Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Taking Oil out of the equation

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Taking Oil out of the equation

Unread postby Miki » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 18:30:29

This is an awesome article. It traces the historical relationship between Americans oil-related policies in the ME and the emergence of terrorism. Very interesting.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust as significant, if far less acknowledged, is the relationship between oil and Islamic extremism. If it weren’t for our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we wouldn’t project such a conspicuous and over-bearing presence in the Middle East—and it is this presence, more than anything else, that has generated the toxic anti-Americanism on which al-Qaida feeds. Doing better in the battle of ideas is not enough; if we ever hope to prevail in the war on terror, we must also remove oil from the strategic equation.

To fully appreciate the relationship between America’s oil dependency and contemporary Middle Eastern terrorism, it is necessary to know something about the historical trajectories of both. Prior to World War II, the United States had very little official presence in the Persian Gulf area—at that time we were self-sufficient in oil, and in any case were content to allow Great Britain to control the region. But President Franklin D. Roosevelt correctly surmised that the United States would eventually become dependent on imported oil as our domestic reserves were drained, and so he set out to establish American control over a major foreign source of supply—eventually selecting Saudi Arabia to assume this role.

On February 14, 1945, he met with King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud aboard a U.S. warship in the Suez Canal and forged an oil-for-protection arrangement under which the United States pledged to defend the Saudi royal family in return for privileged access to Saudi petroleum reserves. All else that has occurred in the Gulf, including 9/11, has followed from this fateful encounter.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an we adopt a lower profile in the Middle East, distance ourselves from the oil regimes, and reduce our reliance on military force to protect our energy supplies? Yes we can—but only if we can gain greater control over our craving for imported oil. This means using less petroleum (through conservation measures, higher fuel efficiency requirements, lower speed limits, and so on), employing more substitutes (especially ethanol), and relying on mass transit. The greater our self-discipline at home, the stronger will be our capacity to fashion a new strategy in the Middle East—one that allows us to repudiate the Carter Doctrine and withdraw our forces from the region, thereby robbing the terrorists of their principal recruiting appeal.

No matter how hard we try, we cannot prevail in the "war on terror" so long as we continue to ignore the oil dimensions of the conflict. Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants understand full well that America’s presence in their backyard is driven by our addiction to Middle Eastern oil, and that so long as we do nothing to curb this addiction we will continue to embrace policies that will generate ever more recruits for al-Qaida. Only through self-discipline and the elimination of our oil dependency can we break this cycle and so win the war against terror.


Article
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Taking Oil out of the equation

Unread postby gego » Thu 28 Sep 2006, 04:29:24

It seems to me that this is the history of the world, i.e., squabbling or killing over territory and resources.

What else would the world be interested in the Middle East for except oil?
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Taking Oil out of the equation

Unread postby Lawmage » Thu 28 Sep 2006, 05:00:36

Interesting idea, Miki. The US only imports about 25% of its oil from the Persian Gulf region. This means that the US would only need to find substitues in the form of greater efficienies or alternate resources for 25% of its oil needs in order to completely distance itself from the Gulf. I suppose the needs of Europe and Japan would still cause some concern but perhaps they could shoulder that burden themselves?

In truth though, Miki, I don't think even a total US withdrawal from the region would quell the terrorists. You might say its about oil but that is not what the terrorists say. They hate what the US represents. They see the US as morally bankrupt. Our values threaten them. Things like equality for women, religious freedom, freedom of speech....these threaten the fundamentalists within the Umma and cause them to lash out at the West in general and the US in particular. Consider the murder of Theo Van Gogh or the fatwah on Rushdie.

Additionally, there is the small matter of US support for Israel...
User avatar
Lawmage
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun 17 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Taking Oil out of the equation

Unread postby Doly » Thu 28 Sep 2006, 05:02:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lawmage', 'T')he US only imports about 25% of its oil from the Persian Gulf region. This means that the US would only need to find substitues in the form of greater efficienies or alternate resources for 25% of its oil needs in order to completely distance itself from the Gulf.


"Only" 25%? Easier said than done.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Taking Oil out of the equation

Unread postby qwerty » Thu 28 Sep 2006, 14:45:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lawmage', 'T')he US only imports about 25% of its oil from the Persian Gulf region. This means that the US would only need to find substitues in the form of greater efficienies or alternate resources for 25% of its oil needs in order to completely distance itself from the Gulf.


"Only" 25%? Easier said than done.


No freaking kidding. 25% is insignificant to you Lawmage? You have a smaller brain than I thought... Maybe you should read up on Hubbert's peak or spend some time at LATOC. Savinar writes his stuff in simple easy to understand plain English just for people like you.... Maybe you will get better view at the reality of things, you know like a newer more accurate perspective, but I doubt it.

I'll explain peak oil to you one on one, I'm be your tutor if the subject is too complicated for you to understand, hell I'm even be your psychiatrist if the denial is insurmountable. Just PM me when you are ready to see the light.
"...the US, Great Britain, and Israel; the real Axis of Evil..." - Michael C. Ruppert
User avatar
qwerty
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 03 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Taking Oil out of the equation

Unread postby qwerty » Thu 28 Sep 2006, 14:49:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lawmage', ' ')They hate what the US represents. They see the US as morally bankrupt. Our values threaten them. Things like equality for women, religious freedom, freedom of speech....these threaten the fundamentalists within the Umma and cause them to lash out at the West in general and the US in particular. Consider the murder of Theo Van Gogh or the fatwah on Rushdie.

Additionally, there is the small matter of US support for Israel...


Your 'values' if you insist on calling it that, threatens every life form on earth, every animal, every planet, every blade of grass, every bacteria, every living thing.

Stop using the F word, its lame, just makes you sound more and more like Shrub. Fr--dom this and Fr--dom that. Why not change it to the euphemism that it really stands for: EVIL.
"...the US, Great Britain, and Israel; the real Axis of Evil..." - Michael C. Ruppert
User avatar
qwerty
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 03 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Top


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron