Since no one else here remembers the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, just think about what Houston gas stations looked on the two days before Hurricane Rita and apply that to the entire nation. That was just 3 months, but say you get into a little asymmetrical sub and missile war in the Straits of Hormuz. Typical Day Winter 1973
So, like the other guy, you won't even debate the merits of Obama's decision. Instead, focus on something else, like how "liberals" shouldn't be OK with it.
1. "Bring the troops home" isn't literally true. But, you would have to know very little about the practices of the US military to expect it to be literally true. The soldiers are on tours of fixed duration. The US assigns them where they want. We have bases all over the world. You would have to be quite naive to expect them to come home when they 'come home.' What is important is they move out of a combat zone. I assumed everyone thought of it in those terms. 2. I don't think it is a given that they will move into Iraq again. What's more, being stationed in Kuwait makes it less likely that they will have to. Enemy interests knowing that we could roll back into Baghdad in a day if we decided to do it would deter them from acting too boldly. Soldiers would be more likely to return to Iraq if they literally came home than if they hung out in Kuwait. 3. As a liberal (if that's what I am), I would like to cut the military budget. Closing bases would help on that score. But, of all the bases to close, the one in Kuwait would not be my first choice.
This is one of the most stupid threads I've seen in a long time, not counting basso's, which I don't read. STUPID. The OP is making basso look good.
Leaving Iraq? It is not too often I am pleased by the foreign policy announcements from this administration, but last week's announcement that the war in Iraq was in its final stage and all the troops may be home for Christmas did sound promising. I have long said that we should simply declare victory and come home. It should not have taken us nearly a decade to do so, and it was supposed to be a priority for the new administration. Instead, it will be one of the last things done before the critical re-election campaign gets into full swing. Better late than never, but, examining the fine print, is there really much here to get excited about? Are all of our men and women really coming home, and is Iraq now to regain its sovereignty? And in this time of economic crisis, are we going to stop hemorrhaging money in Iraq? Sadly, it doesn't look that way. First and foremost, any form of withdrawal that is happening is not simply because the administration realized it was the right thing to do. This is not the fulfillment of a campaign promise, or because suddenly the training of their police and military is complete and Iraq is now safe and secure, but because of disagreements with the new government over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The current agreement was set up by the previous administration to expire at the end of 2011. Apparently the Iraqis refused to allow continued immunity from prosecution for our forces for any crimes our soldiers might commit on Iraqi soil. Can you imagine having foreign soldiers here, with immunity from our laws and Constitution, with access to your neighborhood? Some 39,000 American troops will supposedly be headed home by the end of the year. However, the US embassy in Iraq, which is the largest and most expensive in the world, is not being abandoned. Upwards of 17,000 military personnel and private security contractors will remain in Iraq to guard diplomatic personnel, continue training Iraqi forces, maintain "situational awareness" and other functions. This is still a significant American footprint in the country. And considering that a private security contractor costs the US taxpayer about three times as much as a soldier, we're not going to see any real cost savings. Sadly, these contractors are covered under diplomatic immunity, meaning the Iraqi people will not get the accountability that they were hoping for. While I applaud the spirit of this announcement - since all our troops should come home from overseas - I have strong reservations about any actual improvements in the situation in Iraq, since plans are already being made to increase the number of troops in surrounding regions. What we really need is a new foreign policy and there is no indication that that is what we have gotten. On the contrary, the administration fully intends to keep troops in Iraq, indefinitely, under a new agreement, while the Iraqis are doing their best to assert their sovereignty and kick us out. Neither are we going to be saving any significant amount of money. My greatest fear, however, is that this troop withdrawal from Iraq will simply pave the way for more endless, wasteful, needless war. Ron Paul 10/31/2011
I wonder why a Republican presidential candidate looking to unseat the man behind the policy would say something like that?? He must know about Obama's bloodlust. Hey look we caught Obama "lying" and I don't have to post one of my right wing blog's to illustrate it. That should allow me four to eight posts calling him a douche, and to skirt responding to any substantial points about the actual effects of a base in Kuwait, and our foreign policy as a whole strategy. 2012 is going to suck for you, Dr. tallanvor.
Most of our oil now comes from Canada, Mexico, and here. We also get some oil from Venezuela, but exporting oil to us is more of a benefit to them than to us. While an oil embargo would certainly createupt some inconvenience, it's not entirely out of the question that we would be in better shape than the gulf countries who's main revenue comes from oil.
It's an interesting and fun thread as world power p*rn in the Clancy mode; of course not the OP's intent. And, it shows more reasonableness in the current administration. I'll put the boring chart at the bottom but look at a map and consider the total percentage that flows through the Strait of Hormuz: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi etc. And don't just consider the US, since we do have access to Canada, a declining Mexico, and a hostile Venezuela, consider the impact the Straight has on the World, of which we are the policeman and beneficiary.... roughly 33 percent of all seaborne traded oil (40 percent in 2008), or 17 percent of oil traded worldwide. Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries August 2011 Import Highlights: Released October 28, 2011 Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in August 2011 has been released and it shows that three countries exported more than 1,000 thousand barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 68 percent of United States crude oil imports in August while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 89 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for August were Canada (2,240 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,150 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,075 thousand barrels per day), Nigeria (854 thousand barrels per day), and Venezuela (806 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (637 thousand barrels per day), Colombia (365 thousand barrels per day), Angola (311 thousand barrels per day), Ecuador (303 thousand barrels per day), and Russia (252 thousand barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9,021 thousand barrels per day in August, which is a decrease of (288) thousand barrels per day from July 2011. Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in August, exporting 2,637 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,626 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1,185 thousand barrels per day. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html Country Aug-11 Jul-11 YTD 2011 Aug-10 YTD 2010 CANADA 2,240 2,188 2,136 1,935 1,976 MEXICO 1,150 1,119 1,115 1,168 1,135 SAUDI ARABIA 1,075 1,307 1,145 1,080 1,071 NIGERIA 854 818 862 942 1,007 VENEZUELA 806 877 910 974 929 IRAQ 637 596 481 281 469 COLOMBIA 365 398 346 346 331 ANGOLA 311 394 328 472 414 ECUADOR 303 172 191 270 213 RUSSIA 252 202 242 334 296 BRAZIL 213 310 232 249 281 KUWAIT 165 222 167 251 208 ALGERIA 140 184 212 374 334 CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 66 36 62 98 78 OMAN 52 52 35 0 0
I think it's a sound idea. Leaving immediately would create yet another power vacuum. With the Iraqis not giving us prosecutorial immunity, the only way we'd get back in is if the **** hit the fan.
Baloney. The US consumes too much of this manipulable and finite resource to not care. Gulf Arab countries break even around $50. I'm not sure how a supply disruption would be bad for them, they are running out of oil and historically we know that supply cuts are beneficial to oil producers in the region.
1 Venezuela (more information) (2010) [2] [3] 296,500,000,000 2 Saudi Arabia (more information) (2011)[4] 264,600,000,000 3 Canada (more information) (2008) 175,200,000,000 [5] 4 Iran (more information) (2006) 137,600,000,000 5 Iraq (more information) (2008) 115,000,000,000 6 Kuwait (more information) (2010) 104,000,000,000 7 United Arab Emirates (more information) (2008) 97,800,000,000 8 Russia (more information) (2009) 74,200,000,000 9 Libya (more information) (2010) 47,000,000,000 10 Nigeria (more information) (2007) 37,500,000,000 wiki: known oil reserves
I just could have sufficed to say that through Hormuz is a sh**load and it's way important than all those boring numbers. Any percentage cut off from world supply will send the economies spiraling.
I got a "LOL, wut? Just stop." on this post. Please, anonymous reppers, be more specific in your requests. Am I supposed to stop making rational arguments? Stop responding to troll threads? Stop debunking misinformation? I need a little more clarity.
