American Isolationism vs. Interventionism

[Luckymoose]

Point is still relevant. You are heavily reliant on other sources of oil outside of the US. And guess what, you are still as reliant on Middle Eastern oil as everyone else. Cause if they stop shipping, oil prices go through the roof regardless of the origin of the oil.

So I'm going to politely ask you to cease discussion of things you fail to understand.

You fail to understand the point. You said we are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We aren't. The loss of that oil would certainly cause prices to go up, but then we would just up production here and in our other major, stable exporters. You are trying to pull the old "we are dependent on middle eastern oil so we are aggressors who try to control it" which is a load of bull with no data to back it up. We have far more important things to deal with in the ME than oil, like you know, terrorists, dictators and threats to world trade.

Non-Americans using misinformation to spread slander about our glorious nation are disgusting.

 

[Verbose]

You fail to understand the point. You said we are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We aren't. The loss of that oil would certainly cause prices to go up, but then we would just up production here and in our other major, stable exporters. You are trying to pull the old "we are dependent on middle eastern oil so we are aggressors who try to control it" which is a load of bull with no data to back it up. We have far more important things to deal with in the ME than oil, like you know, terrorists, dictators and threats to world trade.

Non-Americans using misinformation to spread slander about our glorious nation are disgusting.

The price hike would still be global. Especially if one does not in fact control access to this resource.

 

[tycoonist]

You fail to understand the point. You said we are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We aren't. The loss of that oil would certainly cause prices to go up, but then we would just up production here and in our other major, stable exporters. You are trying to pull the old "we are dependent on middle eastern oil so we are aggressors who try to control it" which is a load of bull with no data to back it up. We have far more important things to deal with in the ME than oil, like you know, terrorists, dictators and threats to world trade.

Non-Americans using misinformation to spread slander about our glorious nation are disgusting.

Firstly, where exactly did I try to slander you? All I said was that isoolationism was no longer viable for the US, primarily because of your dependence on foreign oil. I wouldn't call that slander.

Secondly, the loss of middle east oil would be catastrophic for the US. I haven't done the addition myself, but this chart should illustrate the amount of oil the Middle East produces relative to the rest of the world:

Well that's not so bad, right? I mean they're the biggest producers, but not by a huge amount. Well first off, quite a few of the African largest producers are more Arabic in their nature, and hence I would class them as Middle Eastern for the purposes of this demonstration.

But far more importantly, production isn't the same as reserves. This graph should show what I mean.

So even if you aren't reliant on Middle East oil now, the rest of the world is, and in a few years, you will be too. Besides, events that affect Middle East oil affect all oil, as I pointed out earlier.


So please, learn something about the global oil economy before rubbishing my arguments again.

 

[Earthling]

So I'm going to politely ask you to cease discussion of things you fail to understand.

You should step out of the thread then, because not only was his post not wrong, you didn't seem to even be able to read it correctly in composing your response. A stoppage of oil from major producers would still cause price spikes and economic crashes and the US doesn't have large enough long term reserves to ignore it.

 

[Aegis]

You should step out of the thread then, because not only was his post not wrong, you didn't seem to even be able to read it correctly in composing your response. A stoppage of oil from major producers would still cause price spikes and economic crashes and the US doesn't have large enough long term reserves to ignore it.

>.>

He (LuckyMoose) addressed the rising prices and stated that production elsewhere could be increased in order to compensate.

 

[Cutlass]

You fail to understand the point. You said we are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We aren't. The loss of that oil would certainly cause prices to go up, but then we would just up production here and in our other major, stable exporters. You are trying to pull the old "we are dependent on middle eastern oil so we are aggressors who try to control it" which is a load of bull with no data to back it up. We have far more important things to deal with in the ME than oil, like you know, terrorists, dictators and threats to world trade.

Non-Americans using misinformation to spread slander about our glorious nation are disgusting.

That would still reduce oil consumption in the world by a very large percentage. It would be hugely disruptive in the long and short run. The US, and all Western nations, would have to cut usage by a quarter or more. The lost production cannot be replaced. The use of oil would have to be replaced instead. And doing that would be a vast disruption for decades.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is actually a sizable amount of history in this particular regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

 

[Berzerker]

Again, you're thinking of it as being a purely military based question.

Thats what "intervening" means - military force

Tariffs are intervention in a way

And thats why you're wrong - you've just defined economic isolationism (tariffs) as intervening when the thread is about intervention vs "isolationism". You've equated the 2 now when they're meant to be in conflict, just stop digging

I'm talking about. The Marshall Plan was intervention. The Truman Doctrine was intervention. Neither of those directly involved military intervention.

Jesus, that hole is getting kinda deep. They followed a massive world war... This thread aint about trade policy vs intervention. Its about non-intervention vs intervention. I think

While the claim that our intervention led to 9/11 is poppycock... the fact is, in this world full of humans, you can't make everyone happy.

