Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8246)	10/30/2001 3:20:00 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Seizing foreign oil fields makes absolutely no sense not only from a moral but also from an economic viewpoint. Let me just concentrate on the economic arguments against such occupation. First, even a radical SA regime hostile to the US will not stop exporting oil. Libya and Iran not only did not stop exporting, but are not above cheating on their quotas. The idea that a radical regime will stop exporting oil is ludicrous. They will depend on oil revenues just as much as the current SA regime does. Second, the cost of occupying and defending the fields will far outweigh any economic advantage derived from exploiting the fields. For example, if we have to increase our defense spending by, say 50%, to defend the oil fields and fend off the hostility such occupation will generate around the world, that will be an extra $150 billion a year. That's more than what we spend per year for ALL of our oil imports. Third, an occupation of the fields will greatly increase the terrorist threat, and will be condemned by the rest of the world, destroying the terrorist alliance. The US will stand alone, globalization with all its economic advantages will be destroyed, at least for US companies, and the economic consequences for the US and the world will probably be exactly the opposite than those intended: a deep world wide depression. Finally, the most obvious argument against such foreign adventures is that the US DOES NOT REALLY NEED foreign oil. The main beneficiaries of the US middle east oil policy are Europe and Japan (and the US oil majors.) Less than 20% of oil is imported from the ME. The US can save that much oil TOMORROW with a very small sacrifice by US consumers: car pool to work and stop driving your SUV so much. Cutting down on our driving by around 30% will immediately free us from having to import ANY oil from the ME. Is this that much of a sacrifice, given Sept 11? Kyros PS The cost of the WTC attack is more than what we pay for a decade's worth of our Middle East oil imports. I wonder what the costs of a nuclear attack on a large US city will be.