Would you consider rising oil prices an Act of War?

The economy is on wobbly legs right now. Whether or not it is technically a recession is irrelevant. The main reason is the cost of oil keeps rising. Theretically, the cost could be at or over $200/barrel by the end of the year.

This is definitely a clear and present danger to our nation's security. I don't think you can argue that point. Even though bullets aren't being fired, the act of aggression is obvious.

Given that, what action do you think we as a nation should to solve this problem? Are we justified in securing what oil we need if prices do not fall to reasonable levels?

The amount of wealth leaving our country every day because of these high prices is astronomical. It is bleeding us dry; we cannot afford to let it continue.

Actually, i'd consider it a sign of your president's incompetence.

I mean, think about it;

What has George W. Bush really done about the rise in oil prices?

Would you consider rising oil prices an Act of War?

No I wouldn't.............I would consider our (USA) lack of an
energy policy an act of treason by US gov't.........

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are we justified in securing what oil we need if prices do not fall to reasonable levels?

And what exactly is "securing what oil we need" supposed to mean?

Pay for it fair and square on the open market (forgot about capitalism?) and buy it from the people who it belongs to or do without.

Freakin' Americans with this kind of sense of entitlement piss me off.
.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by Gools]

Economic pressure is not an act of war, although I seem to remember a tom clancy book where it was portrayed that way.

The thing is, the oil producers are not the ones who are to blame (not wholly anyway) - let's not forget those in western countries who have driven the price up and up by speculating on oil futures.
Are they war criminals?

We also have to face the fact that the west has become slightly spoilt and is used to the the ridiculous notion of conspicuous consumption - it's about time we started to tighten our belts and face the reality that the free ride is over.

To take the resources of another country by force is an act of war - to charge a price that the market dictates is not.

Still a very interesting point for discussion though - F&S

[edit on 11/7/2008 by budski]

I would consider it an act of chickens finally coming home to roost.

The whole world solely relying on a finite substance to survive and live in day to day life.

It was all going to end in tears for everyone one day.

The illusion is shattered and the reality is we need to invent new energy sources or we could just live without oil and go back to sailing wooden ships around the world and riding camels and horses.

reply to post by SR


Actually, those ships won't even be that big - we needed oil back then too so that the mastheads didn't split under the force of wind.

We've been using oil for a long time now, the sooner we change to something else the better, because otherwise our society is going to become dependant on it.

Oh wait, that's the kind of thing that should have been said 200 years ago!

Originally posted by jsobecky
This is definitely a clear and present danger to our nation's security. I don't think you can argue that point. Even though bullets aren't being fired, the act of aggression is obvious.

Bullets are being fired, and have been for years. Oil prices are as high as they are mainly due to speculation and the instability in the middle east.

Given that, what action do you think we as a nation should to solve this problem? Are we justified in securing what oil we need if prices do not fall to reasonable levels?

America and the UK took action already - it was called invading Iraq. Hasn't worked out quite so well in the short term. The long game is there though. Who do you think is getting the contracts to drill for and export oil from Iraq?

The amount of wealth leaving our country every day because of these high prices is astronomical. It is bleeding us dry; we cannot afford to let it continue.

Careful, thats pretty much the attitude that the national socialist workers party had in Germany back in the 30's.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Actually, i'd consider it a sign of your president's incompetence.

I mean, think about it;

What has George W. Bush really done about the rise in oil prices?

What Where does is say in the President's job description or in the Constitution that the President of the United States can control oil prices? Please enlighten me on this comment.

No, rising oil prices in my opinion are a cause of environmentalist, Nancy Pelosi, the media and speculators.

reply to post by Solarskye


If you read my signature you'll see the quote from seneca which goes along the lines of "Whoever does not prevent injustice is it's accomplice".

Well, i think that if anyone stands to prevent this great injustice to the American people, it would be the President of the United States.

I truly believe he has/had the power to do something about this before it got out of control.

Oh, and going into Iraq for oil might not have been such a good idea.

I don't see any injustice. In the case of your signature, the whole world is an accomplice. American's are lucky compared to other nations who are paying much more for their fuel.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Oh, and going into Iraq for oil might not have been such a good idea.

I'm not much for Bush, but going into Iraq is another thread & story. Just because things aren't going good doesn't mean it's doom & gloom like the media portrays it to be. History has showed the ups & downs of our economy and I have faith that Americans and other countries will adjust and things will bounce back.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Actually, i'd consider it a sign of your president's incompetence.

