• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama should end Iranian Sanctions to Reduce Oil Prices

Obama should end Iranian Sanctions to Reduce Oil Prices

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
digsbe said:
At this time I don't know where I stand on war with Iran. I'm just saying if we stop sanctions we need to do something because Iran should not be left unrestrained.

Also, not all Christians believe in pacifism or think that all wars are evil and unjust.
Click to expand...

General Demsey has stated there is no need to attack Iran. You don't believe in the teachings of Jesus, when he said do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
 
Catawba said:
If you added the cost at the pump of the military expense to keep the oil flowing from the middle east, solar and wind power would be price competitive.
Click to expand...

but it's not. if it was you'd see companies selling it. one reason is that the government gave monopolies to your local utility companies. no incentive for change there. though there has been some deregulation, and there are a few competitors selling solar and wind energy. It's a start. I'm all for renewable energy, but I don't think something that costs maybe 1000% more than oil is a good idea.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
from USA Today:
Looking at your heating bills or gas prices, you may find it surprising that the United States is enjoying a mini oil boom. It's producing more crude oil and, for the first time in decades, has become a net exporter of petroleum products such as jet fuel, heating oil and gasoline.

Oil boomlet sweeps U.S. as exports rise

And, no I'm not "talking about Nationalizing US oil and withdrawing from the world market???"
Click to expand...

Where are you going to get the 60% of oil that that we currently import, because our production is 60% shy of our consumption? There has not been a single year since 1971, under either party, that we have produced as much oil as we consume.
 
Catawba said:
Where are you going to get the 60% of oil that that we currently import, because our production is 60% shy of our consumption? There has not been a single year since 1971, under either party, that we have produced as much oil as we consume.
Click to expand...

why should we? if we can buy it cheaper from world markets, then we should. restricting oil to only ourselves would hurt ourselves. we would pay more for it because we would be artificially cutting the size of supply, even though demand would still be there.
 
Catawba said:
Where are you going to get the 60% of oil that that we currently import, because our production is 60% shy of our consumption? There has not been a single year since 1971, under either party, that we have produced as much oil as we consume.
Click to expand...
OK. I'll add more detail, but it was in the article I sighted. "It's dramatic. It's transformative," Edward Morse, a former senior U.S. energy official who now directs global commodities research at Citigroup, says of the historic shifts. He says the U.S. is importing a smaller share — 49% in 2010, down from 60% in 2005 — of the oil it uses, adding: "We're moving toward energy independence." So it's not 60%. If you would use up to date figures and add trends I'd be with you, but you appear to have an agenda beyond oil.
 
Red_Dave said:
I think a nuclear armed Middle East would bring up oil prices a great deal more.
Click to expand...


You and your foresight! Who cares about the future! We want cheap oil NOW! Goddamn the longterm consequences!

Holy ****, the ignorance in this thread is going to give me an aneurysm if i keep reading...
 
anarchomoney said:
but it's not. if it was you'd see companies selling it. one reason is that the government gave monopolies to your local utility companies. no incentive for change there. though there has been some deregulation, and there are a few competitors selling solar and wind energy. It's a start. I'm all for renewable energy, but I don't think something that costs maybe 1000% more than oil is a good idea.
Click to expand...

It doesn't cost a hundred times more that oil if you add in the military costs at the gas pump to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East, that's the point.
 
How would ending sanctions affect the oil speculation market?

Theoretically, increased supply lowers price blah blah blah, but would it really?
 
digsbe said:
The only reason we should repeal sanctions would be to substitute that plan with war.
Click to expand...

Which is not going to happen.

Let me preface the following statement with this one: I believe the Iraq adventure was based on a pack of lies. However, every technical detail I understand suggests that Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons, from their choice of heavy water breeder reactor, to the sheer uneconomical cost of enriching and storing the waste yourself, to building allegedly "civilian" facilities in hardened underground bunkers.