9/11 was the result of keeping an army in Saudi Arabia after the 1st gulf war. Thats when AQ started attacking us, after Bush and Clinton made it clear the troops were staying to enforce sanctions on Iraq. The timeline is obvious, so are the motives - and you dont even need to accept their word for why they attacked us. Makes more sense than "they attacked us because we're free". I actually find that BS very offensive, not that you said it But when I hear politicians essentially blaming us for the results of their dishonest, secretive "interventionist" foreign policy I get

 

[Camikaze]

Thats what "intervening" means - military force

Not at all. Possibly the thread is intended to be about that, but that is not at all what 'intervention' is restricted to.

And thats why you're wrong - you've just defined economic isolationism (tariffs) as intervening when the thread is about intervention vs "isolationism". You've equated the 2 now when they're meant to be in conflict, just stop digging

Jesus, that hole is getting kinda deep. They followed a massive world war... This thread aint about trade policy vs intervention. Its about non-intervention vs intervention. I think

'Tariffs' are not what I was specifically referring to as interventionism. They are certainly not the best example of it. Yet they can still be interventionist, if the aim of them is to interfere, or intervene, in another market. Tariffs on Chinese goods is an intervention in the Chinese market.

But again, that wasn't my point. It was an offhand comment. Let's take the Marshall Plan as a clear and absolutely important example of intervention. How is intervening in the economies of other nations (giving them money on the basis of conditions for adjusting their economies) not intervention? Trade policy is part of intervention. Military action complements this interventionist policy, and vise versa. They are both part of the same overall foreign policy. Military intervention is of course, on its own, terrible. What's the point of militarily intervening somewhere if that's where your interaction ends? Other interventionist policies are the necessary complement, and have been the complement, of military intervention.

Out of curiosity, under the narrow definition of 'intervention' that you appear to be using, is general involvement in NATO an interventionist policy, or does it only become one when NATO actually militarily attacks another actor?

 

[Earthling]

He (LuckyMoose) addressed the rising prices and stated that production elsewhere could be increased in order to compensate.

That's just plain wrong though, so he didn't successfully address the point.

 

[kochman]

9/11 was the result of keeping an army in Saudi Arabia after the 1st gulf war. Thats when AQ started attacking us, after Bush and Clinton made it clear the troops were staying to enforce sanctions on Iraq. The timeline is obvious, so are the motives - and you dont even need to accept their word for why they attacked us. Makes more sense than "they attacked us because we're free". I actually find that BS very offensive, not that you said it But when I hear politicians essentially blaming us for the results of their dishonest, secretive "interventionist" foreign policy I get

See, only a fool believes in what you are saying, as it gives WAY too much credit to insane maniacs like OBL. Radical Islamists would find any excuse, however insignificant or not, to engage in their murderous behavior. Buy into the propaganda that it was the West's fault. The governments of the surrounding nations wanted us there just as much as we wanted to be there, to promote stability in the region, so we could more easily engage in the massive oil trade together.

The bottom line is Al Queda, etc. are lunatics, and if you wanted to prevent them attacking the West, the West would basically have to submit to all of Al Queda's aims, including conversion to Islam. To think anything different is not taking them at their word, as that is what they want, an entirely Islam dominated world.

 

[Luckymoose]

Well that's not so bad, right? I mean they're the biggest producers, but not by a huge amount. Well first off, quite a few of the African largest producers are more Arabic in their nature, and hence I would class them as Middle Eastern for the purposes of this demonstration.

Africa != Middle East. Might as well say Asia is Middle Eastern if you wanna pull the Islam card. Which I am assuming is your only backing for calling these regions Arabic/Middle Eastern at all. Most African oil production is on the opposite side of the continent from the Middle East. You have continued your ramblings in an attempt to slander glorious USA #1.

 

[tycoonist]

Africa != Middle East. Might as well say Asia is Middle Eastern if you wanna pull the Islam card. Which I am assuming is your only backing for calling these regions Arabic/Middle Eastern at all. Most African oil production is on the opposite side of the continent from the Middle East. You have continued your ramblings in an attempt to slander glorious USA #1.

Did you even read the rest of my post?

And besides, the areas I am refering to are Algeria, Libya etc. which have large oil production and are, in many senses more Middle Eastern socially and demographically than African. Please please stop arguing, its quite clear you've lost this one.

 

[Luckymoose]

Did you even read the rest of my post?

And besides, the areas I am refering to are Algeria, Libya etc. which have large oil production and are, in many senses more Middle Eastern socially and demographically than African. Please please stop arguing, its quite clear you've lost this one.

I've lost nothing, as Libyan oil production and reserves are so minuscule in comparison to even Iraq that your point is embarrassing. Your original point being that if Middle Eastern oil was shut off suddenly the US would collapse under it's own imports. You are trying to argue in circles to distract people from your original blunder on real world facts and politics.