I mean, think about it;

What has George W. Bush really done about the rise in oil prices?

What has *any* world leader done about the price of oil?


reply to post by Pinktip

Originally posted by Pinktip
Would you consider rising oil prices an Act of War?

No I wouldn't.............I would consider our (USA) lack of an
energy policy an act of treason by US gov't.........

No US President has done anything about an energy policy for at least the last 30 years.

The real traitors are the tree-hugging liberals who have stopped oil exploration offshore, in the Rockies, and in ANWR.

Originally posted by Gools


reply to post by Gools

 

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are we justified in securing what oil we need if prices do not fall to reasonable levels?

And what exactly is "securing what oil we need" supposed to mean?

Whatever it takes. Weak-kneed need not apply.

Originally posted by Gools
Pay for it fair and square on the open market (forgot about capitalism?) and buy it from the people who it belongs to or do without.

Capitalism hasn't been in play for many years. Import tariffs, etc., have killed it.

"Do without" is not an answer. Our economy runs on oil.

Originally posted by Gools
Freakin' Americans with this kind of sense of entitlement piss me off.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by Gools]

Too bad.

reply to post by budski

Originally posted by budski
Economic pressure is not an act of war, although I seem to remember a tom clancy book where it was portrayed that way.

I think economic pressure can be used as a tool to bring down a nation. A blockade of products in or out of a country could starve it, as we have seen before.

Originally posted by budski
To take the resources of another country by force is an act of war - to charge a price that the market dictates is not.

Yes, but how much of it is market driven, and how much of it is price-gouging?

I agree with you about the role of speculators, too. I heard today that speculators could add $40-$80 to the price of a barrel of crude.

reply to post by Asnivor

Originally posted by Asnivor

Originally posted by jsobecky

The amount of wealth leaving our country every day because of these high prices is astronomical. It is bleeding us dry; we cannot afford to let it continue.

Careful, thats pretty much the attitude that the national socialist workers party had in Germany back in the 30's.

Just because they said it doesn't mean it is untrue, or evil. I'm sure they said many things which were true.

The fact is, *no* nation can afford to be so monetarily beholden to another without eventually becoming a colony of the taxing nation.

Originally posted by Solarskye
I don't see any injustice. In the case of your signature, the whole world is an accomplice.

That's an easy argument to fall back on, isn't it?

Originally posted by jsobecky

What has *any* world leader done about the price of oil?

That's an excellent point, and could go some way to explaining why the problem seems to be escalating as opposed to stabalising, which is what i'm sure every single man, woman and child in the west would like to see.

The sad thing is, i can foresee this entire damn thing as a giant ruse by georgey boy to ensure he gets his place in history.

reply to post by jsobecky


But wouldn't a blockade assume the use of force and would therefore be an act of war anyway?
Especially if the blockade infringed a nations territorial waters.

Then there's the question of price gouging - isn't getting the most money for a product (i.e. what the market will stand) one of the foundations of capitalism as it exists today?

From my point of view, the example you stated in the OP would be taking economic imperialism to it's next level.

Originally posted by Pinktip
Would you consider rising oil prices an Act of War?

No I wouldn't.............I would consider our (USA) lack of an
energy policy an act of treason by US gov't.........




No US President has done anything about an energy policy for at least the last 30 years.

The real traitors are the tree-hugging liberals who have stopped oil exploration offshore, in the Rockies, and in ANWR.

I'm not pointing the finger at Bush (whom I voted for twice... )
I'm accusing the self intrest of our whole gov't for not taking
the energy needs of our country seriously enough in regards to
the soverinty of the country.

reply to post by budski



In purely academic terms, you are right. If I had the only source of a needed resource, why would I not maximize the price I could get for it?

The other side of the coin, however, is desperation. If someone were suffering and in danger because of my actions, would you expect a philosophy to suffice as a strong enough barrier to protect me?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by budski

 

The other side of the coin, however, is desperation. If someone were suffering and in danger because of my actions, would you expect a philosophy to suffice as a strong enough barrier to protect me?

That's a fair point, but there's always the danger of confusing desperation with greed - which brings us right back to western conspicuous consumption, which seems a warlike philosophy to me because in order to satisfy the want you have to take the needs of other people in the world.

It becomes a self feeding monster IMO

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Actually, i'd consider it a sign of your president's incompetence.

I mean, think about it;

What has George W. Bush really done about the rise in oil prices?

And... what COULD Bush do about rising oil prices?