How Would You Respond?

[SFHSRonPaulFan]

So I was talking to by dad about RP and he agrees with Dr. Paul on his fiscal and social policy, but vehemently disagrees with his foreign policy. He says that, though we have made many wrong decisions in the M.E., we must keep troops there to stop a terrorist organization from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I responded with examples how our presence has hurt our national security by inciting hatred. Finally, he ended with saying that I am an idealogue, that our foreign policy isn't that simple, and that if we were to leave and stop funding the elite in the M.E. the countries would band together and try and stop selling us oil, which would be much worse than our war in Iraq. How would you respond to that?

[sickmint79]

how many dead americans is it worth to fill up your tank for $2.50 a gallon?

[steph3n]

does he realize only a tiny portion of oil comes from the mid east??

[Bradley in DC]

Sadam was selling us oil before and after he invaded Kuwait. It doesn't matter anyway: it is traded on the open markets and is fungible (if oil isn't sold directly to us, say the Japanese instead, than we buy the oil the Mexicans or Canadians would have sold to the Japanese). Besides, it isn't our oil anyway.

[beerista]

So I was talking to by dad about RP and he agrees with Dr. Paul on his fiscal and social policy, but vehemently disagrees with his foreign policy. He says that, though we have made many wrong decisions in the M.E., we must keep troops there to stop a terrorist organization from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I responded with examples how our presence has hurt our national security by inciting hatred. Finally, he ended with saying that I am an idealogue, that our foreign policy isn't that simple, and that if we were to leave and stop funding the elite in the M.E. the countries would band together and try and stop selling us oil, which would be much worse than our war in Iraq. How would you respond to that?
Even if they had enough of the world's oil supply (which they might, I don't know) to generate higher oil prices by slowing production and sales to the oil market generally (which, given the way partial monopolies work, would only work until someone else stepped up production to take advantage of the higher prices which would bring prices down again), this would hurt them as well as their customers.

How much would they have to slow production and sales to make up for the difference between our perceived price per gallon (what we pay at the pump) and what we actually pay when you take into account the amount each and every American (whether they drive or not) contributes to the percent of our national defense that is involved strictly with the military subsidization (price at pump plus part of tax and inflation) of a commodity we'd be able to buy on the open market anyway? I hate to keep quoting OBL here, but what he said on the matter is trenchant: Of course we'll sell you our oil; what are we going to do, drink it?

If it makes you feel any better, my father has called me an ideologue too. I've never understood why being an ideologue is supposed to be an insult. It seems that sticking to your principles should be a good thing... provided they're the right principles. The alternative is situational ethics in which all things are permissible given the right situation.

[trispear]

He says that, though we have made many wrong decisions in the M.E., we must keep troops there to stop a terrorist organization from acquiring a nuclear weapon.We have not stopped Pakistan, who is probably harboring Bin Laden now if he is still alive, from acquiring Nukes. Nor India.

We have a base in South Korea, yet can't stop North Korea (though US Gov is trying) from developing one. Presence in one country hardly stops even a neighboring country from developing Nukes. So do we occupy every country in the ME? We can't control Iraq now. I'm sure all types of weapons are being sold on the black market now.

Ultimately, it's up to Israel, who has 200-300 nukes by some estimates, to manage. They have carried out enough strikes. Let them do it. It's far cheaper for us and they have much better knowledge of their neighborhood and great incentive to keep it clean.


I responded with examples how our presence has hurt our national security by inciting hatred. Finally, he ended with saying that I am an idealogue, that our foreign policy isn't that simple, and that if we were to leave and stop funding the elite in the M.E. the countries would band together and try and stop selling us oil, which would be much worse than our war in Iraq. How would you respond to that?Oil will be sold to us as long as our dollar is accepted as worth something. It is our ballooning deficit going out of control because of our foreign policy that is endangering this. Look up Petro-dollar and read up on it (in fact, many currencies are now making inroads against it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar

I think there are too many oil producing non-ME nations (Venezuela, Norway, Russia, US) right now for them all to collude together (your father is thinking of the 1970s oil crisis) but I can see a time when demand exceed supply (rise of China, India) where they simply outbid us. Also, Arabian history (as in any other people's) is notorious for infighting when not faced with an outside enemy. I think that is another case against longterm.

Also, we have sour relations with many oil producing countries because of our foreign policy (like Venezuela) that are not ME. We are more vulnerable there.

It might be some shortterm pain with rising gas prices, but it is far better that we stop subsidizing oil companies with our military now and prepare for the future and become independent of oil as much as possible by developing alternative sources while it is an optional instead of necessary. Rising gas prices will provide the incentive for R&D while we will have lower taxes due to oil companies not being subsidize by our military.

In the meantime, we can use our own oil and coal until alternatives are viable. (Oh, yeah, the feel-good corn-based ethanol absolutely sucks. Cut their subsidies as well).

[ctb619]

Besides, it isn't our oil anyway.

amen

[aravoth]

70% of our oil doesn't even come from the middle east for gods sake.

[bunklocoempire]

I often relate to our presence in the middle east as to poking somebody with a stick. If somebody was poking me with a stick how long would it take for me to lose my cool. Maybe keep poking your dad with a stick and see if he gets the (a-hem) point.

Fighting terrorism has to be a "surgical" procedure. It will yield the best results as far as lives, resources, relations. Do not remove a fly from your freinds face with a hatchet.

