:)

I'm just saying that if you're gonna use any non-renewable, industry requirement first, it should probably be your enemy's.

Hell, imagine for a minute what the middle east will be like when all the oil has been used there. We won't know, because the news won't report on a damn thing there because it won't matter.

I have no real idea what the current global oil estimates are, no idea how long what we know about (excluding more esoteric oil sources like shale) will last. But ultimately it will run out.

victor809 wrote:

This is exactly what I've always thought out REAL oil policy has been. Why use up ours when we can use theirs first. When theirs is gone they won't be able to do a damned thing. Even with all the money we pump into these countries they are not developing technology or weapons. They buy our old stuff and that's after we yank out a lot of the systems our pilots etc use. I've always thought our oil policies are the one thing we've gotten completely right.

CelticBomber wrote:

According to research from Citibank, Saudi Arabia is no longer the owner of the world's largest oil reserve. They've been surpassed by Venezuela. According to this "research" Venezuelan reserves equal about 296 billion barrels while the Saudi's own about 266 billion barrels. The report goes on to say that Saudi reserves with last until about 2030 at which time they'll become an importer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/saudi-arabia-oil-reserves_n_1862018.html wrote:

How does the strategy fail? Just because it won't happen quickly enough for you?

You have two basic long term strategies when it comes to any nonrenewable resource...
1- use the other guy's first, while the price is cheaper, keeping yours in reserve for the inevitable increase in value.

2- use yours first, using the lower cost to amass an occupying army with the explicit intent of taking over the other guy's resources when yours runs out. (And I mean really take over, not invade, spend a lit of money, then give it back).

We arent too good at number 2.

victor809 wrote:

... The two aren't necessarily related.

Your Chinese colony problem doesn't go away if we start using our own oil. We don't get to pay off the Chinese with that money, because we'd need to fulfill the other strategy (invading army). Otherwise, we become inconsequential goat herders when our oil runs out.

Don't tie the two together because you simply see one as a quick way to slap a band-aid on the other. If you do that you aren't any better than our politicians.

victor809 wrote:

Debt holder would get bombed..... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Abrignac...
My point is that the discussion over who is going to own us financially isn't directly related to our strategic use of oil.

True, if we are fully owned by another country in 2030 the entire question of oil becomes moot. But we shouldn't be making strategic decisions around the premise that the us isn't a sovereign country in the near future. That is by definition planning to fail.

Unless using the us reserves of oil has a significant impact on our ability to survive through the next 25 years (and I mean significant... Not "nets us a bit of money which is then blown immediately before servicing any debt") then the strategy surrounding its use shouldn't be impacted by the us financial solvency.

victor809 wrote:

Fair enough... But that would be resolved by not letting douchenozzles spend all our money....

victor809 wrote: