No Matter,Who is President----Protecting OIL Supply, Priority

[OHdem10]

Last night C. Rose did an in-depth interview with A. Greenspan,
former Federal Reserve Chairman.

He very concretely explained what is behind "It is in our national
security interest " comment always used but no one spells it out
so to speak.

According to Greenspan, every President, as soon as he is sworn
in recognizes or is made to recognize that Energy and our supply
of energy is of utmost priority. Since we depend on oil, what
goes on in the Middle East is first priority. The Middle East
supplies the US and the World. There is only ONE way out of the
Middle East for oil to be shipped--through the strait of Hormeus.
An American President has to wake up every morning, hoping the
Oil is moving smoothly through the Strait. If a Democrat becomes
President she/or he will face this reality.

Here is the clincher, IMO. Having any one ME Leader become too
powerful means that one person may use his power to shut down
the flow of oil if he gets angry or simply to exercise his power
to the world. Greenspan without taking sides explained that
Saddam with Nuclear Weapons could threaten the neighbors
to keep them in check and could literally cut off the world's
oil supply. He could practically destroy our economy and stock
market and in turn bring other economies to their knees.
I am describing the mindset here. This explains the thinking
behinc that"It is in our national security interest".
This is why any war in the Middle East is "largely about oil".
He did state The Bush Administration may not have believe the
war was about oil.

IMO:
Now, the coming showdown with Iran could be viewed in the same
manner. We have made Iran more powerful by taking away their
primary enemy --Saddam. Iran is jockeying to be the leader
among ME Countries. In their view it is the Shias' turn.
The fear of Iran in power means our enemy can control the
flow of oil through the strait and at a moments notice
bring down the American Economy. No matter what we are
yipping about, nuclear weapons: It is the Power that having
Nuclear Weapons gives to Iran. With this power, they control
the flow of oil. It is always Largely about oil. Gre4enspan
did not discuss Iran. I just applied the same logic.

Greenspan like many of us believes we need to get off our
addiction to oil and fossil fuels and the sooner the better.

Understanding this should help people make better arguments
pro or con.

[acmavm]

1. We are protecting the oil supplies for big oil and the oil families.

As long as we focus on oil, we don't develop reasonable, safe alternative sources of energy. If we did, how would the oil companies and the oil families maintain their status and their wealth?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. We Need To Find Alternative Sources Of Energy For Sure

But as now two thirds of the world's oil supplies go through the Persian Gulf and without that oil there would be a global despression which would impact those at the bottom of the seconomic latter even more than those at the top...

[acmavm]

6. There will be no shortage for the users of oil. We need to wean

ourselves from fossil fuels. There won't be any big depression. We develop technology for the west and the east will gobble up what we don't use.

Anyway, when the war that will engulf the whole friggin' Middle East breaks out, how we gonna be getting our hands on that oil?

[ShortnFiery]

7. "We need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels." Starting NOW!!! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. We Have Been Saying That For Thirty Five Years...

I rememember as a high school debate student in 1975 taking the affirmative position in a debate that America should be energy independent in twenty years...

[acmavm]

16. And the same families ran the oil companies then as now. And

they are pulling the same schemes and scams that they pulled then. And 25 years ago they ran this country and called the shots in regard to the US energy policy.

We have to take back the government. We have to rip it out of the hands of Big Oil and the insurance companies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. That's The Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.


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

[ShortnFiery]

9. Well, like his major flaw with his promoting of NAFTA, this Doctrine needs revision.

I think if you asked the man, one each, Jimmy Carter, he would not be for all this dangerous "saber rattling" to bomb Iran?

Can't we see: The rest of The World is NOT afraid of Iran developing Nuclear Technology but scared shitless that we'll go off half-cocked with mini-nukes against Iran.

WE, OUR WAR-MONGERING UNITARY EXECUTIVE and HIS SPRING-BUTT GENERALS are leading the march toward ARMAGEDDON ... Now that's one Hell of an Exit Strategy. :grr:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Two Thirds Of The World's Oil Goes Through The Persian Gulf

No American president would allow the spigot to be turned off...


That being said, defending the world's oil supply and the best way to deal with Iran are two separate issues...

