SpeedRacer 1 #1 February 1, 2008 It seems to me that many of us are unwillingly paying taxes to fund policing the Middle east, primarily to protect oil company interests. The idea being that if the oil companys get in trouble due to Middle Eastern turmoil, it will screw our economies. But it seems to me that the oil companies could just hire their own troops to protect themselves. Yes, they'd have to raise prices tremendously to pay for all that muscle, and yes, temporarily that would hurt the economy, but we'd soon adapt by being pressured to develop non-petroleum based fuel sources. And the Middle Eastern countries would begin to make an attempt to get their shit together when they discover that the West is beginning to decide that Middle Eastern oil just isn't worth the trouble. Let the oil industry handle its own interests. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #2 February 1, 2008 either way we are still paying for the troops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #3 February 1, 2008 Yes, we'd still be paying for it: in the form of higher fuel prices. But we don't have to pay as much if we start using less of it. There becomes an economic incentive to change your petroleum-use habits. Whereas with taxes, you have to pay what the government tells you to pay. NO incentive to stop buying hummers. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #4 February 1, 2008 You elected the president just deal with it. (This mostly goes to the people who reelected him). And vote either Obama or Clinton if you don't want any more oil wars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #5 February 1, 2008 I think your propostion is just a pipe dream and would never happen. Western economies are too tied up in oil products, of which gasoline is a small part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 February 1, 2008 QuoteAnd vote either Obama or Clinton Ron Paul if you don't want any more oil wars. Most of the Dems aren't too much different. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #7 February 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteAnd vote either Obama or Clinton Ron Paul if you don't want any more oil wars. Most of the Dems aren't too much different. Word.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #8 February 1, 2008 I'd better hope it's not NEVER gonna happen. That would bring you guy's in serious trouble. About the too tied up: NO you aren't you just don't feel like changing anything. Look at Iceland. They use nearly no fossile fuels anymore at all. Germany is building huge wind farms. A good share of electricity in Switzerland is produced from water energy and those are just the examples from on top of my head. Don't tell me america is not smart/good enough to do what everybody else has already done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #9 February 1, 2008 > Oil Wars... Must be a slow day for ya, to come up with this crap. Oil Wars? Did congress declare a Oil War? I think you need to hit the eject button on that car you drive, I think it might be the letter "E" or is it "G"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #10 February 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd vote either Obama or Clinton Ron Paul if you don't want any more oil wars. Most of the Dems aren't too much different. Word. Agreed but it's not like there is any chance for Ron Paul so vote for somebody that actually stands a chance and don't waste the vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 February 1, 2008 QuoteI'd better hope it's not NEVER gonna happen. That would bring you guy's in serious trouble. Um, me hears was told we're in serious trouble now. QuoteThey use nearly no fossile fuels anymore at all True. Places built on volcanoes and water have readily available cheap and renewable energy. QuoteGermany is building huge wind farms We try, but bureaucracy and legal challenges are working against us. QuoteDon't tell me america is not smart/good enough to do what everybody else has already done. We're good enough. Just too lazy to build everything up new again. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #12 February 1, 2008 Too much money tied up in oil too many big businesses are dependent on oil. Money runs this country. I don't think it really matters who is President. The big pockets are really what run this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #13 February 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'd better hope it's not NEVER gonna happen. That would bring you guy's in serious trouble. QuoteUm, me hears was told we're in serious trouble now.*** Okey let's say really serious trouble ***They use nearly no fossile fuels anymore at all QuoteTrue. Places built on volcanoes and water have readily available cheap and renewable energy.*** Geothermal heat is available pretty much everywhere in the US. Not as much as in Iceland obviously but still. ***Germany is building huge wind farms QuoteWe try, but bureaucracy and legal challenges are working against us.*** Who's trying (at least not the people I know) and who's fault is that it doesn't work? ***Don't tell me america is not smart/good enough to do what everybody else has already done. We're good enough. Just too lazy to build everything up new again.*** Nobody talks about building everything up new again. Just improve your technology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #14 February 1, 2008 QuoteNobody talks about building everything up new again. Just improve your technology. The problem with the US is that there are too many powerful interests that want to maintain the status quo. It slows new ideas and technology in many areas, and makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #15 February 1, 2008 Quote Quote Nobody talks about building everything up new again. Just improve your technology. The problem with the US is that there are too many powerful interests that want to maintain the status quo. It slows new ideas and technology in many areas, and makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yeah so how about electing a president who doesn't get millions from Exxon next time? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #16 February 1, 2008 >Oil Wars? Did congress declare a Oil War? The war was not "all about oil" - but it had a great deal to do with it. Read the PNAC plan for the Middle East, which is the basis of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Here's one quote for ya: "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil." - Wolfowitz, May 03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #17 February 1, 2008 Quote Yeah so how about electing a president who doesn't get millions from Exxon next time? Ok, I am definitely not voting for Bush! However, I fear that whoever does get elected won't do much to change things. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 February 1, 2008 I just think that in general, companies doing business overseas should deal with the costs/risks of doing business overseas. They shouldn't be subsidized by the taxpayers. We'd be less of a target because we'd have a less aggressive, less provocative foreign policy. If the nutcases in the Middle East had a problem with the oil companies, the oil companies would have to deal with it. And if American companies want to open sweat shops in unstable 3rd world countries, and the country gets taken over by a totalitarian commie regime that nationalizes (ie, steals) all industry, then maybe companies would think twice about opening up sweat shops in foreign countries. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #19 February 1, 2008 You are aware of the fact that no oil companies were present in Iraq because you had an embargo on them? The reason for attacking them was that after an attack you could lift the embargo without losing your face so you could get the oil out. I don't doubt that the oil companies were behind it but it was still your choice to (re)elect the guy that was willing to do the whole war thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 February 1, 2008 I know this is just blowing smoke, but trying to take it seriously... 1) do non American oil companies like BP pay? 2) What prevents these oil companies from sending the bill directly to the White House with a note - pay this bill, or we remind you how how the oil shock in the 70s was. ---- The government sent troops, not the oil companies. Oil companies have absolutely no trouble working with dictators. The goal is to make Americans realize (and pay) the full cost, so they can make more informed decisions. That is accomplished with a annual oil assessment, based on per capita, or via gas tax, or income, that would pay the prior year's oil war expenses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