That said, Iran will get a nuke for a few simple reasons:

1) An Israeli/US conventional attack will at most put Iran back a year or two.
2) No one has the guts for a regime changing occupation
3) No one is going to start a nuclear war
4) Iran will brutally suppress any uprising stemming from sanctions.

For those simple reasons, Iran will eventually acquire a nuke.
 
anarchomoney said:
why should we? if we can buy it cheaper from world markets, then we should. restricting oil to only ourselves would hurt ourselves. we would pay more for it because we would be artificially cutting the size of supply, even though demand would still be there.
Click to expand...

Why should we what?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
OK. I'll add more detail, but it was in the article I sighted. "It's dramatic. It's transformative," Edward Morse, a former senior U.S. energy official who now directs global commodities research at Citigroup, says of the historic shifts. He says the U.S. is importing a smaller share — 49% in 2010, down from 60% in 2005 — of the oil it uses, adding: "We're moving toward energy independence." So it's not 60%. If you would use up to date figures and add trends I'd be with you, but you appear to have an agenda beyond oil.
Click to expand...

You do realize that our demand is down dramatically due the Great Recession and high gas prices, right? Once the economy recovers we will be right back up to 60% imports.

"Oil demand remains off long-term trends lines and is determined primarily by the continuing effects of the recession. Consequently, forecasting oil markets remains more dependent on understanding recession economics than anything to do with oil per se."

The Cutting Edge News

It makes much more sense to develop alternative energy sources to replace foreign oil imports, rather than sending our money to the middle east and kissing Saudi ass.
 
obvious Child said:
Seems to me that more then a few people are blaming the President for oil price increases. And they're right. The Iranian sanctions are directly at fault for much of the price increases. Therefore, do you support an end to Iranian oil sanctions to bring down oil prices?
Click to expand...

Yeah, what's a nuclear armed fundamentalist Muslim state when compared to rising gas prices?
 
Catawba said:
It makes much more sense to develop alternative energy sources to replace foreign oil imports, rather than sending our money to the middle east and kissing Saudi ass.
Click to expand...
:lamo The human species doing something that makes sense. Oh, that's rich. :lamo

I really wish I could remember who said this, but many years ago somebody said that for all the prattling we do regarding alternative energy, we will never... ever... actually get serious about it until the current sources are pretty much depleted. In other words: we won't do it until we have to. Or, unless a "better" (read: actually better AND cheaper, just better won't be enough) energy source magically pops up to take its place... which is kind of what fossil fuels did.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with that point-of-view, but I don't believe it is an excuse to do nothing. I do see value in the necessary research. What I don't see value in is pretending that it is anything more than that. We're just kidding ourselves when we do.

Collective "we", of course.
 
radcen said:
:lamo The human species doing something that makes sense. Oh, that's rich. :lamo

I really wish I could remember who said this, but many years ago somebody said that for all the prattling we do regarding alternative energy, we will never... ever... actually get serious about it until the current sources are pretty much depleted. In other words: we won't do it until we have to. Or, unless a "better" (read: actually better AND cheaper, just better won't be enough) energy source magically pops up to take its place... which is kind of what fossil fuels did.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with that point-of-view, but I don't believe it is an excuse to do nothing. I do see value in the necessary research. What I don't see value in is pretending that it is anything more than that. We're just kidding ourselves when we do.

Collective "we", of course.
Click to expand...

In other words, wait until we have a crisis situation before we take significant action???
 
radcen said:
It's not a happy answer, but it's how I believe it will actually play out.
Click to expand...

I consider that approach to be gross neglect of our responsibilities necessary for our own well being.
 
Paschendale said:
If it's that simple to keep the prices down, end the sanctions immediately. I don't know why anyone thinks of Iran as a military threat. Killing your customers is astoundingly bad business. They would have to be literally suicidal to attack the United States or really any part of the west. So long as they want our money, they need us not only alive but prospering and continuing to need more and more of their oil. Iranian nukes aren't a threat to us. Their Middle Eastern neighbors, especially their Sunni neighbors, are the ones who should be worried.
Click to expand...
If the US and Europe never bought another ounce of Iranian oil Iran would still be selling all they wanted. India will buy it and, if we put enough pressure on India to stop, China will pick it up. The best we can do is make it harder for them to sell by stopping those transactions from happening in US dollars or Euros.
 
