[Saeko]

People often criticize American foreign policy in the Middle East and other places by pointing out that it is imperialistic, and that there would be less terrorist attacks in the West if it just left the ME alone.

But if America or other Western nations did not control the oil and natural gas resources of the ME, then Islamic states certainly would. By ending imperialism, we would be putting Muslims in control of a huge chunk of the world's energy resources.

Why would anyone want this? Does anyone here really think that Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc would play nice with the rest of the world and charge "reasonable" prices for the sale of oil and natural gas? Or is it more likely that they would take advantage of the opportunity to build up their country's infrastructure and military forces and start carving up the rest of the world?

[Pants-of-dog]

This is yet another reason why we need to stop using fossil fuels, and vastly reduce our dependency on them.

This way, it doesn't matter who controls the oil because we won't need it.

But please, tell us more about how you are worried that Muslims will act like Europeans and Americans (i.e. using their military to carve up the rest of the world).

[Saeko]

This is yet another reason why we need to stop using fossil fuels, and vastly reduce our dependency on them.

This way, it doesn't matter who controls the oil because we won't need it.

But please, tell us more about how you are worried that Muslims will act like Europeans and Americans (i.e. using their military to carve up the rest of the world).

Would you honestly prefer to live in a western country that is being exploited for its resources and labor by an Islamic country, or would you rather live in a western country that is exploiting the resources and cheap labor of some Islamic country?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am choosing neither.

Now, if we get over our fossil fuel addiction, there is very little we will need from the Middle east, so we can just get out. We can just leave them alone.

Would you honestly prefer to live in a western country that creates significantly less pollution, spends less money on military, has healthier people, and has a sustainable economy; or would you rather live in a western country that is exploiting the resources and cheap labor of some Islamic country?

[quetzalcoatl]

People often criticize American foreign policy in the Middle East and other places by pointing out that it is imperialistic, and that there would be less terrorist attacks in the West if it just left the ME alone.

But if America or other Western nations did not control the oil and natural gas resources of the ME, then Islamic states certainly would. By ending imperialism, we would be putting Muslims in control of a huge chunk of the world's energy resources.

Why would anyone want this? Does anyone here really think that Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc would play nice with the rest of the world and charge "reasonable" prices for the sale of oil and natural gas? Or is it more likely that they would take advantage of the opportunity to build up their country's infrastructure and military forces and start carving up the rest of the world?

Illusion governs human nature. We are irrational to the core.

You will never stop believing in the efficacy of you so-called control (you and millions of other people around the world). Actual evidence is irrelevant - it is the deep seated emotional need for control (or more accurately, the illusion of control) that is the basis for your delusion, rather than any actual monetary or security benefit. Which turns out to be zero, or in many cases negative.

Even with imperialism, America does not "control the oil and natural gas sources" in the Middle East. We do not control the price of oil. Even the Saudis don't control the price of oil. They can reduce their own production, but they can't even stop other producers from stepping in and making quick profit at their expense.

Saudis have never "played nice" with the price of oil. They are not in business to be nice. They may cut the US some slight (very slight) slack for guaranteeing their security, but in the final analysis the US is the poor neighbor from the wrong side of the tracks. Being a paid security guard does not make you the boss. We are not the boss.

In strictly rational hardheaded business terms, it does not matter who controls the oil. It does not matter who controls the oil. Oil is fungible, international. It exists only to be sold, it is a pure commodity. ISIS will sell us their oil. Iran will sell us their oil. The Islamic Caliphate will sell us their oil. The Saudis are a few generations from being brigands. ISIS is a now a collection of brigands, but once they subject themselves to logic of commerce, they will become the Saudis redux.

It is in our overwhelming interest not to control the oil in the ME. It is the Saudis who face the day to day responsibility of securing their pipelines, and pacifying wayward tribes. All we have to do is chase a few pirates away in the Gulf...and that is all we should be doing.

So you have oil delivered to your 'doorstep' in tankers. What could be easier? Why do you insist on controlling that which cannot be controlled? Why do you insist on interventions when every single intervention lays the groundwork for the next crisis? What actual monetary or security benefit do you gain from this illusory control?

