What Happens When America No Longer Needs Middle East Oil?

[gambit]

You want past examples of US blockades against adversaries?

Look up American oil embargo of Japan.

I could be wrong...But that oil embargo was of US OIL.

 

[Developereo]

I could be wrong...But that oil embargo was of US OIL.

The basic principle is that critical supply blockages, especially oil, are a vital part of any military strategy. The US supplied 80% of Japan's oil at that point, so a blockage of US oil was more than enough to serve that purpose.

 

[gambit]

The basic principle is that critical supply blockages, especially oil, are a vital part of any military strategy. The US supplied 80% of Japan's oil at that point, so a blockage of US oil was more than enough to serve that purpose.

Looky here...You failed to provide a single credible piece of evidence that the US can deny any enemy access to ME oil. It is not as if the US never had any enemy. This is just another one of your typical unsupportable declarations.

 

[Developereo]

Looky here...You failed to provide a single credible piece of evidence that the US can deny any enemy access to ME oil. It is not as if the US never had any enemy. This is just another one of your typical unsupportable declarations.

I don't understand your objection.

We already know that that the US has a demonstrated history of using oil embargo as a weapon (Japan). Are you denying the capability of the USN to physically inspect every tanker that passes the global choke points and, worst case, neutralize overland conduits into the target country?

If you are talking about diplomatic difficulties, then that's a separate issue since we are talking about extreme scenarios of open conflict. This discussion is purely about the military capability.

I never claimed that the blockage would be 100%, and the efficacy and tenure of the blockage will depend on each particular adversary and the specific scenario, but those are standard caveats in any strategy.

 

[JayAtl]

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.



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.

This is getting to be fun now.

So again- you originally said that Americans when self sufficient in oil will them move to block it's adversaries to access to oil in ME.

Now there is an absolute statement made about the US and when asked to show me proof, you did multiple squirming to revise the statement yet never gave me one proof / evidence to back that statement.

Then 20 posts later, you throw names of regions out as some evidence. When asked what about the areas named = evidence , you never stated anything within those regions/ historical events to back it up- just that I should take the fact that you threw out names - take it as evidence.

Among one of those was Suez canal incident, where in fact it proved opposite of your intent because the Americans actually stopped Israel, Britain and France from occupying Suez .

AND finally, like a fish out water, desperately trying to throw anything and hope it sticks, you now come up with " American oil embargo of Japan" . Now I seem to remember you were going to teach me about america , yet you seem not to be a well informed professor.

So let's talk about the " American oil embargo of Japan". But let us also keep it context to your original statement because you are trying to back that statement with this new historical evidence.

American oil embargo of Japan is not evidence of your original statement because: It happened under a "war time" scenario and not peace time as you have eluded to in your original statement. You made an absolute statement that when we become self sufficient we will willy nilly start to move to block oil to our adversaries in the ME. Notwithstanding that it was OUR oil we blocked not some others oil from reaching the adversary -again another claim within your original statement .

American oil embargo of Japan happened after the Japanese sunk SS Panay in dec 1937 , a provocative act to any country and also following Japan's invasion of China , plus atrocities like Rape of Nanking and the apparent larger aim of Japan ( learn that historical period ) of expanding it's reign. Now they were already in China " war time" and the US was trying to force Japan to leave China. again war time scenarios...

So again I ask gives us ONE evidence to back your statement, just ONE! to the claim that america when self sufficient in oil while move to block adversaries from oil ( where is the evidence in that crystal ball prediction) Mullah Dev sir..

 

[Developereo]

This is getting to be fun now.

The thread itself is evidence enough of what was written. You have served your purpose, and I won't waste any more time, since the readers can decide for themselves what everyone wrote.

 

[JayAtl]

The thread itself is evidence enough of what was written. You have served your purpose, and I won't waste any more time, since the readers can decide for themselves what everyone wrote.

yes and they, at least one has vocally said you have yet to prove ONE darn evidence to back your proclamation..
yup! ~ you aint no different that those crazies that attribute their crazy foretelling thoughts about the US.

Finally- don't challenge me about america, world history, let alone anything. I have time and again proved you to be a kook. Even if you think throwing out " words or historical events" means you are well versed about them. which you are not! - you did not know about Suez or about the Japanese embargo_ before you thought yourself to be smart by throwing them out as a " mention" here.

The difference between you and me is that I praise good things regardless of what country you belong. Pakistan is near and dear to you, yeah? being Muslim is near and dear to you yeah? Yet- No objective poster here will say I that I don't praise the good about those two. You on the other hand are " mean spirited and hateful" when it comes to being objective of others that don't suite your prejudice.

 

[gambit]

So let's talk about the " American oil embargo of Japan". But let us also keep it context to your original statement because you are trying to back that statement with this new historical evidence.

