Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am interested in other people's response to this slideshow and article. (link below)
Granted I am not offering up a Great Debate question per se, but I just don't think the depth ( pun not intended! sorry!)
of this article and topic would generate much useful discussion in the 'traditional' forums here.
First, I take a lot of these stories with a grain of salt. It may all be true, but we get 100% differing stories from Iraq, Afgahistan, Mexico... based upon the agenda and bias of the person telling the story. So I think it's important to state we're getting one person's opinion as they want to tell the story.
Second, let's say it's by & large true. So what? A fully corrupt government is still a fully corrupt government. Be the commodity oil, corn, cotton, fish, gold, diamonds... one could tell the exact same story. It's a story of corrupt government, not oil for our gas guzzling cars.
Third, we could write the same story in this country. How unions drove away the big 3 auto makers and how it's decimated the city of Detroit. I've been there... tens and tens of square city blocks burned out run by gangs... tens and tens of square city blocks that used to be decent housing all burned and boarded up in a no mans land.
What's the point?
That power breeds corruption- be it here, or in Russia, or in Mexico, or in Iran, or in Nigeria, or anywhere.
Ok there Blazer, I appreciate your honesty, but why so jaded?
I understand your previously posted argument, I get it.
I think your take is myopic at best.
But you sound as if you are coming from a perspective where you've "seen it all before therefore I know more than you".
If that's your case then fine, I was hoping to have a healthy discussion.
~sigh~
oh well. Thanks for taking the time.
Ok there Blazer, I appreciate your honesty, but why so jaded?
I understand your previously posted argument, I get it.
I think your take is myopic at best.
But you sound as if you are coming from a perspective where you've "seen it all before therefore I know more than you".
If that's your case then fine, I was hoping to have a healthy discussion.
~sigh~
oh well. Thanks for taking the time.
Clearly, you misunderstood at least a part of my posts. And I think you did so intentionally.
Maybe the same point, but……………………….. how are you seeing this? You haven’t explained yourself yet- and it’s your thread.
Are you trying to say this is all out fault for using oil?
Are you trying to say that if not for oil these people would have a better standard of life?
Are you saying we need to get involved for making that poor country a better place to live?
With all due respect, I may be a bit jaded, but perhaps if you made your reasons clear about the thread you might get a better response. I’m always up for a good debate and to learn something.
Clearly, you misunderstood at least a part of my posts. And I think you did so intentionally. No I did not misunderstand you intentionally.
Maybe the same point, but……………………….. how are you seeing this? You haven’t explained yourself yet- and it’s your thread.
True that.
Are you trying to say this is all out fault for using oil?
No, that's way too absolute, and the article doesn't make that it's sole point either, which is why I thought this would be a thought provoking article:
"What neither man admitted was that America's oil addiction rested upon a post-World War II "global oil acquisition strategy" -- the language is from Michael Klare's book "Blood and Oil" -- that now lay in ruins. America's oil strategy, a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy since President Roosevelt met King Saud aboard the U.S.S. Quincy in 1945 and cobbled together their "special relationship," succeeded in fueling the low-cost, motorized American way of life.
But the true costs of cheap oil -- a vast military presence in the Middle East; environmental damage, including global climate change; the need to support corrupt "oilygarchs" -- have never been paid by consumers at the fuel pump."
Are you trying to say that if not for oil these people would have a better standard of life?
Well that'd be wonderful in a perfect world, eh?
But the world is not so perfect. Niger is a petrolist authoritarian state with weak state institutions that are extremely dependent on oil production for the bulk of their exports and income. Huge oil windfall before having an established a solid and transparent intitute of governing results in the severe situation they have there as well as countries similar to them.
Are you saying we need to get involved for making that poor country a better place to live?
Yikes! You mean militarily? heck no.I don't think that's our first choice, no.
With all due respect, I may be a bit jaded, but perhaps if you made your reasons clear about the thread you might get a better response. I’m always up for a good debate and to learn something.
Okey dokey, so I guess here's my point:
Bahrain ran out of oil. They now have to diversify and essentially come up with some other source of income in order to compete globally.
It just looks like Niger and other Petro-dictator countries such as this are not looking into the future of the inevitable. (and neither is anyone else it seems)
And we as an entire planet need to be aware of it at the very least, I think, don't you?
Could this be a rallying point for our nation as well as the rest of the world?
oh yeah, and my apologies for the 'boldness' but i guessed on it being the best way to see my responses within your quote, I must admit to multitasking here and walking to and from the computer during my response, it's the only way I can get to this at all in relative coherence.
I think almost any country takes a fairly short-sighted view of their resources and sustainability with respect to long term economic stability. Especially in third world countries where they are predominately controlled by some sort of dictatorship. If so, there’s no real way of communicating to them the need to diversify, practice moderation, adhere to environmentally friendly methods of production… It has also been my experience that the UN also has little influence either in these situations. Opening up good lines of communication and encouraging small country dictatorships also has proven to be a failed policy- albeit one always worth trying.
As for me, I am committed to seeing us become less and less dependent on oil- first for foreign oil and then overall. There are so many renewable sources of energy that are being developed. It may be baby steps, but we intentionally moved to a small house (900 SF), I use a non motorized lawn mower, we drive fuel efficient vehicles and make an effort to consolidate our driving. We recycle and usually walk or ride bikes for trips 2 miles or less.
Now, getting back on task, I do not suggest any sort of military foray into this country. Better, we should make every effort to help those who are hungry and exploited thru diplomatic channels and ask nothing in return. However, as we have seen recently, dictators often prefer to let their people suffer rather than accept free aid from the ‘outside’. But that should never stop us from trying to do the right thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