You cannot rationally answer these questions, because you cannot bear to face the truth that imperialism is actually a losing proposition in the long run. The short term windfall for the elites will soon evaporate...even for them. For us the citizens, there was never a windfall only endless mindless war.

[annatar1914]

But someday those resources will run out. The Earth is a finite Sphere, resources on finite spheres are themselves finite by extension. 'Peak Oil' then will become a fact, when you consider that point at which it costs as much or more to extract, develop, and ship said resource than the value of the resource itself.

This will necessarily change matters for everybody; groups will aim to seize everything in a series of spasms that I won't bother calling 'wars', and life will simplify greatly for those who are left.

[Political Interest]

People often criticize American foreign policy in the Middle East and other places by pointing out that it is imperialistic, and that there would be less terrorist attacks in the West if it just left the ME alone.

But if America or other Western nations did not control the oil and natural gas resources of the ME, then Islamic states certainly would. By ending imperialism, we would be putting Muslims in control of a huge chunk of the world's energy resources.

It is a massive dilemma. Do we simply allow people who may be ill disposed towards us to control our energy? Certainly we can't allow that to happen.

However, staying joined to the hip with the Middle East is detrimental to us as well.

It is a situation where we have to be in the Middle East out of necessity and not because we want to.

What we should be trying to do is find a way of disengaging from that part of the world. It could be possible to find alternate sources of energy, including oil.

If I am not mistaken the UK gets the majority of its oil from sources outside the Middle East. All of Europe and North America should look to sources other than the Middle East and Russia. Politics should not be subject to energy.

One of the major reasons why we are having all these problems with the Islamic world is due to the energy issue. It causes immense emotional distraught among Middle Easterners and it means we become deeply intertwined in their politics. One major step we could take to improve the situation would be to stop giving diplomatic, economic and military support to the state of Israel. That would ease a lot of the enmity that Muslims feel towards us.

Why would anyone want this? Does anyone here really think that Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc would play nice with the rest of the world and charge "reasonable" prices for the sale of oil and natural gas? Or is it more likely that they would take advantage of the opportunity to build up their country's infrastructure and military forces and start carving up the rest of the world?

I wouldn't trust the Iranians or the Saudis with the oil as each have their own agenda. The Saudis are slippery snakes.

[Atlantis]

But if America or other Western nations did not control the oil and natural gas resources of the ME, then Islamic states certainly would. By ending imperialism, we would be putting Muslims in control of a huge chunk of the world's energy resources.

Why would anyone want this? Does anyone here really think that Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc would play nice with the rest of the world and charge "reasonable" prices for the sale of oil and natural gas? Or is it more likely that they would take advantage of the opportunity to build up their country's infrastructure and military forces and start carving up the rest of the world?

Experience shows that American intervention actually increases the price of oil because oil fields are closed due to conflict.

Experience also shows that what all opposing parties in the ME really want is first and foremost to sell their oil (the oil is what fuels the conflicts). Qaddafi, the various rebels groups that opposed Qaddafi, Saddam, Iran, the Kurds, even the Islamic State, ... , they all want to, have to sell their oil, the more the better. And since increasing supplies from an increasing number of sources (in addition to Russian, Central Asian, shale, ..., gas and oil) stabilizes supplies and reduces the prize, we are far better off buying the oil on the market than trying to physically controlling the wasp's nest that is the ME.

Thus, the US stopping interfering would increase supplies, reduce the price, and reduce terrorist hatred directed against the West.

Will they use their oil wealth to threaten the US? That is highly unlikely. After all, Venezuela isn't actually going to invade the US even if Americans don't control Venezuela's oil fields.

Finally, what really drives industry is technological innovation not the oil. And when it comes to technological innovation, the whole of the Muslim world put together (1.6 billion people) doesn't even account for 1% of today's technical inventions. Those who control state of the art technology control the world. Countries in the ME will not become technology leaders even in a 100 years, and even if they did, they would assimilate the same kinds of values we have. So, where is the problem?

