What Happens When America No Longer Needs Middle East Oil?

[Developereo]

This how it sounds , your proclomations about the US

You: US has invented a mind control machine that makes everyone side them
Me: what proof you have for such absurdity?
You: Well that is what the US would do...
Me: But that's not what you said, you said they had it invented and in use!
You: I think US will make it...

You : your american flag is not american
Me: yes it is, where is your proof that the american flag is different?
You: All Americans wish they had a better flag
Me: what Da __ does it have to do with your claim 3 lines above?

Have you been hitting the sauce again?

 

[JayAtl]

Have you been hitting the sauce again?

Nah just injecting some truth serum into pseudo think tanks

 

[Developereo]

SO you make an absolute statement about the US.
Quote: " The US wants control of the ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil

...and then when asked about the absolute claim in your statement. When asked to give us ONE- ONE freaking example to back up your claim---you make another non-nonchalant statement and you back track to " Military strategy is about positioning yourself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary".

Not for you, because you are hopeless, but for the benefit of normal readers, let's put my two statements together:

- The US wants control of the ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil
- Military strategy is about positioning yourself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary

What do we get?

- The US military strategy is to position itself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary over ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil.

That is why the US has bases at key locations around the world. It's not just about what's important to the US, but what's important to potential adversaries.

 

[JayAtl]

Not for you, because you are hopeless, but for the benefit of normal readers, let's put my two statements together:

- The US wants control of the ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil
- Military strategy is about positioning yourself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary

What do we get?

- The US military strategy is to position itself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary over ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil.

That is why the US has bases at key locations around the world. It's not just about what's important to the US, but what's important to potential adversaries.

Baloney! you made an absolute statement
- The US wants control of the ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil

I asked" can you show me one adversary as proof or any proof that this claim is true?"

THEN you came back with dictionary explanation of the word " control"

THEN I asked again - can you show me one example to back your claim? You made the absolute claim , back it up please."

Then you came back with another generic statement that showed NO back up to the ABSOLUTE statement you made about the US.
- Military strategy is about positioning yourself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary


how many laps of backstroke is that now?

 

[Developereo]

Baloney! you made an absolute statement
- The US wants control of the ME oil because potential adversaries need that oil

I asked" can you show me one adversary as proof or any proof that this claim is true?"

THEN you came back with dictionary explanation of the word " control"

THEN I asked again - can you show me one example to back your claim? You made the absolute claim , back it up please."

Then you came back with another generic statement that showed NO back up to the ABSOLUTE statement you made about the US.
- Military strategy is about positioning yourself preemptively to be able to exert control when necessary


how many laps of backstroke is that now?

Why are you such a glutton for punishment, insistent on displaying your ignorance of geopolitics and, in this case, English?

I never said the US has already exercised that control over an adversary; YOU made that assumption about an alleged past event.

I said the US wants control over, i.e. the ability to control when needed.

 

[JayAtl]

Why are you such a glutton for punishment, insistent on displaying your ignorance of geopolitics and, in this case, English?

I never said the US has already exercised that control over an adversary; YOU made that assumption about an alleged past event.

I said the US wants control over, i.e. the ability to control when needed.

So let's see now as you squirm about and make your changes .

You are now claiming/ foretelling that the US, which currently is in the middle east, while yet to achieve OIL self sufficiency ( topic on hand as posted to), has not done any of the garbage you are claiming to anyone yet! BUT will do after it becomes sufficient in oil?

This sounds even more naive than your previous claim.

"Hey US , you have not done anything close to my claim- while one may expect you do so when you are NOT self sufficient in oil production. BUT BUT BUT--- once you are self sufficient, I the think tank , proclaims you will start this new conspiracy against phantom , yet to be determined adversaries. Hilarious!

Cant wait for the next alteration to your claim...

let me help you out with the English language on how you should have posted " Hey guys, - I think the US may want to switch modes from consumer of ME oil to influencing the distribution chain. Now I have no proof of such but that's where I think is the direction they maybe headed to"

 

[Developereo]

So let's see now as you squirm about and make your changes .

