U.S. Politics

[chrisp65]

17 minutes ago, ender4 said:

maybe one for the "Things you Wonder" thread... or one of the Middle East threads...

What would happen if the West (mainly the USA i guess) just completely ignored the Middle East, didn't take sides, didn't bomb anyone, didn't sell arms to anyone in that region and just left them to get on with whatever they decided to do.     

Would there end up being more wars and more people dying or less?

Well first, I guess we need to replace oil as any sort of significant source of energy.

Then, we can stop selling arms and see how fast the Russians and Chinese fill that void.

Then we have to decide where the line in the sand will be. Will we be ok with Syria, Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan doing their own thing or will that be allowed to extend to Pakistan with its nuclear weapons, or Turkey flexing it’s muscles. Would we ‘protect’ Israel? Would we allow Iran to become a nuclear power? Would we treat Libya differently to Egypt or Egypt differently to Turkey?

How many people would be too many people setting sail across the Med for us to stay non-interventionist.

How would I get to a place of peace in the Middle East? Well, I wouldn’t start from here that’s for sure.

[fruitvilla]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well first, I guess we need to replace oil as any sort of significant source of energy.

Or build a pipeline from Canada  

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Or build a pipeline from Canada  

No, that doesn’t work.

The U.S. had dirt cheap oil in the 60’s and the 70’s but the shock of the Arab states getting their shit together sufficiently to get OPEC driving the oil price still massively impacted the western economies and those they trade with.

Oil needs to replaced. Not sourced from elsewhere. For politics and for the just plain common sense saving the planet reasons.

[ender4]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, that doesn’t work.

The U.S. had dirt cheap oil in the 60’s and the 70’s but the shock of the Arab states getting their shit together sufficiently to get OPEC driving the oil price still massively impacted the western economies and those they trade with.

Oil needs to replaced. Not sourced from elsewhere. For politics and for the just plain common sense saving the planet reasons.

Isn't the USA almost self-sufficient nowadays from fracking? I think they even export oil nowadays.

[fruitvilla]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

No, that doesn’t work.

The U.S. had dirt cheap oil in the 60’s and the 70’s but the shock of the Arab states getting their shit together sufficiently to get OPEC driving the oil price still massively impacted the western economies and those they trade with.

Oil needs to replaced. Not sourced from elsewhere. For politics and for the just plain common sense saving the planet reasons.

I don't understand the logic here ... getting oil from an alternative source, like friendly neighbour, does not work as a replacement for Middle East oil?

I understand the US may want to avoid doing that ... but as a stop gap measure it works.

[chrisp65]

32 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Isn't the USA almost self-sufficient nowadays from fracking? I think they even export oil nowadays.

 

31 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

I don't understand the logic here ... getting oil from an alternative source, like friendly neighbour, does not work as a replacement for Middle East oil?

I understand the US may want to avoid doing that ... but as a stop gap measure it works.

The U.S. could be self sufficient in energy if it chose to be. It doesn’t need the pipeline, it’s trading and political partners do..

They started paying more attention to the oil producing Middle East back in the 50’s when they overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran with a coup and installed the Shah as absolute monarch, so the western oil companies didn’t have to undergo a tax audit.

Then started selling anyone and everyone weapons in the 70’s when they got worried the Russians were going to sweep down through the Persian Gulf.

Then it was just a case of doubling down on every poorly thought through strategic error for decade after decade.

It was never about the ‘need’ for oil for the U.S..

Imagine all that money spent on war and the subsidy of ‘friendly’ states, actually spent on fuel efficiency of products and alternative energy supplies. We’d be home and dry now.

  

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

synecdoche

Burnley manager? Pretty sure it wasn’t him.

[LondonLax]

The US became a net exporter in oil a few years back. Their involvement in the Middle East is mostly around weapons sales these days. 

[A'Villan]

@ender4 What a wonderful question, me personally, it's entirely appropriate for this thread and discussion. You know if you were a politician, I'd consider a vote for you based on this search for greater truth in and of itself.

[OutByEaster?]

14 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The US became a net exporter in oil a few years back. Their involvement in the Middle East is mostly around weapons sales these days. 

I have a feeling that business might be about to take a small step backward.

 

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I have a feeling that business might be about to take a small step backward.

Hmmm. Obviously Biden said he’d stop some weapons sales to KSA, but we might find that, what with everybody wanting an end to the fighting and horror in Yemen, but not wanting to lose face, it might be a bit of a way to a ceasefire and stop to the proxy KSA/Iran battle. Whereupon, y’know, wooshbangs all round.

[OutByEaster?]

There is something wonderfully ironic in refusing to sell any more missiles and warplanes and tanks and guns and bullets to someone because you've recently discovered they've killed someone.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

There is something wonderfully ironic in refusing to sell any more missiles and warplanes and tanks and guns and bullets to someone because you've recently discovered they've killed someone.

Bone saw sales have plummeted as a result

[sidcow]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I love to imagine living long enough to find out, but sadly I won't.

I'm not so sure.  Only 9 years till the UK bans petrol cars and apparently 3 years before electric cars actually become cheaper to make than petrol cars.  The USA will take longer to wean but it's not that long now till the world's reliance on Oil ends.  They'll probably have enough domestic oil to run themselves. They will probably lose all interest in The Middle East then. 

[OutByEaster?]

8 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I'm not so sure.  Only 9 years till the UK bans petrol cars and apparently 3 years before electric cars actually become cheaper to make than petrol cars.  The USA will take longer to wean but it's not that long now till the world's reliance on Oil ends.  They'll probably have enough domestic oil to run themselves. They will probably lose all interest in The Middle East then. 

The nations of the middle east won't be done when the oil runs out - they've spent two decades using the money we've given them for oil buying up huge chunks of our societies. Qatar owns more land in London than Transport for London, by the time the oil runs out, those nations will own enough of the rest of the world to maintain an influence for a century.

 

[sidcow]

12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The nations of the middle east won't be done when the oil runs out - they've spent two decades using the money we've given them for oil buying up huge chunks of our societies. Qatar owns more land in London than Transport for London, by the time the oil runs out, those nations will own enough of the rest of the world to maintain an influence for a century.

 

Yeah, but will America be worried enough to involve itself in wars over there when they're not worried about oil. 

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Yeah, but will America be worried enough to involve itself in wars over there when they're not worried about oil. 

They aren't worried about oil now. They are a net exporter

[villakram]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The US became a net exporter in oil a few years back. Their involvement in the Middle East is mostly around weapons sales these days. 

It's also geo-strategic.

The world is changing though and that's where the danger is, as hegemons always have poor eyesight (deliberate or otherwise) w.r.t. these things. 

[villakram]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

They aren't worried about oil now. They are a net exporter

There are types of oil. 

The US is not self sufficient in the types of oil it's economy actually uses.

[Xela]

45 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I'm not so sure.  Only 9 years till the UK bans petrol cars and apparently 3 years before electric cars actually become cheaper to make than petrol cars.  The USA will take longer to wean but it's not that long now till the world's reliance on Oil ends.  They'll probably have enough domestic oil to run themselves. They will probably lose all interest in The Middle East then. 

Ban on the sale of new petrol cars, not ban on petrol cars completely. They'll still be around in 20-30 years time IMO.