US imperialism is about as useful as a hole in the knee.

[Rich]

You cannot rationally answer these questions, because you cannot bear to face the truth that imperialism is actually a losing proposition in the long run. The short term windfall for the elites will soon evaporate...even for them. For us the citizens, there was never a windfall only endless mindless war.

Most of what you say is correct, but there is no even short term gains for the western elites to our Middle East interventions. Our policies serve Israel and are driven by Jewish supremacist traitors that have infested our government elites. Note not all Jewish supremacist traitors are Jewish, not by a long shot. No more than in Hitler's day, most Nazi sympathisers in western governments were of German decent. Take Edward the VIII, err ok bad example, but you know What I mean.

Yes at least with our current lack of courage, we don't have the power to deny Muslims the oil revenues. But it is within our power to stop the money going to Saudi Salafists and there other Sunni Arab Muslim terrorist allies. The Sunni Muslim terrorist regime Bahrain could be gone tomorrow, instead the Americans defend these wicked Sunni Muslim terrorists. No we have an alliance with the Saudis, Qatar, the Bahrain regime and Turkey and an anti Iranian obsession because it suits Israel's purposes. The Islamic State exists because it serves Israel's interests in multiple ways, its existence serves to legitimise the Islamo-Zionist, Israel - Saudi Middle East order.

When George Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and pronounced mission accomplished, he undeniably spoke to truth. Iraq's southern oil fields had been irretrievable taken from the Sunni Arab terrorists. the benefits of that beautiful, beautiful war, just keep on coming, even recently the Kurd have increased there control over the Northern Iraq oil fields. more losses for the Sunni Arab terrorists.

Note Rei has jumped into bed with the Islamo-Zionists because her overriding priority is the destruction of Russia and hence the strengthening of the Zionist Neo Conservatives with in western foreign policy.

[Saeko]

A lot of you seem to think that imperialism is about profit, but it isn't.

If it comes to war, you want to control as much of the available resources as possible. Even if you're not going to use them yourself, denying those same resources to the enemy confers an overwhelming advantage.

Therefore, it doesn't matter that the oil in the ME can be replaced by oil from elsewhere, or that we can switch to alternative fuel sources, or that imperialistic wars for control over these resources don't result in a net profit for oil companies.

The only thing that matters is control.

[Ganeshas Rat]

This is yet another reason why we need to stop using fossil fuels, and vastly reduce our dependency on them.

This way, it doesn't matter who controls the oil because we won't need it.

Great idea. I have another one as good. We need to stop eat. This way we will destroy our dependency on greedy farmers and save a lot of resources on kitchens, restaurants and other food industry.
A simple refusal of everyone from drinking can decide the problem of water stress for whole Earth - forever!

By ending imperialism, we would be putting Muslims in control of a huge chunk of the world's energy resources.

Really, those are resources of Arabs, Muslims or Christians or atheists, it doesn't matter. America and other Western nations have no right to control that oil and gas, because it is not their. Of course, they can use that circumstance America and other Western nations are rich and have a powerful armies while Arabs are (mostly) poor and cannot defend themselves. In other words, they can rob Arabs.

I do not tell, it is very bad or very good. I often repeat I am not guided by morale thoughts (It's strange, nobody believes it). But it is a fact. A forced taking of foreign property is calling that way.

So, the asking of the topic start post must be rephrased to something like: 'Would Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia sell their resources by dishonest nonmarket prices if they were not obliged to do it by the threat of immediate extermination?'.

The point of rephrasing askings to their natural more correct form is after this operation an answer must be clear.

[Pants-of-dog]

A lot of you seem to think that imperialism is about profit, but it isn't.

If it comes to war, you want to control as much of the available resources as possible. Even if you're not going to use them yourself, denying those same resources to the enemy confers an overwhelming advantage.

Therefore, it doesn't matter that the oil in the ME can be replaced by oil from elsewhere, or that we can switch to alternative fuel sources, or that imperialistic wars for control over these resources don't result in a net profit for oil companies.