You are not an idealogue, you are a true patriot and realistic. Pretending the worlds oil is ours isn't realistic, pretending the dollar is worth what it isn't aint realistic, pretending people won't mind we're in their backyard isn't realistic.

Treat others the way you want to be treated, stray from that simple guideline we learn early on and there's gonna be trouble. Keep trying with him.

bunkloco

[Mortikhi]

So I was talking to by dad about RP and he agrees with Dr. Paul on his fiscal and social policy, but vehemently disagrees with his foreign policy. He says that, though we have made many wrong decisions in the M.E., we must keep troops there to stop a terrorist organization from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I responded with examples how our presence has hurt our national security by inciting hatred. Finally, he ended with saying that I am an idealogue, that our foreign policy isn't that simple, and that if we were to leave and stop funding the elite in the M.E. the countries would band together and try and stop selling us oil, which would be much worse than our war in Iraq. How would you respond to that?
Is Dad a baby boomer?

[Hank]

Tell him that all nations have the right to have whatever weapons they see fit. Otherwise, Iran would have the right to tell us not to have nuclear weapons. There is nothing that gives the USA some special right to have nuclear weapons.

[apropos]

The oil we buy from Saudi Arabia subsidizes these radical Islamic schools throughout the world. If you research the topic, you'll find that many of these madrasses and hardline organizations would not exist without Saudi funding. That money comes largely from Americans.

[noxagol]

If we did get a much oil as your dad believes we do from the middle east, they could not afford to NOT sell to us. After oil, all they have is sand, which isn't even good quality sand at that. Kuwait, I have read, has to import sand for concrete even.

[Bossobass]

>>>Fuel Efficiency -- The fuel efficiency of the entire automobile fleet -- new and old cars on the road -- reached 22.1 mpg by 2001. Since then, however, the pace of efficiency gains has slowed, flattening out at 22.2 mpg by 2005. The average for all light trucks (SUVs, minivans and light pickup trucks) on the road was 16.9 mpg as of 2005, below the federal target for new light trucks. Since light trucks are a growing share of the vehicle fleet, they pulled down the average for all vehicles to 19.8 mpg in 2005 (the last year for which complete data are available), a drop from the peak of 20.2 mpg attained in 200<<<

>>>What Americans are driving -- In 1975, the year corporate fuel efficiency standards were legislated, just 16% of all vehicles were SUVs (including minivans and light trucks). By 2005, that share had risen to 41%, peaking at 56% of all new vehicles sold in 2004. In 2005, the SUV share of total sales slipped to under 55% in 2005 and 53% in 2006. Moreover, buyers appear to be shifting from big SUVs to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles in that same class. Although new car buyers are once again shopping for fuel efficiency, it will take some years for the fleet fuel efficiency to change significantly since new car and light truck sales account for only about 8 percent of the vehicle fleet each year. While sales of hybrids are rapidly rising, so far in 2006 they constitute only 1.4% of new vehicles sold.<<<

>>>"Congress has wasted four years on an energy policy that won't help consumers or reduce our dependence on oil," Watkins said. "Congress should once again reject this disastrous energy bill. The president should pick up a pen and require that cars go farther on a gallon of gas."<<<

>>>The fuel economy of the new U.S. light truck is currently at 21.3 mpg, leaving the average fuel economy of our cars and trucks lower than it was 20 years ago and helping to push U.S. oil dependence to an all-time high.<<<

I'd tell him what I tell every tree hugger and ME expert I talk to. Quit buying gas hog puke-mobiles, drive slower, drive less and please STFU. For every 1 MPG better fuel efficiency, America saves 1 million barrels of oil.

Our personal vehicles average 50 MPG (VW turbo diesels) and we have the ability to make our own fuel from waste vegetable oil (from the local eatery).

VW is said to be "test marketing" a 3 cylinder version that averages 80+ MPG. I'm sure they'll conclude that "Americans" don't like it's lack of Vrooom or some such BS, but...if every American drove such a car, there would be oil tankers backed up to Saudi Arabia in ONE MONTH. Exxon would be irrelevant.

The answer sure as fuck isn't to send my sons to die...PERIOD.

Bosso

[micahnelson]

Our dollar is backed by oil.

We protect Saudi Arabia (who controls OPEC), and in return they denominate oil in dollars. You must have dollars to buy oil. Iraq and Iran have sold oil on the Euro, and we see what the American policy is towards such plans.

This is done to insure a world market for dollars, to justify our currency as the world's reserve currency.

When the world abandons our dollar due to inflation and a sinking economy, which means soon, we will lose our ability to purchase anything internationally and will be forced to rebuild our economy, our military, our manufacturing sector, and likely our political structure all at the same time.

This scenario is the natural result of fiat currency.

It has nothing to do with terrorism (we aren't in Sudan, Chechnya, or Indonesia). It has nothing to do with liberty (We aren't in Burma, China, or Rwanda). It has nothing to do with US companies like exxon, etc.

It has to do with the protection of the Dollar as a reserve currency, while at the same time being pure fiat without any real value. It was a dreamlike state which we are about to wake up from, and the powers that be are fighting to preserve it. This is why we are in Iraq.

Is maintaining an economic empire based on a worthless dollar worth our lives? The system has given us nothing by higher prices and harder lives.

[SFHSRonPaulFan]

Thank you guys very much. The next time I talk to him, I'll try and bring these things up.