submitted by WanderingAutist
Who here believes that fighting wars and conducting regime change in the Middle East is not important to America's national security interests?
Who here believes that fighting wars and conducting regime change in the Middle East is not important to America's national security interests?
As long as California sits on it's ass and doesn't join the shale revolution, we're going to have to have troops there guarding shipments. The blood of every American serviceman that dies over there belongs on the hands of the California EPA. They keep denying permits for new pipelines to the shale oilfields of Texas, and denying the expansion of drilling for shale oil in the Monterrey field. All of that leads to California importing more Middle East oil than the rest of the country put together. By a wide margin.
If it wasn't for fucking California, we could get out of the Mideast tomorrow, and let it become East Asia and Europe's problem.
This is a beautiful strawman argument. Well done.
It's context that no one ever discusses, but needs to be heard about the reasons our troops will continue to bleed and die there. Reality is that Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other. We are there to stay between them as a buffer so California can get it's oil.
When we leave, nothing will be there to prevent the Saudis and Iranians from turning the Persian Gulf red with each others blood. But East Asia and, to a lesser extent, Europe, will still need Persian Gulf oil to fuel their economies. They will have to send their navies to the Persian Gulf, pick a side in the war, load up the crude, and escort it to safety. Because of shale, America won't need to give a damn about either the country that sponsored the 9/11 hijackers, or the country that cheered it.
I want us out of the Middle East yesterday, but due to California, we're stuck there.
Golf clap for the double down.