Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chompalot, Jun 19, 2014.
7732- have to register to read entire article-can you copy and post please
Perhaps if you clarified your definition of "energy independence" and what that would mean, we could have a more meaningful discussion.
where we have enough supplies to care care of us outside of anyone else and gives us the ability to sell our surplus to others
OK, thanks. So just to be clear: you want us to simply be able to match or exceed domestic energy demand through domestic oil/NG supply?
Follow up question: If these conditions were met, do you believe that our domestic energy costs would be free of volatility? If so, how? Why?
no- I just think it would move us further from having to rely on other countries-
The GWB's administration seemed almost blind to the ugly history between the Sunni and Shiite so there wasn't a whole lot of consideration in regards to the outcome of the war. In hindsight, it needed to be his biggest consideration.
But if we're still dependent upon a global commodity (even one that is produced domestically), aren't we still reliant on other countries and their stability?
I guess we are
To be clear, I'm not trying to advocate for stagnating our domestic oil/NG production (not that my opinion is of importance on the issue). I wish we'd streamline the process and increase production and infrastructure, because at the end of the day it's way better to have those dollars being given to US firms, but the idea that domestic production is the magic elixir to all our energy ills is misguided.
I think working towards energy independence is not pnly productive for the US but I also happen to believe it will increase jobs
Nice job Chompy, you made a couple of telling points.
Too busy preparing their "Liberation of Baghdad" parade, I suppose. You remember, the one that was supposed to go off like the one in Paris in 1945.
Seems to me that we, as 'Mericans, although we recognize ourselves as one, big, heterogeneous lot, organize our political ideology and the ensuing (alleged, perhaps) freedoms that travel with it, around basic notions that are not shared with more monolitically structured cultures, especially ones organized on the most basic level as tribal.
It was to a degree, excessive, good-faith, rationalized, ideological zeal - coupled with perhaps other sinister motives - that deluded the minds of the war planners to think that such an admixture of multiple tribes, multiple unshared interests, fundamental religious differences even within the same religion, geographical divides and resource advantages, could ever be melded into a starry-eyed following that would rally around the unseen ideal of a national state of Iraq, based on our imposed political values and notions of freedom.
Thus there was no sufficient, ideological, rallying, cultural commonality amongst all of that, such that once the head tribal man - Saddam - was pulled down, that could replace the inbred need of those peoples to be governed by naked, unifying authority from the top, and by fear.
That is what we honestly failed to recognize in advance.
Worse yet, if we realized it, perhaps we did not care.
Now that we have this mess... what to do?
Here is a suggestion by Fareed Zacaria that I thought might be a relatively tenable solution.
Well worth the read. Good find, Chompster.
No. I don't think anyone would care sunnis and shiites and terrrorists are killing each other in Iraq if the region wasn't responsible for a significant % of the world's oil supply.
No one really cares Africans are chopping up each other with rusty hatchets because it doesn't affect anyone, well, except a few bleeding hearts. We are concerned only when a young black kid is shown on tv with a bloated stomach and flies orbiting his head drinking from a dirty well. The only reason we see that is so we can send money to an organization that will most likely skim most of the proceeds before giving the kid his daily ration of rice.
Well, OK, but when those Sunni and Shia are killing each other our energy costs would still go up regardless.
There is no such thing as true "energy independence" as long as our energy needs are being met by a global commodity.
You just repeated my point. If we were truly energy independent of oil and the ME, no one would care what they did to each other. Since we are not, we care. We are compassionate like that.
Sorry about that, lets see if this works
Now you're changing the topic. Are you now speaking of meeting our energy demand without the use of oil? If so, I'm all ears on how to do that!
Otherwise, as has been stated a few times in this thread, "energy independence" for the US is really code for not being dependent on external factors setting the price of energy. As long as we're using oil, no matter where we get it, our energy costs will vary depending upon a number of conditions outside our borders and control.