American oil embargo of Japan is not evidence of your original statement because: It happened under a "war time" scenario and not peace time as you have eluded to in your original statement. You made an absolute statement that when we become self sufficient we will willy nilly start to move to block oil to our adversaries in the ME. Notwithstanding that it was OUR oil we blocked not some others oil from reaching the adversary -again another claim within your original statement .

American oil embargo of Japan happened after the Japanese sunk SS Panay in dec 1937 , a provocative act to any country and also following Japan's invasion of China , plus atrocities like Rape of Nanking and the apparent larger aim of Japan ( learn that historical period ) of expanding it's reign. Now they were already in China " war time" and the US was trying to force Japan to leave China. again war time scenarios...

So again I ask gives us ONE evidence to back your statement, just ONE! to the claim that america when self sufficient in oil while move to block adversaries from oil ( where is the evidence in that crystal ball prediction) Mullah Dev sir..

Details like these are important only to the intellectually honest.

 

[Developereo]

yes and they, at least one has vocally said you have yet to prove ONE darn evidence to back your proclamation..
yup! ~ you aint no different that those crazies that attribute their crazy foretelling thoughts about the US.

Finally- don't challenge me about america, world history, let alone anything. I have time and again proved you to be a kook. Even if you think throwing out " words or historical events" means you are well versed about them. which you are not! - you did not know about Suez or about the Japanese embargo_ before you thought yourself to be smart by throwing them out as a " mention" here.

The difference between you and me is that I praise good things regardless of what country you belong. Pakistan is near and dear to you, yeah? being Muslim is near and dear to you yeah? Yet- No objective poster here will say I that I don't praise the good about those two. You on the other hand are " mean spirited and hateful" when it comes to being objective of others that don't suite your prejudice.

Just because you are physically in the US means jack. Time and again, your abject ignorance of all things American, especially geopolitics, has landed you in hot water. I don't take other Americans to task for their knowledge of America because, unlike you, they don't suffer from an inferiority complex necessitating constant bravado about their American credentials. Only YOU have that comical tendency, which makes you a fair target to be ridiculed on that score.

Coming to this thread, I made two key statements here:

- The US wants control of ME oil, not because of US needs, but because adversaries' need for that oil.
- Military strategy is all about positioning yourself preemptively to exercise your doctrine (control) when needed.

Now, with these in mind, let's take a tour through your hallucinations, born of your frustrations and unfamiliarity with either English or geopolitics, or both, which have landed you yet again in the proverbial hole:

- First, you claimed that I had made a statement about past events in the ME, when I had done nothing of the sort. I had stated an American military doctrine of using oil sanctions as a weapon against adversaries, and I gave the Japanese reference as an example of past US behavior.

- Then, you claimed that future events can't be predicted, even though I explained that the whole point of preemptive military positioning is to have the capability when needed. You still don't understand that the reference to Suez and Malacca, plus the map I posted, was to identify them as crucial choke points in addition to the Persian Gulf. I even wrote "concepts that go back to the dawn of military warfare" in that sentence. It doesn't matter who used them in the past; the point is that they are recognized as crucial choke points of prime military importance. You still don't have the faintest clue why the US maintains a powerful presence near these global choke points.

- Then, you claimed that I had made comments about US self-sufficiency in oil when, again, I made no claims on that score. US self-sufficiency is irrelevant to this debate yet, in your desperate flailing, you tried to find a perch on that hallucination.

- Finally, you claimed that I was talking about American control in peacetime when, again, I wrote nothing of the sort. Why would the US restrict a country's oil supplies during peacetime? The very act of such restriction would be construed as an aggressive act, possibly an act of war, by the other country. Do you even read the babble that you spout in frustration?

Bottom line, your delusions of winning arguments come from that same pool of hallucinations that produced the above delusional gems out of thin air. Time and again, you try to portray yourself as knowledgeable about America, only to make an utter fool of yourself. Then you lose it altogether, start fights with everyone else, and get banned for your boorish behavior.

Details like these are important only to the intellectually honest.

I challenge you to show me where I claimed this control would be exercised during peacetime!

The facts have already been established:
- US has a past history of using oil sanctions as a weapon.
- US has positioned its military might strategically at global choke points, including the ME, to be able to control (oil) shipping when needed.

When someone has a documented history, and an assiduously (and expensively) maintained capability, of certain actions, then it is logical to conclude that that capability is part of their military doctrine.

 

[JayAtl]

- First, you claimed that I had made a statement about past events in the ME, when I had done nothing of the sort. I had stated an American military doctrine of using oil sanctions as a weapon against adversaries, and I gave the Japanese reference as an example of past US behavior.

I call this diarrhea of thoughts and then a desperate attempt to rewrite your claims with a constipation pill. I did not claim you made the statement about the past. Rather I said what in the " past US actions" makes you think to make such a foretelling absolute statement as evidence?

