This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Any market that sells to the world is open to world price fluctuations. Holding the position today is the same as it was back then. That also fails a basic cost benefit analysis. We spent in the trillions to decrease the price of a thing that was in the 100 billions. If we had just eaten the higher oil costs and not started wars over there we would have been better off. And its likely we would have arrived at the "American energy powerhouse" situation earlier.
So we have had lower quality of life to do these interventions. But even if that wasn't true I'd still bite the bullet of non-intervention, for many reasons.
Energy prices are inelastic in the short term.
It’s a core necessity for production of anything. If you don’t have chocolate well you don’t eat chocolate. If you don’t have energy a lot of high value add businesses needs to stop because energy goes into everything.
2 & 3. Imply that gdp impact is > import costs
Iraq and Afghanistan were not oil wars but about terrorism. Long term backing of Saudi Arabia was oil. Iran war now is probably oil but to deny it to China. Afghanistan doesn’t even have oil. Iraq 90% of it was probably wanting to fuck some brown people because of 9/11. So the trillions in the 2000’s was mostly not about oil.
I don’t know the true amount the US spent on securing oil supplies over decades but it’s not the trillions of the Iraq War. It also had spillover benefits for allies securing oil.
I don’t know when the US would have become an energy powerhouses if oil surged sooner. Higher prices would have started the process earlier. The 1970’s oil prices didn’t trigger shale. And Europe has high energy prices and no plans to improve on that situation.
I'm confused. First I say I don't want middle east spending and intervention. Next you say I couldn't have had that opinion pre-2010s because the intervention was required for lower oil prices. Next I say we spent trillions on that intervention so it seems not worth it. Now you say that intervention wasn't related to oil prices (which I agree with) but makes your original objection seem strange and pointless.
Some interventions were necessary. Arming the Saudis 100%. Doing some form of balance of power politics etc.
It’s just the Iraq War and Afghanistan were not about oil directly. Iraq War 1 could be considered an oil war. The post 9/11 stuff was terrorism related and the only oil connection was some OBL hating us for propping up the Saudi regime.
I don't think any interventions were necessary anywhere. It's in everyone's interest to keep the oil flowing. Who exactly wants the money train to stop, and with what money are they gonna raise an army to stop it?
And if your answer to my original point is "oh we could have paid 95% less on intervention" then I would be happy with that compromise.
This conversation also started about Israel, how much oil does Israel have? I thought the answer was effectively none.
I think Monzer is correct a lot of the expense was Israel. Keeping the oil trade routes open was fairly cheap and necessary. Iraq 1 is the only action I would label in that regard and was on the cheap side for a 50 year mega gas station.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link