23,417.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Not really. The strongest economies in the world today are not resource extraction economies. They are information, value-added, and service based economies."

Which might they be? Do they burn rice for fuel instead of oil?
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Michael0701
"Not really. The strongest economies in the world today are not resource extraction economies. They are information, value-added, and service based economies."

Which might they be?

You want a list of the strongest economies in the world?

USA - JPN - UK - FRN - GER - BRZ - etc.

Do they burn rice for fuel instead of oil?

Irrelevant question.&nbsp; My point is that the strength of their economies is not derived from extractive industries.&nbsp; If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

Live4Jesus

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2002
1,205
1
65
VA
Visit site
✟1,365.00
There are alternative energy sources that need to explored, like hydrogen. I don't know the specifics anymore but you could easily look it up, about cars that could burn hydrogen, be real clean, and the by product is h20. it's plentiful, it's clean, it's cheap.

Problem is we're a coal/oil based economy so far down the line already. Nonetheless based on divergent stuff I've read over the years there's more to than just 'oil' per se. it's who controls the oil, politics. New projects are often shelved because of funding... not because they're bad projects, from what i've read there seem to be some great ideas around... but because of politics.

Sustanable energy sources and who holds the strings.

It probably has more to do with genes than science.

I am just a peasant. Someone's meal ticket.
 
Upvote 0

Michael0701

Harley Ridin' Believer!!
Nov 13, 2002
719
6
65
Tax Free Delaware!!
Visit site
✟23,417.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"My point is that the strength of their economies is not derived from extractive industries. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it."

I missed your point on "extraction".

In my post, when talking about oil and major world economies I certianly did not mean extraction. I meant consumption. IMHO, it's the consumption of oil which controls economies. No oil = no power, no transportation, no heat and so on. So as I see it, it's the flow of oil which is important to world economies, who has it is secondary as long as everyone has acess to it.
 
Upvote 0

Michael0701

Harley Ridin' Believer!!
Nov 13, 2002
719
6
65
Tax Free Delaware!!
Visit site
✟23,417.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Caley,

Am I correct in saying that you think that this whole US/Iraq situation is about taking over their oil? Because I certianly don't see it that way.

As a Christian and a man who is trying to turn his beliefs towards a higher moral standard I must agree with you about killing people for it, oil that is. But I am also torn between saying that war is both immoral and justified at the same time. As of today, the US is still "not at war" with Iraq and I hope it stays that way, but if it does happen the blame lays on both parties for they both have the ability to stop war at all costs.
 
Upvote 0