tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post8805476197491170534..comments2023-10-22T01:04:39.611-07:00Comments on Holland, 2002: Security through energy independence: A bipartisan critiqueUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-68497795310936682102009-12-18T04:24:56.259-08:002009-12-18T04:24:56.259-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-73705853963516174932008-11-18T09:02:00.000-08:002008-11-18T09:02:00.000-08:00- comparative advantage, why not buy over seas?- n...- comparative advantage, why not buy over seas?<BR/>- need to protect ourselves from foreign politically motivated pricing. For example, during 73 Israel-Egypt war we were really constrained at the time and hurt economically for the next decade because of it<BR/>- Russia: if we reduce energy demands on M.E. Russia will try to price them out of many markets and this will cause lots of violence<BR/>- ability to use our trading positions as leverage for security concerns? Yes, an economic stake, especially if not just a demand source but also capital investment, gives us reason to work for internal security against terrorism without looking like zealots.Nathaniel Zebrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05257954206429299573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-5456082607483017072008-11-13T21:39:00.000-08:002008-11-13T21:39:00.000-08:00I find it troubling that popular media fails to po...I find it troubling that popular media fails to point out that we, the US, contributed to the organization of extremist Muslims throughout the world for our own interests in the Soviet-Afghan war. <BR/><BR/>To respond to Ron's point -- Middle East money might be funding terrorist operations now, but it's been asserted by political theorists that had the US not worked to organize the extremist Jihad movement, we might not be experiencing what we are today in terms of global (in)security.<BR/><BR/>Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-82683903205275842632008-11-13T15:52:00.000-08:002008-11-13T15:52:00.000-08:00AC,I would probably agree that there are some seri...AC,<BR/>I would probably agree that there are some serious anti-Arab undertones surrounding the energy independence conversation. You don’t hear about the need to decrease trade with Canada, after all.<BR/><BR/>Adam,<BR/><BR/>All solid points, as usual. A few things:<BR/><BR/>First, the countries that are declared to harbor terrorists, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan, are not our main sources of oil. Yes trading extensively with those countries could be problematic if they sponsor our enemies, but I’m not certain that’s what is going on. <BR/><BR/>I would agree that by ending dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we may be less likely to be drawn into conflict. However, this makes me think, “Wow, I sort of wish Rwanda had oil…” Our lack of dependence on some countries has allowed us to overlook mass atrocities and human rights violations. <BR/><BR/>Do we really want to become less embedded and dependent upon one another as countries? This seems to go against the grain of the fact of globalization. I realize that oil has perverted our foreign policy, but I don’t think we need to be less dependent on oil to change our foreign policy in the Middle East. We could just be smarter in the way we engage oil-producing countries…<BR/><BR/>Also, I think that even if we were energy independent from the Middle East, we would still need to protect Israel and now perhaps Iraq. These are facts of American domestic and foreign policy for the indefinite future, and thus I don’t see oil independence causing American disinterest in the region.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think that engaging less with the region will help our situation or theirs; we need to engage differently, not necessarily less.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02836713793470393978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-67607981886137162922008-11-13T15:35:00.000-08:002008-11-13T15:35:00.000-08:00I think it would be easier to understand the probl...I think it would be easier to understand the problem if the question is rephrased.<BR/><BR/>Consider this question: "Is there a connection between the flow of oil money into the Middle East and the flow of terrorism out of the Middle East?<BR/><BR/>Ignore the conspiracy theories, if you can, and examine the evidence. If you make an honest inquiry into the evidence that is publically available, you will find that the facts are clear -- terrorism is funded by Middle East oil wealth.<BR/><BR/>Your argument against energy independence is similar to that given by former Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfield who tried to “outsource” U.S. Military ammunitions manufacture because it would save money.<BR/><BR/>In your view, is there any point at which over-dependence becomes vulnerability? <BR/><BR/>The American Energy Independence website http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com has several links to papers and articles that document the evidence. <BR/><BR/>I recommend “Nexus-Oil and Al Qaeda” by Dr. Frank Denton, who spent 30 years in the Middle East with the U.S. Foreign Service.<BR/><BR/>Another good article on the subject is “The Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network” by David E. Kaplan, a columnist for U.S.News & World Report. <BR/><BR/>And a recent article in the Los Angelis Times, by columnist Josh Meyer titled, “Saudis remain the world’s prime source of terror financing” — “Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow... the Saudi government has not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly. Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world. <BR/><BR/>http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-12403238081295464322008-11-13T14:41:00.000-08:002008-11-13T14:41:00.000-08:00Isn't it valid to claim that by trading with count...Isn't it valid to claim that by trading with countries who are known to harbor terrorists, we are both legitimizing those countries' governments and indirectly supporting terrorism?<BR/><BR/>Also, by ending dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we are far less likely to be drawn into future conflicts within the region. Perhaps it would not lessen the threat of a direct attack on US soil, but it certainly alters our definition of "necessary conflict". There has been an oil component, if you will, to each of the conflicts we've been involved in within the Middle East in the last 50 years.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I have drawn the personal conclusion, from reading statements made by Osama Bin Laden, that the less we interfere in the Middle East in general, the more our image will improve. We have fucked with almost every Middle Eastern nation in some way or another, be it the coup in the Iranian Revolution or the more recent "democratization" of Iraq. We have traded weapons with tyrannical rulers and later condemned them for their use. Presently we are building THIRTEEN PERMANENT military bases in the soon to be "free" Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Decreasing Middle Eastern oil dependence therefore decreases our benefit in controlling the region. The less we engage politically in this region, the less reason there exists to hate us. That makes us safer, if only in theory.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249928498206856167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469423763503103632.post-72243848327162028092008-11-13T10:21:00.000-08:002008-11-13T10:21:00.000-08:00To answer your question directly, no. Independent...To answer your question directly, no. Independent access to desired commodities will not ensure increased security. Period. <BR/><BR/>Allow me to be more controversial, though. I think this whole "security via oil" story is a cover for a less PC issue: Christian US v. Muslim Middle East, and who has more money, and therefore more leverage (including militarily, but not limited to it) with the globe. <BR/><BR/>The reason the topic itself is so hot amongst politicians, I think, is because of its religion undertone. Politicians + media sense that most citizens are white Christians and proud Americans, and they're pandering to those sentiments through their rhetoric on what will make the US more secure to gain votes/viewers.<BR/><BR/>*shakes head* Lame. Sauce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com