Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Turkey
#41
If that happens, it will be to all the world market. Oil is a world market commodity, which is based upon the total cost of all the suppliers. If we were to be shut off in one place, we can always go somewhere else.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#42
Worldwide -- true (with the exception of self-sufficient countries, like Brazil and Russia). It will bring hurt EU and bring down Japan.

Going somewhere else -- not really. Persian Gulf is about 50% of the world supply.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#43
Why would that bring us down? We only use around 15% of our supply from there and if it is cut off to us,it's war.

We can make war w/o trying to rule the world,we've done it a few times before. We might even decide to open ANWR if someone strong enough did that,but,who is?

Iran and Iraq have sold us oil since day 1,so they have no national interests in stopping the supply.
Reply
#44
Palladin, a sharp cut off would spike the oil prices in the US quite high. It takes years (4-10?) to develop Alaskan or offshore oil wells. It would take several years for people to buy new gasoline efficient cars. Alternate energy cannot be installed rapidly. Electric cars are very expensive, the batteries alone cost in the neighborhood of $16K (at least in one model).

What this means is that there would be a serious shock to our economy for 4-10 years, in my opinion, if we lost the ME oil and could not find a replacement supplier.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#45
Palladin Wrote:Why would that bring us down? We only use around 15% of our supply from there and if it is cut off to us,it's war.
[Image: US_Oil_Imports.gif]

And then most of 19% comes from our friend Chavez who will play his game.

But even 15% is enough to cause a major economic crisis; Western economies are interlinked, so bringing down any will reverberate. And a war would not restore the supply, even if victorious and quick.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#46
JT,

It would mean an immediate 15% decrease in supplies and I assume prices. We've seen that exact price(even worse) thing happen under Bush,it did not destroy our freedom.

Assuming you 2 are correct though and it for some reason would cause us to become slaves,we can man up then and make war on the perp.

I'm all for a super powerful Navy,I just don't think it's in our interests to attempt to rule regions of the earth other than our boundaries. It brings us wars,it doesn't deter wars because we're not warlike anymore. We don't scare anyone.

If the Turks are determined to manage the region,are you prepared to make war on Turkey? I sure as hell am not,I could care less who manages the affairs of Asia Minor.

Let Turkey deny us oil,then send a message like Brezhnev sent Khomeini and mean it. Until we have that level of objectivity,I suggest dropping the idea we can rule the globe. We're half fighting a losing battle here.
Reply
#47
Palladin, I think the US would heave to and retool, buying small cars, drilling more, making more nukes (especially the small ones which could be produced rapidly), and other moves to energy efficiency just as we did after the first two oil supply problems in the 1970's.

However, the transition would be tough and expensive for the average citizen.

Perhaps a strong navy (highly desired) would be able to escort tankers.

I don't think we are capable of a war to assure supplies (unless it was with Venezuela). Certainly not Turkey or even Iran.

I don't consider Turkey to be completely foolish and power crazy, as Iran appears to be. So, there would be no need for war there, only some kind of accommodation.

Politics and Nature abhor vacuums, and a power vacuum is forming in the middle east with the weakness of the Saudis and Egypt. Not to mention the current military and foreign policy weakness of the US and possibly Israel.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#48
Turkey looks east and makes waves

The interesting part is another piece of evidence of emerging rivalry between Turkey and Egypt. No big surprise here; this is likely to intensify.

Two things to notice: Egypt is also a US ally; so US needs to chose between Turkey and Israel, but also between Turkey and Egypt.

And there is a funny balance of straits here: Turkey own the entrance to the Black Sea... but Egypt owns the Suez. Very valuable.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#49
mv Wrote:Turkey looks east and makes waves

The interesting part is another piece of evidence of emerging rivalry between Turkey and Egypt. No big surprise here; this is likely to intensify.

Two things to notice: Egypt is also a US ally; so US needs to chose between Turkey and Israel, but also between Turkey and Egypt.

And there is a funny balance of straits here: Turkey own the entrance to the Black Sea... but Egypt owns the Suez. Very valuable.

Unless you are Russia or Ukraine, the Suez is far more valuable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#50
Yep. Stratfor touched on the subject of relative values of Israel and Turkey a few times recently....but they never even looked into relative values of Egypt and Turkey, and Suez just happens to be the only truly strategic asset in all three countries.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#51
In looking at the map of U.S. oil imports, we have to remember that the U.S. does export oil, as well as import it. This may seem a little strange, but it makes economic sense, considering the prices we can get for our oil vs. what we have to pay for imported oil, and the ease (cost) of transport from various locations (like the Alaskan north slope). If Iran or even all the Islamic states were to cut off our oil imports, we could stop exporting domestic oil and use it ourselves. We also have a strategic petroleum reserve. While we may not be able to fully meet our need for petroleum products from domestic oil, we would not be petroleum-starved, either. It's not like we were Japan, with no domestic sources of oil, and totally dependent upon imported oil.
Reply
#52
Interesting. Do you have any figures on how much we export? It's always easier to ask you than to look for myself...
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#53
JT,

We're at the end of our war rope anyway. I'd not like to see the Persian Gulf shut off,but,if it is going to happen it would whether or not we try to rule the region.