Nothing is altered for those people who can read English. I never claimed anything about past events; you dreamed it up. The only entertainment here is you changing your stance from "show me past events" to "can't predict the future" or "contingency planning is hogwash".

You are right: people like you can't predict the future. Military strategists, however, plan for these things all the time. That's why the US maintains bases around the world: for future contingencies and options.

Don't tax your brain over this: we still need you here to continue providing entertainment.

 

[JayAtl]

Nothing is altered for those people who can read English. I never claimed anything about past events; you dreamed it up. The only entertainment here is you changing your stance from "show me past events" to "can't predict the future".

You are right: people like you can't predict the future. Military strategists, however, plan for these things all the time. That's why the US maintains bases around the world: for future contingencies and options.

Don't tax your brain over this: we still need you here to continue providing entertainment.

So when you NOW say - "I said the US wants control over, i.e. the ability to control when needed.

when needed is not in the future in your vocabulary? And you still maintain that they will try to stifle their adversaries supply of oil- based on what evidence?

we are back here again, what proof do you have to show that when US has shown no such inclination, when it needs as much as oil now, would do so in the future when it does not need it anymore.

man you fun to toy with

 

[Developereo]

So when you NOW say - "I said the US wants control over, i.e. the ability to control when needed.

when needed is not in the future in your vocabulary?

Duh! I have been saying all along that this planning is about future options. My stance has been consistent that the US military positioning is about keeping all options open, including controlling adversaries' access to ME oil.

You are the one who was obsessed with alleged past events, and then claimed that talking about the future was unwarranted.

Do you even pay attention to what you yourself write? Or are you just rambling on because you have already dug a hole for yourself and can't find a face-saving exit?

And you still maintain that they will try to stifle their adversaries supply of oil- based on what evidence?

Sigh.

I really can't be bothered educating you on the basics of geopolitics, especially concepts that go back to the dawn of military warfare. Look up the geopolitical importance of Malacca Straits, Suez Canal and other areas besides the Persian Gulf.

 

[JayAtl]

Duh! I have been saying all along that this planning is about future options. My stance has been consistent that the US military positioning is about keeping all options open, including controlling adversaries' access to ME oil.

You are the one who was obsessed with alleged past events, and then claimed that talking about the future was unwarranted.

Do you even pay attention to what you yourself write? Or are you just rambling on because you have already dug a hole for yourself and can't find a face-saving exit?



Sigh.

I really can't be bothered educating you on the basics of geopolitics, especially concepts that go back to the dawn of military warfare. Look up the geopolitical importance of Malacca Straits, Suez Canal and other areas besides the Persian Gulf.

after several posts covering for your ignorant statements which had no basis in reality. Malacca Straits, Suez Canal and other areas besides the Persian Gulf is your new meme? what about them supports your statement that when the US will be sufficient in oil production towards personal consumption, that it will attack interests of its adversaries to mitigate their access for oil?

you made an absolute statement and yet to see you give me one iota proof to sustain it. you think a guy who also proclaims that the US is under the power of Zionist ( yet another absolute statement with no proof) , is doing any educating vs. speaking mad mullah like talk?

what is worse you throw out historical events without knowing jack about them.

(Britain, France and Israel had united in secret, something that they denied publicly for many years, and made arrangements for Israel to make the initial invasion of Egypt and capture one side of the Suez Canal.) When further British and French diplomatic initiatives failed, they sent troops to occupy the canal.

The United States opposed this action as a violation of the principle of self-determination. The American delegation at the United Nations voted in favor of a General Assembly resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of the invading troops. Great Britain, France and Israel eventually accepted these terms

 

[Developereo]

Malacca Straits, Suez Canal and other areas besides the Persian Gulf is your new meme?

By comparing these other locations, in the context of controlling adversaries' supplies, I wanted to explore and expose your ignorance of geopolitics. You obliged as expected.

mad mullah like talk?

