BF2S Forums Why have a Moratorium of Off-shore Oil Drilling?

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.

dont play fucking games with me dude...i aint lowing or john

It's not games, bravo.  It's a valid point.  Yes, Israel is good at security.  I acknowledged that.  What I'm saying is...  there wouldn't even be as much of a need for security here if we were less involved in so many conflicts.

well good you can wait for that, in the mean time.....

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Did I suggest apologies?  Nope....

I'm suggesting less intervention.  It's an entirely different concept.  It's not about trying to make friends with people that hate you, it's about limiting your exposure to volatile situations.   Trade should be our primary emphasis in foreign relations, not being the world's police.

Oh, I could've sworn that just a few months ago you were saying that one of the US's primary duties should be to topple bad governments and install flourishing democracies. Make up your mind.

When the hell did I say that?  What I did say was that, if you're going to commit to war, don't hold back.  Nation building is usually futile.  Japan and Germany seem to be the exceptions to the rule.

I remember quite well you spewing what was almost a carbon copy of neo-conservative interventionism.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Oh, I could've sworn that just a few months ago you were saying that one of the US's primary duties should be to topple bad governments and install flourishing democracies. Make up your mind.

When the hell did I say that?  What I did say was that, if you're going to commit to war, don't hold back.  Nation building is usually futile.  Japan and Germany seem to be the exceptions to the rule.

I remember quite well you spewing what was almost a carbon copy of neo-conservative interventionism.

I suppose I may have said something along the lines of "I agree with the idea behind extending the war to Pakistan."

That's one war I support the possibility of, because I believe Pakistan is headed toward failed state status.  They seem so corrupt and unstable that I believe an all-out war with them is inevitable in the long run.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Logic is it will cost this country far more in lost jobs, tax revenue and everything else associated with having people gainfully employed during a massive recession than it would to clean up another oil spill if one were to occur during the time period this moratorium is in place. Especially since the oil companies are on the hook for any cleanup costs. Knee jerk stupidity is all the moratorium is and it will do far far far more harm than good.

Given your aversion to government involvement regarding job growth, I can understand your position.  I don't share it, but I can respectfully disagree with it.

Well, my brothers boss has already won two lawsuits forcing the moratorium to be lifted, here's hoping he wins the third as well.

Given the power of the oil lobby, I really don't think you have to worry about a true moratorium being put into place.

Harmor wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

....I remember quite well you spewing what was almost a carbon copy of neo-conservative interventionism.

You make Neo-conservative interventionism sound like a bad thing.  Personally I wouldn't mind some of that right now with Iran and Pakistan right about now.

Yes it is a fucking bad thing. Jesus H Christ. You can't invade sovereign nations and topple governments on a whim. I don't give a fuck how bad you think their government is, or if you are doing their people a favor. It's not our fucking job.

Pug wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pug wrote:

I think you are missing my point...ONE of the factors in making the moratorium is the current sitting president (whether democrat or republican) is that Florida is a swing state and Texas is not.

Where did I dispute that?

IF you are arguing "building the democratic base for future elections way, way in the future", then:
"Oil Friendly" = republican virtue
"Oil moratorium" = democrat virtue

I don't think that's true.  The last election proved neither candidate "out greened" the other.

There's the second half of the post.

So you didn't really state that, but I don't think the assumption that the decision to fight or not fight the moratorium in the gulf is one that breeds future democrats nor republicans.  So therefore, I chose the most likely...want to clarify?

I'm still wondering what this has to do with my posts...   Again, you made the argument that Obama is pushing for a moratorium on offshore drilling partially to win his next election by getting support in Florida.  I made the argument that the same logic could be applied to local elections involving a fight against the moratorium in areas (like Texas) that depend on the oil industry.

I'm not talking about building bases of parties here.  I'm talking about the same thing you are -- actions that are politically expedient for winning elections.  For some people, supporting a moratorium will get their vote.  For others, fighting it will.  The reason I brought up Democrats in Texas is because that's a state where even Democrats would fight a drilling moratorium to remain competitive with Republicans in their local elections.

By the same token, there are probably Republicans in Florida that would support a moratorium to remain competitive with Democrats there.

As for long term perspectives, I would agree that the environment doesn't usually play a big part in elections except right after major calamities like this BP one.

