Why does a desire to drill for oil domestically = we want Iraq's oil?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As the many threads here rage on and on about various details about the war. I have noticed a curious conundrum. I have mentioned that many times I feel like folks who label themselve "progressive" always make their arguments so that they end up correct and conservatives end up wrong regardless of what side of the argument they try to take.



I especially noticed this after thinking about these oil arguments. People would say that Bush wanting to drill domestically proved he wanted to defeat Iraq purely for reasons of oil. Yet drilling domestically means we are less likely to need oil from Iraq or countries like it.



Again how can you not end up wrong on this issue according to the left. To me wouldn't a desire to drill domestically indicate a desire to be less reliant on foreign oil. Likewise if you are an oil man, or seeking profits from oil, isn't it easier to do this domestically. How does wanting to drill domestically = let's bomb Saddam. I'm not saying I don't want a solution, I'm just saying it seems like the don't really endorse a clear solution. Seems like they just enjoy trying to get mileage out of it politically.



Since the U.S. economy obviously uses oil not only for auto's but power generation and for other reasons, isn't this the case of having their cake and eating it too. I mean it isn't as if the whole Democratic party forgo's using gas, oil or electricity. (Nor even the Green's and other more strident environmental parties)



So again they endorse words without solutions. If we use oil, even if we advocate alternative power sources, I don't see any of them giving up anything. So since they don't want domestic drilling, they must want reliance on foreign oil. If we have to be reliant on foreign oil that plays right into the hands of Saddam or in a much less strident tone, those who might not have America's security as their foremost priority.



I just wondered how some of you reconciled these seemingly contradictory points of view. If you want domestic drilling for less reliance on foreign oil you are labeled anti-environmental. If you believe their assertions that the war is really about oil, then you are anti-peace. What is the real solution that brings about security and not throwing the economy and jobs associated with it into the dumpester?



Nick

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton



    Why do so many on the right think all opponents to this war agree on everything?




    Why? Because that makes an easier opponent to defeat in an argument. Pretend they're all the same, and pretend they agree on one fanciful point and then all you have to do is argue against that one fanciful point and you can defeat the entire opposition. It's call a straw-man.



    As for the thread title, I've never seen anyone argue that. I guess you could say that a desire to drill domestically = a desire for oil and a desire for oil = we want Iraq's oil. But that's not a direct correlation and certainly too weak an argument to use as an attack on Bush's motives for war.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    Funny. The pro-war crowd say all the anti-war people have the same argument while the anti-war people say the pro war people can´t seem to decide what argument they want to use as an excuse for war (Terror, Saddam, WoMD, Oli, other stuff).
  • Reply 3 of 5
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Why? Because that makes an easier opponent to defeat in an argument. Pretend they're all the same, and pretend they agree on one fanciful point and then all you have to do is argue against that one fanciful point and you can defeat the entire opposition. It's call a straw-man.



    As for the thread title, I've never seen anyone argue that. I guess you could say that a desire to drill domestically = a desire for oil and a desire for oil = we want Iraq's oil. But that's not a direct correlation and certainly too weak an argument to use as an attack on Bush's motives for war.




    Oh, OK bunge. It is those of us who are conservative who use the straw man tactic. This is the very FAVORITE tactic of people like giant et al.



    I see trumptman's point. It is more of an implication than a statement. It's a really an absurd argument. MANY on the Left (perhaps not all, bunge \ ) say Bush and company are out for the oil. Yet, this doesn't stand to reason since the administration wants more domestic drilling, which would thereby decreases the need for foreign oil. That's his point, I believe.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    What is the real solution that brings about security and not throwing the economy and jobs associated with it into the dumpester?




    I'm a firm believer that alternative fuel sources would be entirely beneficial. If we imagine the world 50 years down the line, the whole world is going to ultimately have to shift away from sources of energy that pollute like oil.



    So, the U.S. should invest in alternative and renewable resources so we can lead the world. It's something we used to do really well. If we invented the technology the rest of the world would buy it from us.
Sign In or Register to comment.