I'm not for total isolation,I'd keep my Navy there for free access and all,but,trying to rule foreign nations is just nonsense in this day,IMO.

We with all our size,military and money cannot control Iraq or Afghanistan w/o their consent. So,why try?
Reply
#54
Both Bosporus and Suez Canal are very undependeble waterways during wars. Bosporus is only about 600 meters wide at it's narrowest point, and Suez Canal is about 170 meters wide. Even minor accidents have caused closure of these water ways for several days. On top of that Saudi's ships a lot of their oil through Straits of Hormuz, it is also a narrow waterway and it is next to Iran.
Reply
#55
Palladin Wrote:JT,

We're at the end of our war rope anyway. I'd not like to see the Persian Gulf shut off,but,if it is going to happen it would whether or not we try to rule the region.

I'm not for total isolation,I'd keep my Navy there for free access and all,but,trying to rule foreign nations is just nonsense in this day,IMO.

We with all our size,military and money cannot control Iraq or Afghanistan w/o their consent. So,why try?
I basically agree. Our armed forces consist of volunteers, and we are close to scraping the bottom of the barrel for enlistments. We could not even come close to duplicating our valor in WW2 unless most of the citizens in the country were in favor of enlisting or going into a war economy (rationing, e.g.).

In Iraq, it seemed/seems like there was/is a chance for a democratically based government. They had a history (pre-Sadaam) of some kind of intellectual vigor and liberalism with regard to religion. However, the culture of Afghanistan is completely one of individualistic war lord tribalism and hence corruption by association. That culture has persisted at least 1000 years.

So, I am coming to agree with you that Afghanistan is a lost cause. First, we don't have the manpower or brutality necessary, second, we simply do not understand how their corrupt minds work and how to take advantage of this in local politics, and lastly it is not really in our national interest unless a democracy or republic of some kind could be set up.

The Russians had the manpower and brutality, but that alone was not enough.

The irony is that in Afghanistan, after we leave, either the Taliban take over as they did before, or a corrupt brutal government emerges that makes deals with China, Pakistan and other ME countries. This geopolitical result can make one nervous, but perhaps could be contained by the proper "realpolitic", something the US does not do well.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#56
JT,

Even with Iraq,it took the 20% who were fighting us to largely agree not to for the worm to turn there.

If the surge failed,we'd probably have left by 2008 in failure and that was with only 20% of the population actively fighting us.

Imagine a whole nation resisting us today? With the technical stuff available,I don't think occupations are going to be possible in the future except for societies that are real maleable.

BTW,here's a nice article by a Turk about Turkey:

HERE
Reply
#57
A sign of a lost war is a blame game, like one we see now, see.
While agreeing with most, I need to take an exception to the issue of brutality:
Quote:The Russians had the manpower and brutality, but that alone was not enough.

There are different levels of it. All the propaganda aside, the Soviets were not sufficiently brutal in their Afghan adventure; not to the level of their suppression of Central Asia in 1920s which was successful for decades.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#58
I agree about Russia and Afghanistan/Central Asia. The British knew how to handle insurgency back in their day as well,read about the Boer War.

So did the Americans early on.

It seems we're all softies now,relatively speaking.

Anyway,the McChrystal-Obama thing is bad. Obama has every right to fire the guy,not sure he should though. With Obama's timeframes and all,changing horses now is close to impossible.

I have mixed feelings on McChrystal's capabilities,but,Obama has every right to fire him,IMO.
Reply
#59
mv Wrote:Turkey looks east and makes waves
The interesting part is another piece of evidence of emerging rivalry between Turkey and Egypt. No big surprise here; this is likely to intensify. ...

Not only between Turkey and Egypt, also between Turkey and anybody else. The only reason why Egypt and Turkey could be friend with Israel is that Israel is not a muslim state hence no rivalry.
The US doesn't have to choose between Turkey, Egypt or yet another muslim power. That's time wasted. The US has to compose with the various factions or tribes, not even nations, in the Middle East mozaique.

Also this article is blowing the Gaza event out of proportion: Erdogan expresses outrage at Israel and the balance of power is changed in the arab world, all of a sudden from Sudan to Pakistan.
How weak is this balance of power?
The only thing Erdogan did was to play the Palestinian card, it's politicaly correct and very popular to be pro palestinian in the muslim world and Erdogan just do what every muslim politician do to gain sympathy from the mass. An oxymoronic behavior since not a single muslim has an ounce of sympathy for the Palestinians themselves. They hate palestinians but love those who support them.

Now, I'll end with this gem:
LA Times Wrote:The country positioned itself as an Islamic democracy that would fit into the EU.
...That's wonderful! 8)
Yet not as much as this:
LA Times Wrote:Despite making political and human rights reforms, however, Turkey felt ostracized by Berlin and other capitals that believed a country with thousands of minarets was not truly European.
Now, ask yourself coy-bows, do you think Turkey would fit in the US?
Reply
#60
What I found, you lazy (Biker) dude, is that in 2009 the U.S. total petroleum exports were 739,350,000 barrels of oil. Link: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_mo...mbbl_a.htm

In 2009, total imports were 4,279,908,000 barrels of oil. Link: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_mo...mbbl_a.htm

Thus it looks like the ratio of our exports to imports is about 1:6.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)