So, I'm still trying to figure out where our disagreement is....

Turquoise wrote:

I'm still wondering what this has to do with my posts...   Again, you made the argument that Obama is pushing for a moratorium on offshore drilling partially to win his next election by getting support in Florida.  I made the argument that the same logic could be applied to local elections involving a fight against the moratorium in areas (like Texas) that depend on the oil industry.

I'm not talking about building bases of parties here.  I'm talking about the same thing you are -- actions that are politically expedient for winning elections.  For some people, supporting a moratorium will get their vote.  For others, fighting it will.  The reason I brought up Democrats in Texas is because that's a state where even Democrats would fight a drilling moratorium to remain competitive with Republicans in their local elections.

By the same token, there are probably Republicans in Florida that would support a moratorium to remain competitive with Democrats there.

As for long term perspectives, I would agree that the environment doesn't usually play a big part in elections except right after major calamities like this BP one.

So, I'm still trying to figure out where our disagreement is....

Ahh, okay.

I'm not seeing whether to drill or not to drill as a "party line" issue like the right to life/pro-choice.

Except for Florida

Turquoise wrote:

Well, it probably is somewhat of a party line issue in some areas.  I would imagine that in California it is a party line issue.  That's a state where the environment is a big issue, especially for Democrats.  By the same token, Republicans tend to be about as extreme there as Democrats are.

See, I don't think that's true.  Neither party is the "better environment choice".  They just disagree on how to get there.

Sounds like we are on the same page, actually

Last thought...

...a moratorium will merely increase our dependence on foreign oil in the short term.  True change has to happen gradually and the government is way behind in this regard.

Turquoise wrote:

We're not looking at this in terms of opportunities.  Dumping billions of gallons of oil into the gulf isn't a problem -- it's an opportunity to expand the disaster cleanup industry.  This could become a companion industry to drilling and refining that, given historical precedent, could be equally as profitable and would employ thousands of people.  Who needs fishing and tourism, when you have gold mines like this?

That's a crazy business model, considering the frequency with which these things happen. The "historical precedent" you speak of isn't enough to build the case for the investment required to generate the capital needed to sustain such an endeavor so you can wait around for the next spill to happen...considering the last spill like this in the Gulf was in the late seventies, IIRC.

And Turq, I WAS being objective. If you notice, I was bagging on the lack of strategic thought of politicians in general, using this as an example. It lacks any forethought of the ramifications of the decision beyond how it impacts the political base of Democrat supporters. It was a kneejerk reaction, not based on logic, as are most political decisions.

The government doesn't need a moratorium to fix regulations that may be a problem. They can do that absent a moratorium easily, keeping the tens of thousands of people employed, not spooking companies into leaving the region (as has already occurred--long-term job losses there), etc. Fixing regulation and existent drilling are unrelated temporally.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We're not looking at this in terms of opportunities.  Dumping billions of gallons of oil into the gulf isn't a problem -- it's an opportunity to expand the disaster cleanup industry.  This could become a companion industry to drilling and refining that, given historical precedent, could be equally as profitable and would employ thousands of people.  Who needs fishing and tourism, when you have gold mines like this?

That's a crazy business model, considering the frequency with which these things happen. The "historical precedent" you speak of isn't enough to build the case for the investment required to generate the capital needed to sustain such an endeavor so you can wait around for the next spill to happen...considering the last spill like this in the Gulf was in the late seventies, IIRC.

And Turq, I WAS being objective. If you notice, I was bagging on the lack of strategic thought of politicians in general, using this as an example. It lacks any forethought of the ramifications of the decision beyond how it impacts the political base of Democrat supporters. It was a kneejerk reaction, not based on logic, as are most political decisions.

The government doesn't need a moratorium to fix regulations that may be a problem. They can do that absent a moratorium easily, keeping the tens of thousands of people employed, not spooking companies into leaving the region (as has already occurred--long-term job losses there), etc. Fixing regulation and existent drilling are unrelated temporally.

I see where you're coming from, but I guess this is one of those things where it's so relative in terms of what makes sense that it seems rather futile to debate.

The more I think about it, just about any position can be rationalized regarding this issue.  I'm starting to feel like this applies to 90% of political issues.

In a way, it reminds me of metaphysical debates.

6 months...how about just 3 so it'll end just after the November elections :-P