Watching you lose it; I am LOVING it!

 

[JayAtl]

By comparing these other locations, in the context of controlling adversaries' supplies, I wanted to explore and expose your ignorance of geopolitics. You obliged as expected.



Watching you lose it; I am LOVING it!

LOL , are you demented bro? You cant throw names and no evidence within to support your silly naive claims and go see I proved it! What about those places show anything to do with US trying to control adversaries oil? You are throwing gibberish out. What's worse is I even showed you where america supported Egypt and refused military action themselves ( even fully knowing they could take Egypt on) and of others who attacked it and or planning to occupy it

this you

Me : what proof you have?
You: * Throw 3 names out
Me: and what about them shows supporting evidence ?
you: I proved my evidence by dropping names with no context to it.

 

[Developereo]

LOL , are you demented bro? You cant throw names and no evidence within to support your silly naive claims and go see I proved it! What about those places show anything to do with US trying to control adversaries oil? You are throwing gibberish out. What's worse is I even showed you were america supported Egypt and refused military action themselves ( even fully knowing they could take Egypt on) and of others who attacked it and or planning to occupy it

this you

Me : what proof you have?
You: * Throw 3 names out
Me: and what about them shows supporting evidence ?
you: I proved my evidence by dropping names with no context to it.

Brilliant how you continue to showcase your ignorance of geopolitics AND English!

I already said that we were talking about future options, not past actions, of potential control points: Suez Canal, Malacca Straits and the Persian Gulf are all crucial laneways of global commerce and, as such, are of prime interest to anyone, including the US, for controlling adversaries' supplies.

The question you keep avoiding is why the US maintains military bases near these choke points. I don't want to push you for an answer because a) we all know you haven't a clue, and b) I enjoy the entertainment you provide.

 

[JayAtl]

Brilliant how you continue to showcase your ignorance of geopolitics AND English!

I already said that we were talking about future options, not past actions, of potential control points: Suez Canal, Malacca Straits and the Persian Gulf are all crucial laneways of global commerce and, as such, are of prime interest to anyone, including the US, for controlling adversaries' supplies.

ROFL , you are cracking me up. Listen man- you cant throw names out as some evidence to back your absolute statement and then when challenged to show where any or all them apply to the specific claim of 'America is going to block adversaries access to oil in the future" - go ' I used those words', so I'm right!

You can't use terms like geopolitics without actually expanding on the what you are trying to say is the evidence to support some hallucination of yours. Tell us how in those 3 examples you gave / names you blurted out, shows the US blocking adversaries from access to oil?here is the geopolitics of Suez. Americans actually supported Egypt and voted / subsequently forced Israel, Britain and France to not occupy it. where in that case for example does it support your point?

Give us ONE supporting evidence just ONE! to back up your statement.

 

[Developereo]

ROFL , you are cracking me up. Listen man- you cant throw names out as some evidence to back your absolute statement and then when challenged to show where any or all them apply to the specific claim of 'America is going to block adversaries access to oil in the future" - go ' I used those words', so I'm right!

You can't use terms like geopolitics without actually expanding on the what you are trying to say is the evidence to support some hallucination of yours. Tell us how in those 3 examples you gave / names you blurted out, shows the US blocking adversaries from access to oil?here is the geopolitics of Suez. Americans actually supported Egypt and voted / subsequently forced Israel, Britain and France to not occupy it. where in that case for example does it support your point?

See, you miss the whole point of my posts.

They are intended for the normal readers out there who understand concepts like supply blockade and military strategy. Most people understand the significance of keeping military bases near such choke points.

You have already demonstrated your abject incompetence by failing to understand these concepts, so your only value here is to provide entertainment.

Give us ONE supporting evidence just ONE! to back up your statement.

You want past examples of US blockades against adversaries? Try Japan and Vietnam for a start. Look up American oil embargo of Japan.

Of course, you will say that it wasn't about ME, so it's different.

You truly are pathetic.

Comical, but pathetic.