What I've missed so far in this thread is the understanding that the Oil Companies are international companies. To insure the most profit they need to control supply, which they do. When running a commodity supplying company one increases profit by having at least the threat of a shortage. Investors, middle men, take care of the rest. Oil Companies want to get leases for future drilling, but they don't want to over drill. There is not an oil shortage, just a managed supply; and the management of the supply is working very well for the oil companies right now.

(We will eventually run out of oil. But the Oil and Coal Companies don't want preparation for that. Especially if an alternative energy source developed to the point of being cost competitive.)
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
What I've missed so far in this thread is the understanding that the Oil Companies are international companies. To insure the most profit they need to control supply, which they do. When running a commodity supplying company one increases profit by having at least the threat of a shortage. Investors, middle men, take care of the rest. Oil Companies want to get leases for future drilling, but they don't want to over drill. There is not an oil shortage, just a managed supply; and the management of the supply is working very well for the oil companies right now.

(We will eventually run out of oil. But the Oil and Coal Companies don't want preparation for that. Especially if an alternative energy source developed to the point of being cost competitive.)
Click to expand...
I think you will find that it is not oil companies that have barred themselves from drilling on most federal lands, Alaska, and off our coasts. If supply is being limited, dont forget to include government in your list of bad guys.
 
Fletch said:
I think you will find that it is not oil companies that have barred themselves from drilling on most federal lands, Alaska, and off our coasts. If supply is being limited, dont forget to include government in your list of bad guys.
Click to expand...
The Oil Companies have vast leased areas that have yet to be drilled that they have not used. Our government has more areas that can be leased. So you are saying that the reason they are not drilling where they are allowed to drill is because that they don't have more areas not to drill in? Those areas not yet leased are expected to be more valuable in the future, but you want our government to sell them cheaply now so that your investments in oil companies will do better? (BTW I have investments in Oil Companies.)
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
The Oil Companies have vast leased areas that have yet to be drilled that they have not used. Our government has more areas that can be leased. So you are saying that the reason they are not drilling where they are allowed to drill is because that they don't have more areas not to drill in? Those areas not yet leased are expected to be more valuable in the future, but you want our government to sell them cheaply now so that your investments in oil companies will do better? (BTW I have investments in Oil Companies.)
Click to expand...
If the government opened up ANWR tomorrow, would some oil company stick a pipe in the ground? The government often opens up areas that are not as promising as others. So just because there is oil on an open area of federal land does not mean it is worth it for a company to drill there.
 
Fletch said:
If the government opened up ANWR tomorrow, would some oil company stick a pipe in the ground? The government often opens up areas that are not as promising as others. So just because there is oil on an open area of federal land does not mean it is worth it for a company to drill there.
Click to expand...
No.
Yes. But, then why did they bid against each other to get those worthless leases?
Again, the Oil Companies benefit from controlling the supply.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
I think a nuclear armed Middle East would bring up oil prices a great deal more.
Click to expand...


You are so right, just like a nuclear armed Asia would mean an end to cheap goods from China.

You liberals can ignore Republicans like Herman Cain at your own risk.
 
johnny_rebson said:
You are so right, just like a nuclear armed Asia would mean an end to cheap goods from China.

You liberals can ignore Republicans like Herman Cain at your own risk.
Click to expand...
Would an end to cheap goods from China mean that manufacturing jobs would move back here (or somewhere else)? Economics doesn't really care *where* goods are made, Economics just cares about cheapest cost.

Same concept could be applied to oil. If ME oil became expensive for such a reason, wouldn't that just make our own oil more attractive economically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom