posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by Kastogere
Of course not. But Iran is in the same situation, scale wise, as America was in with the 70's oil crises. The fact that our economy regularly tanks
is also a product of the patters of history, so it's safe to say its existence is irrelevant. We are looking at the reason why. Each part of the
pattern has a reason.
The US was feeling the punch in the 70s. We became more local and conserved more. Like we did in WW2 and like the Germans did before.
Either way you look at it, there is no reason to assume an embargo will lead to war when it has historically been used in a grand multitude of reasons
including war, but also influence.
Hell if I was president, I would start a slow embargo on China and demand they do things. Things like open freedom of the press, or close labor camps.
I'd slowly work it up, just as OPEC did to America, and do so until my demands are met. I would have no plans to do war.
Simple fact is I would use my economy as a means of taking a country hostage so they adopt my values. I would do this. And if you don't want to play
by those rules, go shop somewhere else.
I see nothing wrong with this. It is a very powerful force to wield. And I would wield it for good. And if that means war, you can keep it. I won't
go over to you, and I will defend my ships. And because I have the upper hand, I really don't have to lay a finger on you. You just sit there and
moan, and collapse from within.
That's not war to me. That's simple aggressive diplomacy. Unless I am landing troops to fight you, I am not fighting you.