You may not fully agree with the article's tone (blame the current administration for all the oil's issues), but one thing is certain: the West in general, and the USA in particular, don't have an effective strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions while simultaneously beign addicted to imported oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/op...html?th&emc=th

 

Personally, I think the NY times artical was 100% correct to blame the current administration for the rising power of terrorist-run oil producing nations. He's had five years to develop some sort of plan. All he's done is bribe the oil industry witha multi-billion dollar chunk of OUR money, suggest turning our national parks into oil refineries, and posit coal as the "fuel of the future". I still remember him Campaigning in 2000, and citing the allegedly sky-high gas prices ($1.25/ gallon) while at the same time dismissing conservation and hybrid technology (which he pronounced "gazlektrick " hybrid). I wish the folks on the right would realize that GWB just doesn't give a **** about our country or its citizens.. If you want a decent Republican in the white house then vote for McCain in 2008.

 

I agree with your feelings. However, I wanted to start a thread that was as non-partisan as possible... difficult to achieve, I know, given the current administration's disregard for the obvious... that you can't fight terrorism while simultaneously are providing them with money.

 

Unless terrorism was invented in the year 2000, then the current administration has nothing to do with enhancing the problem.

Seems like we had gotten attacked by some Saudi nationals sometime before 2000 also, if I recall.

There were ridiculously rich Arabs before 2000, as I recall, just like now.

And there were gasoline vehicles, too, I think, just like now.

And there was a dearth of good alternatives to oil and gas in our future, too, just like now. Clinton had 8 years to plan for the future too.

 

My intention when I started the thread, was not to create yet another partisan scuffle in this forum.

The point I'm trying to discuss, in a non-partisan and inteligent manner, is that energy conservation is a key national security issue.

If not, we will be hostage to rogue countries. Like Iran, which on one hand are developing nuclear capabilities, and in the other they have what the western world really craves: Oil.
What credible leverage do we have against Iran? What if Hugo Chavez decides tomorrow to follow the same path?

They are sworn enemies of the USA, yet we can't wean them out.

 

Imagine for a second what the middle-east would be like if oil money did not flow to the region. It's a region plagued with instability to begin with. Throw poverty and desperation into the mix (I know both are there now, but at least oil keeps some money in the region). It's a frightning thought if you think about it.

The fact that this world is dependent oil makes us all drug-addicts to the oil producing nations. How many of you know drug addicts that can successfully control their dealers? You cannot on one hand be dependent on something and on the other try to exercise control over the one providing it.

The world needs a plan on what our society will look like without oil. If we don't find a way for oil-producing contries to succeed without oil, we'll have anarchy. I'm not happy with any recent leader/President's efforts on this front. I tell you, I'd vote for a circus monkey for President if I thought they had a viable plan to lead this world into the next 50 years. Well, maybe not a circus monkey, but you get the point.

 

I don't think we need a strategy. Does anyone remember when Iraq started building a reactor back in 1981 and Israel bombed them back into the stone age??

Well, IMHO, it think this is going to happen again. So not to worry.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...522978,00.html

Sorry to say but I'm sure it will stir up a hornet's nest of terrorist activity but what's the alternative?

 

I suspect the same thing. Basicly Israel will claim "Well, first he threatened us, now he is resuming nuke research. We did it to protect ourselves." And frankly I think most of the world will publicly complain, but secretly will have given them their blessing.

 

I'm going to ask a question (a genuinely concerned question, with neither sarcasm nor irony whatsoever):
Do you think that TODAY, given the state of the oil market, that this is a feasible alternative? In the 70's right before the oil embargo, the US imported about 1/4 of its oil needs. Today it is 1/2.

In other words, the oil-producing countries have now, a much better hand on this global poker game.
That is precisely the reason why energy independence is so important. It would allow the Western world far more manuvering room.

 

Why blame the administration? The people still have the power (supposedly) and can reduce dependence themselves. If the last 20 years have taught America one thing it's the era of the 60s where government was responsible for social change is over. Let them buy their SUVs and gas guzzlers (my brother and sister inlaw were very excited recently because they got a great deal on their second, count them two, Tahoe). When gas goes to $10 a gallon, it's their tough luck. Tuna Helper can taste mighty good when that's all there is to eat.