[MetalCanuck]

4. Actually not all presidential Candidates will support oil

Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul will not prop up
oil.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. What Am I Going To Fill My Car Up With?

eom

[OHdem10]

15. Could this be why neither of these candidates will become

president.

It is not just the oll companies, the stock market and the
US economy are perceived as in danger.

The Market goes into a panic when a large storm gets into
the Gulf of Mexico.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. It's An Awful Truth

A few oil producing nations have us by the short hairs and we will cajole them, co op them, up to the point that they try to turn the spigot off...

But I would add it's more than the economy...It would kind of be hard to get to work, run your computer, light your home, get food to the market, etcetera without energy...

[frogcycle]

8. which Jimmy Carter recognized acutely

and started a serious effort toward alternative energy - a target of having the US be 20% solar energy by 2000 -

That was a president who recognized the problem and attempted to exercise leadership to address it. Since then... not so much.

The choice back then was the same as now. Kick the addiction to an unreliable source of energy, or take over the world. Sadly, the latter choice still does not address the problem, since the source is not only unreliable but also finite and its use is destructive to the planet.

Reagan had the solar panels removed from the White House.

Al Gore tried to get us back on the track of addressing the energy/climate issue as soon as the Clinton admin came in. We had a shot then at undoing 12 years of regressive policy. Clinton did well on many issues, but Gore little to no support from Clinton on this issue. I believe he intended to bide his time, succeed Clinton, and then resume Carter's visionary approach.

I will never forgive Clinton for letting the clenis derail what might have been the salvation of the planet and our form of government. He handed it back to the cabal, and they have had another eight years to drive our government into the ground and drive their world domination agenda. And I blame dems in general for being spineless against all the attacks of the "right wing conspiracy" (there is an example of a case where Hillary was 1000% correct).

That, in a nutshell, is my discomfort with Hillary as the standard bearer. Despite being right, at the end of the day Bil/Hil handed it back to the cabal. They tried the Neville Chamberlain approach and failed. They did not recognize the true nature of the evil we have been facing since - oh, I guess forever, but certainly its emergence toward the end of the Eisenhower admin is a significant period. It tried to put tricky dick in, which would have been the launch of the movement, and got thwarted by progressives and John Kennedy. So it bided its time, got itself a dem to its liking and a war, then got tricky dick in after all. Carter was a brief delay to its plan, nothing more.

[shain from kane]

11. Damn Strait. n/t

[MetalCanuck]

14. Electricity

Watch "Who Killed the Electric car" and find out.

[The Traveler]

13. Alternative energy == national security priority

Sure. I can buy that argument. Been a valid argument for 30 years or more. So, why then has development of alternative fuel sources not been a national security priority given this rather massive vulnerability? Carter was headed in that direction ... so what happened? Oh. Yeah. The nation decided to go for an actor who didn't believe in any of that kind of stuff. Easier to deploy troops than to invent something new ... and inventing something new might upset the financial prospects of one's wealthier contributors.

I think a strong argument could be made that free market forces have failed massively to respond to the twin crises of fuel resource depletion and climate change. This failure threatens the very foundations of the civilization that supports the operation of those so-called free markets. One could therefore argue that the free market is unsustainable and unable to support itself.

As I have mulled this over the past few years, I have concluded that without wise regulation by a force (government) that represents the public interest in the short and long term the free market cannot produce a sustainable system. This is not really the fault of markets ... rather it is the fault of a government constructed on the theory that the market is always and inevitably wiser, and it is the fault of the ideology that produced that theory. Somewhere between the extremes of corporate anarchy and centrally planned economies, there is a place of effective balance. A principle challenge for Democratic Party theorists is to identify that place, and clearly describe its characteristics.

[beachmom]

17. 80% of the oil in Iraq is in the South, and not under our control

I agree that oil plays a part in all of this, but the truth is the southern part of Iraq is run by two warring Shi'ite militias under Iranian influence, with 5,000 British soldiers hunkered down in a garrisoned base (and they will be leaving soon). There is more oil in southern Iraq than in the North, so Bush is even screwing up the Empire of Oil game. I assume the oil companies are already negotiating with the two militias to make sure they get a piece. Their allegiance is to $$ not the United States.