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 don't know what that means despite another poster's explanation.
I don't even know if that's possible.
Energy independence? Sounds good..but that's about it..
I don't really understand why I should give a damn about where my oil comes from. Oh...so it's important to not give my dollars to oil producing nations that don't like the United States? Really now?
So how many other products should I apply that theory to?
Maybe people should ask themselves WHY they don't like us. But then, that would require folks to come to some conclusions that they aren't comfortable with.
If we were having a major physical war this would of course be very obvious. If we are in an economic war with other nations, it would be best to have our own energy to run our country. Less reliance on foreign sources means better control at home of prices and supply. Look at the EU and Russia today. In most all cases, balances of trade are more favorable using home based supplies.
And with more home based supply we will be more apt to GTF out of the ME!
Tea Baggers and Obaggers: different sides of the same coin.
Better fracking in the US than feeding a bunch of loser OPEC countries.
You're paying billions to defend OPEC nations (which is the same as feeding them) anyway...even with the fracking.
So how about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
If we were having a major physical war this would of course be very obvious. If we are in an economic war with other nations, it would be best to have our own energy to run our country. Less reliance on foreign sources means better control at home of prices and supply. Look at the EU and Russia today. In most all cases, balances of trade are more favorable using home based supplies.
And with more home based supply we will be more apt to GTF out of the ME!
That all sounds good, but highly pollyannish.
And we're NEVER gonna stop meddling in the Middle East regardless.
That's why I used the words 'more apt'. We still have Israel to work with and protect.
We will?
So you just made your whole point completely useless then. If we're obligated to "protect" (your word, not mine) Israel, then what's the point? That's our problem in the Middle East to begin with...meddling in their affairs.
Moreover, Israel is the most powerful nation militarily in the region. Why do we have to protect them? For what?
So you just made your whole point completely useless then. If we're obligated to "protect" (your word, not mine) Israel, then what's the point? That's our problem in the Middle East to begin with...meddling in their affairs.
Moreover, Israel is the most powerful nation militarily in the region. Why do we have to protect them? For what?
Absolutely correct, U.S. intervention in the Middle East, U.S. support for dictators (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc...), and U.S. support for Israel are things that motivate the Jihad to attack the U.S.
Bottom-line Israel is an unimportant nation, like all the other Middle Eastern ones, to the U.S. Israel has nothing the U.S. wants, and is not important for any U.S. security reasons. U.S. support for Israel is a liability to the U.S.
Hopefully with becoming energy independent enough people will persuade the politicians in DC to adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, and stop intervening in the Middle East.
Absolutely correct, U.S. intervention in the Middle East, U.S. support for dictators (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc...), and U.S. support for Israel are things that motivate the Jihad to attack the U.S.
Bottom-line Israel is an unimportant nation, like all the other Middle Eastern ones, to the U.S. Israel has nothing the U.S. wants, and is not important for any U.S. security reasons. U.S. support for Israel is a liability to the U.S.
Hopefully with becoming energy independent enough people will persuade the politicians in DC to adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, and stop intervening in the Middle East.
No, it won't. Pie in the sky thought.
The U.S. holds reserve status due to petro-dollar geopolitics. No amount of domestic drilling will change that. People need to accept that America is a hypocritical country; an empire that conquers other countries while preaching the ideals of Democracy and "mutual respect."
So you just made your whole point completely useless then. If we're obligated to "protect" (your word, not mine) Israel, then what's the point? That's our problem in the Middle East to begin with...meddling in their affairs.
Moreover, Israel is the most powerful nation militarily in the region. Why do we have to protect them? For what?
We will always stand by Israel as our affirmed Ally. But we could do that without meddling in other countries of the ME. Not an easy proposition of course, without some serious approval and backing by those countries.
My original solution was to move everyone from Israel to NJ, IMO an easier solution than any other in the complex ME. But I was voted down.
<LOL>
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.