 

[Verbose]

But Luckymoose, it's not the actual oil which will be the problem. It's the price of it.

What's being pointed out is the relative greater hurt a skyrocketing oil price is likely to do to US everyday operations.

Yes, production elsewhere will increase if say the Saudis are rendered hors de combat for whatever reason. These producers are still likely to want to be paid that higher price that the loss of Saudi oil will generate. Why wouldn't they? And the US is going to be in competition with the cash from the EU, Japan and China, so no one will really see any specific point of subsidizing the US oil-habit if there are other customers who might be able (not want to, but be able) to pay full price.

Right now the US has some kind of weird strategic partnership with the Saudis, meaning every time there is a bump in the supply from somewhere, the Saudi's turn on their faucets to make up for it. It is generally acknowledged that of the oil-dependent developed economies, the US IS the most sensitive to sharp rises to the price of oil. Which is why IF the Suadis somehow dry up, it can be assumed to put the US under the hammer. Not because the US directly uses much Saudi oil, but because it's the Saudis who are strangely compliant towards the US in ensuring that the world market supply, and price, of oil remains stable. Other actors might be considerably less compliant should the Saudis be jinxed somehow. (Russia? Venezuela? OK the Norwegians might be nice about such a situation I guess.)

I guess there could be some kind of oil price stabilizing cooperative international measures put in place — and if so probably on US instigation. But right now there aren't. Or rather, for now it's the Saudis providing it for everyone, but with the US especially nervously eying the price. And apparently being particularly considerate towards Saudi Arabia in return.

 

[Tahuti]

If the US were to be cut off from ME oil, it would still be able to ration oil so gov't and certain critical industries would still be able to use it. The Arab boycot of the West in 1973 didn't led to survivalists taking over the show, despite some people said it would. If such a boycot were to happen now, it wouldn't be much different.
Granted, the US would suffer economically, but in the end it will survive. And maybe it might even backlash against the boycotters in way they never be able to recover from: I'd already imagine seeing the US going electric should oilprices skyrocket.

Also, there will always some countries that will try to make money by acting like a bypass. The boycotters may try to boycot these countries too, but there never have been any boycots that were watertight.

 

[tycoonist]

I've lost nothing, as Libyan oil production and reserves are so minuscule in comparison to even Iraq that your point is embarrassing. Your original point being that if Middle Eastern oil was shut off suddenly the US would collapse under it's own imports. You are trying to argue in circles to distract people from your original blunder on real world facts and politics.

Well that took a long time to refute



In fact, I'm gonna spend a little more time on this, as you still don't seem to get it.

My original point (that US is dependent on Middle East oil) is accurate. Let us in fact ignore for the time being the earlier evidence I presented that showed that Middle Eastern oil reserves account for over 50% of the world's total oil reserves. Let's just focus for the time being on the current production.

You stated that the USA only imports 11% of its oil from the Middle East (you didn't produce evidence of any description, but I'll assume this is true). This 11% alone means the USA is dependent quite heavily on Middle East: if you lose 11% of the oil you need, you're gonna have rolling blackouts across most of the country, as well as much escalated fuel costs. The effects of this loss alone would be dramatic. But far more dramatic would be the effect that the loss of Middle Eastern oil would have on the price of oil world wide - And seeing as the US is buying oil from abroard, that is gonna have a huge effect on you. Hopefully I don't need to lecture you on basic economics: it should be obvious that if production of oil falls, and demand stays constant, the price increase will be significant. If the production falls by say a quarter, which is a conservative estimate of what the Middle East produces, the price increase would be astronomical. And as the world's biggest consumers and importers of crude oil, you're gonna feel this increase more than anyone else.

You later argued that you could simply increase production to cope with this drop in supply. To cope with a drop in production of the size I am referring to, you would start depleting your remaining oil reserves very quickly. And you don't have that much to deplete. I'm not even gonna discuss the potential environmental problems of this drilling, or the fact that the oil you are trying to access in the US is far more costly to produce than that in the Middle East. At best, an increase in drilling is going to only relieve market pressure fractionally, and is only going to be a short term solution. And when you do deplete your reserves, which wouldn't take too long, you are going to have a problem ten times worse than the one you started off with.

To conclude, the USA is heavily dependent on foreign oil, and, like all major importers, is particularly dependent on the Middle East.

 

[G-Max]

I believe that interventionism, in theory, is better not just for us, but for the world. Unfortunately, in practice, we quite often intervene in the wrong way for the wrong reason (see also: Iran 1953)

 

[Dachs]

The Musaddiq thing is a really terrible example if you want to say that bad things happen when the United States intervenes in the affairs of foreign countries, because Musaddiq was in the process of getting his dumb ass couped before Kermit Roosevelt and a suitcase full of cash showed up.

 

[G-Max]

But would the coup have been successful without US support? Would the Shah have taken power and held it so long without US support?