The only thing that matters is control.

Then maybe we just need to get over our urge to control other people's lives and resources in other countries.

-------------------

Ganeshas rat, if your criticism is that my plan is unrealistic, please explain how. Thank you.

[Saeko]

Then maybe we just need to get over our urge to control other people's lives and resources in other countries.

Might as well just get over our urge to exist.

[Pants-of-dog]

Might as well just get over our urge to exist.

This only makes sense if your existence is based on international meddling.

Perhaps I am simply too mundane, but I find reason to live in simpler things like the laughter of children, and sharing food with friends.

[Saeko]

This only makes sense if your existence is based on international meddling.

Nobody chooses to meddle with international affairs. International affairs simply meddle with you, whether you like it or not.

Perhaps I am simply too mundane, but I find reason to live in simpler things like the laughter of children, and sharing food with friends.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not agree that international conflict is the norm.

Latin America is not in any military conflict with the Middle East, nor are any indigenous nations.

[Saeko]

I do not agree that international conflict is the norm.

You don't live in the real world.

[quetzalcoatl]

This only makes sense if your existence is based on international meddling.

Perhaps I am simply too mundane, but I find reason to live in simpler things like the laughter of children, and sharing food with friends.

King Leopold II is the true face of imperialism. He worked and starved 10 million Africans to death in his own personal Gulag. Every western schoolchild knows the name of Hitler and Stalin, but few have ever heard of Leopold...it doesn't fit the approved narrative. BTW, Leopold's atrocities had nothing whatever to do with 'existence', and had everything to do with profit. Leopold had the "courage " (in psycho's bizarre formulation) to control the Congo's resources, but in the end the reward for Belgium was humiliation and defeat. The citizens of Belgium gained precisely nothing, and the African progress was set back a century.

Psycho's need to control is not based on either profit or existence, but on fear and paranoia. Do we have anything to fear from Middle Easterners controlling their oil? Since they already control it, it becomes a moot question. We are not willing, and in the end, not able to impose a Leopold solution on the ME. We are controlling nothing at all, in fact - every intervention simply creates more chaos and lays the groundwork for the next crisis. Without the intervention in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, there would be no ISIS crisis.

The ME has a hell of a lot more to fear from the US domination of agricultural food production. Our dependence on their oil is receding, but their dependence on imported food will only grow.

[Pants-of-dog]

You don't live in the real world.

And yet I was able to come up with real world examples of people who are not normally engaged in international conflict with the Dreaded Islam.

[Saeko]

King Leopold II is the true face of imperialism. He worked and starved 10 million Africans to death in his own personal Gulag. Every western schoolchild knows the name of Hitler and Stalin, but few have ever heard of Leopold...it doesn't fit the approved narrative. BTW, Leopold's atrocities had nothing whatever to do with 'existence', and had everything to do with profit. Leopold had the "courage " (in psycho's bizarre formulation) to control the Congo's resources, but in the end the reward for Belgium was humiliation and defeat. The citizens of Belgium gained precisely nothing, and the African progress was set back a century.

Psycho's need to control is not based on either profit or existence, but on fear and paranoia. Do we have anything to fear from Middle Easterners controlling their oil? Since they already control it, it becomes a moot question. We are not willing, and in the end, not able to impose a Leopold solution on the ME. We are controlling nothing at all, in fact - every intervention simply creates more chaos and lays the groundwork for the next crisis. Without the intervention in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, there would be no ISIS crisis.

The ME has a hell of a lot more to fear from the US domination of agricultural food production. Our dependence on their oil is receding, but their dependence on imported food will only grow.

It's pronounced, "Sah-eh-koh", not "psycho".

Middle Easterners do not control their oil in any way. If they do anything that the US deems against its interests, they will be destroyed, and the recent wars there prove that this is a credible threat.

And yet I was able to come up with real world examples of people who are not normally engaged in international conflict with the Dreaded Islam.

Only because they can't, not because they don't want to.