"And the fact is he's right. The absolute best thing for the ordinary arab people that the USA and all the other oil importers could do is immediately stop buying oil. And the unpleasant truth is that every dollar you spend at the petrol pump is indeed a vote in support of those despicable regimes."
For the moment put countries in the Middle East aside and think about car companies during this recession. When people started buying fewer cars what did those companies do? They cut prices, offered better terms and did everything else they could to undercut their competitors.
Now go back to the Middle East. If you significantly reduce the wealth going into the region what will happen? You'll create a situation where they begin trying to take wealth from each other in a region where the two things they DO have in abundance are weapons and fuel. You'd end up completely destabilizing the region by causing massive warfare.
And before anyone says "But that will cause the populace to revolt" I urge you to look at the Iraq/Iran war which had a devastating amount of civilian casualties and which in the end strengthened both despotic regimes. When your home has been destroyed and most of your family has been killed you look to protect whats left not take on the government. The most successful violent revolution in history (American) was fought when the population was relatively wealthy
Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you reach the perverse notion that it's the USA's, and the rest of the world's, moral obligation to pump money into the region to prevent war. The oil is not even a factor, and will run out eventually anyway.
Isn't this imperialist thinking of the very worst type?
Like in all things I defer to the superior words of the masters:
"It is as you say, of course," Shoum said smoothly. "It is simply that, from a further perspective, one cannot but recognise that these very rules I allude to are set out so with precisely such an idea of justice at their core. We seek to be just to the peoples in our charge and those that we mentor by, usually, declining the always obvious option of facile intervention. One might intervene and interfere at every available opportunity and at every single instant when things did not turn out as any decent and reasonable creature would like. However, with every intervention, every interference - no matter how individually well-meant and seemingly right and proper judged purely on its own immediate merits - one would, subtly, incrementally but most certainly remove all freedom and dignity from the very people one sought only to help."
"Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you reach the perverse notion that it's the USA's, and the rest of the world's, moral obligation to pump money into the region to prevent war. The oil is not even a factor, and will run out eventually anyway."
If the world were black and white and the only choices were stop buying oil completely or continue the way we currently do things that would be true. But the world isn't like that.
Contrary to what Political Pundits might say our leaders really aren't idiots. For several decades now we've been pursuing alternate fuel sources (which should start to slowly reduce the amount of oil we purchase) while denouncing foreign oil use (which should subtlety undermine regimes that have no real plan beyond "make money off oil").
Again history provides the perfect model here. The U.S. won the cold war not by drastic actions but by slowly undermining the USSR's political system with political rhetoric while doing everything we could to create an economic environment that endorsed the ideals we hoped they would emulate
Contrary to what Political Pundits might say our leaders really aren't idiots. For several decades now we've been pursuing alternate fuel sources [..] while denouncing foreign oil use [..]
Are you kidding? Our leaders have done no such thing and if they had, they really are idiots because they have been stunningly unsuccessful on both.
I don't think the USSR has much to teach us about the middle east, the situation is completely different. And the USSR was never a vassal state - indeed it's probably the only other country that could be considered an equal to the USA in recent history, along with China. So it's really quite an inappropriate comparison to make.
But I wonder if, long term, the USA really "won" in the first place. Remember "the only way to win is not to play". Well the Russians just decided not to play - or were unable to continue, at any rate. And whose blood is being spilled in Afghanistan these days?
Anyway, I wasn't intended to start a futile political argument, so let's agree to disagree : D
For the moment put countries in the Middle East aside and think about car companies during this recession. When people started buying fewer cars what did those companies do? They cut prices, offered better terms and did everything else they could to undercut their competitors.
Now go back to the Middle East. If you significantly reduce the wealth going into the region what will happen? You'll create a situation where they begin trying to take wealth from each other in a region where the two things they DO have in abundance are weapons and fuel. You'd end up completely destabilizing the region by causing massive warfare.
And before anyone says "But that will cause the populace to revolt" I urge you to look at the Iraq/Iran war which had a devastating amount of civilian casualties and which in the end strengthened both despotic regimes. When your home has been destroyed and most of your family has been killed you look to protect whats left not take on the government. The most successful violent revolution in history (American) was fought when the population was relatively wealthy