- Then, you claimed that future events can't be predicted, even though I explained that the whole point of preemptive military positioning is to have the capability when needed. You still don't understand that the reference to Suez and Malacca, plus the map I posted, was to identify them as crucial choke points in addition to the Persian Gulf. I even wrote "concepts that go back to the dawn of military warfare" in that sentence. It doesn't matter who used them in the past; the point is that they are recognized as crucial choke points of prime military importance. You still don't have the faintest clue why the US maintains a powerful presence near these global choke points.

More diarrhea here. You are yet to show the tying evidence from the past ( note: NOW you are going into the past again to prove your point). Just throwing Names like SUEZ , where clearly SUEZ was the classic example of american restraint and even more so of taking on friendly nations to stop them blocking the canal. Now when I speak of a historical event i just don't throw a " name " out there , I show how you been wrong about it. You are throwing anything, without learning about it- and hopes it sticks . Just like " Choke" points another garbage " name calling" that lends to no absolute statement about the actions the US will take in the future.

- Then, you claimed that I had made comments about US self-sufficiency in oil when, again, I made no claims on that score. US self-sufficiency is irrelevant to this debate yet, in your desperate flailing, you tried to find a perch on that hallucination.

Classic how you cut your own foot here. This is why, you have never , other than in your own mullah like twisted mind, have taught me anything, let alone win any argument with me.

What is the topic about Mullah DEV? It is about US self sufficiency and it's then future role in ME, DURING PEACE TIME!. You come into a topic about US self sufficiency and it's future role in ME during peace time and post an absolute statement about what US will do AND now go you never posted your debunked , garbage claims about the US and on topic?

so either you came in trolling or you are again trying to squirm out when shown to be a pseudo think thank

- Finally, you claimed that I was talking about American control in peacetime when, again, I wrote nothing of the sort. Why would the US restrict a country's oil supplies during peacetime? The very act of such restriction would be construed as an aggressive act, possibly an act of war, by the other country. Do you even read the babble that you spout in frustration?

I claimed because the topic is about about peace time and you posted your garbage about US actions, now apparently not knowing what the topic was about. .... If you are incapable of comprehending topics rather have a tourette syndrome about the US. then don't post and look foolish.

 

[JayAtl]

Details like these are important only to the intellectually honest.

He thinks because he has been bestowed a title of think tank on a forum, therefore he is... he has always been intellectually defunct here and then doubles down when shown repeatedly that he should stick to his " Zionist hold power over america" crack theories.

at this point he is now owing up to, having posted on topic about US self sufficiency and future dealings in ME during peace time, but not being aware of it. Basically, we should all ignore his posts in future - because he has now accepted that he goes into a topic, without reading what is being discussed, or the topic posted.

 

[Developereo]

What is the topic about Mullah DEV?

The topic is about US interest in Middle East oil, and the reasons for it.

We know that, besides cutting and pasting an article, you hadn't the faintest clue about the broader issue at play here. You decided to wrestle above your weight -- a not uncommon occurrence for you -- and came out looking the fool.

As usual.

 

[JayAtl]

The topic is about US interest in Middle East oil, and the reasons for it.

We know that, besides cutting and pasting an article, you hadn't the faintest clue about the broader issue at play here. You decided to wrestle above your weight -- a not uncommon occurrence for you -- and came out looking the fool.

As usual.

This is the final nail in your coffin of BS. The topic kiddo- It not about "US interest in Middle East oil, and the reasons for it."

It is sitting there in every header here - " What Happens When America No Longer Needs Middle East Oil?

and you claimed we would go in and stop adversaries from getting oil- no evidence to date , just hot air as usual.
You finally showed you don't even know what the topic was about and you came with your verbal diarrhea about the US. You been called out here by not just me...think tank.

 

[Developereo]

This is the final nail in your coffin of BS. The topic kiddo- It not about "US interest in Middle East oil, and the reasons for it."

It is sitting there in every header here - " What Happens When America No Longer Needs Middle East Oil?

and you claimed we would go in and stop adversaries from getting oil- no evidence to date , just hot air as usual.
You finally showed you don't even know what the topic was about and you came with your verbal diarrhea about the US. You been called out here by not just me...think tank.

Not for you, because you have already been exposed as an imbecile, but for other readers, I will quote the relevant line from the OP.

If the United States no longer needs access to Middle East oil under any foreseeable circumstances, then the priority Washington assigns to the region will plummet.

This is one of the core premises of the article, and I dispute that premise. My comment was that, regardless of America's need for ME oil, its interest in the region will remain paramount.

Now, I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about the basics of debating, viz. the concepts of premise and challenge.

It would help you make less of a fool of yourself if, before plunging into a discussion, you would actually read the entire article instead of just the headline.

 

[PteX]

"it would be harder to ignore the cost of defending Israel, and that might force Jerusalem to become more self-sufficient."

By all means, it's about time the US dumped the Arab states to become self-sufficient with their own natural resourses.
I'm looking forward to the day.