U.S to become major Oil Export once again. (Effects on Foreign Policy)

[Oil and Gas Boom in the United States of America cuts them free from the decades long dependency on imported fuels]

This won't be one of my longer openings, but considering that it's made the news all the way over here apparently it's a bigger deal, and yea. I can see it anyway the short is, US is shifting it's focus from mainly using oil for powering utilities to using Natural Gas, with the newfound massive oil and gas deposits in North Dakota and elsewhere the U.S looks to, once again. Become a major oil export, no longer having to rely on importing the stuff from the Middle East we are most likely looking at some greater changes in the Foreign Policies of this large nation.

image

The formerly U.S dominated Middle-Eastern nations being cleared out of by the U.S groundforces and naval units.

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/will-north-american-energy-revolution-prompt-us-middle-east-military-withdrawal-54464-3-54465.html

We already know from Obama that military bases are being shut down and assets moved either home, or to the Pacific, but other than that is there any other speculation? As to 'where' in the pacific. Taiwan is an old U.S ally, but to me it looked as if they had been abandoned. And with China having their eyes on it, it is doubtful that the U.S would stir up that nest of bee's. That aside-

With the incredibly expensive last adventure the U.S military went on, it might just be that it's time for a break to the massive military spending. But that's just my naive hoping.

One wonders if this leads to more aggressive US diplomacy overall (since they need not worry about stepping on any OPEC-toes) or more isolationistic policies (since they have less reasons to get involved).

Realitycrash:
One wonders if this leads to more aggressive US diplomacy overall (since they need not worry about stepping on any OPEC-toes) or more isolationistic policies (since they have less reasons to get involved).

Here's hoping they don't isolate themselves :P.... America can be a bitch when it's in everyone's business, but it would get boring if they took their fingers out of 'everyones' pies collectively. Whom would we be pissed at then? The EU? Puleasse.

Yea, this alliance thing is probably here to stay, lets just be happy that this bloody chapter of our history is over, and hope that the next one will be a bit less tragic ;).

It would actually be an effective way to wreck a few economies of OPEC, by selling cheap oil to the point where they would have to lower their prices just to stay competitive in the market.

I'm hoping for a shift towards modern American-isolationist foreign policy myself: Trade and commerce with foreign nations but Alliances with none. The EU is established enough where it provide for its own defense without American support and the US gains very little from NATO besides a few bases and refueling stops for conflicts that will soon be drawing to a close. These same bases will not be needed in the current times and spending the money on their upkeep is a waste of money.

OmegaXI:
Snip

You favor America breaking it's alliances with the Europeans? Huh. First time I've heard that one actually.

I'd be way more concerned about a revolution in non-conventional fuels completely wrecking the world in 50 years from now due to climate change than foreign policy. Although I guess shale gas provides an opportunity for nations to be energy independent for a few more decades & will stave off any resource wars...

Nikolaz72:

OmegaXI:
Snip

You favor America breaking it's alliances with the Europeans? Huh. First time I've heard that one actually.

The Alliance is a relic from the cold war, and with NATO Europeans have become complaisant in the nature of their own defense. If something where to go horrible wrong in global politics they are not prepared to do anything without American support, this isn't good for the Europeans and it isn't good for the Americans. One example I will use is the action taken in Libya, the European forces ran out of bombs so they had to get more from the Americans who where not directly involved besides supporting the ideals and goals of the action. If they don't have enough ammunition to carry out a military action of that nature, what are they going to do if its EU under attack?

Now you may think that the EU will never come under attack but not you nor I have a Crystal Ball that can see into the future. Just because they Americans will not have a military alliance with the EU does not mean the two would be enemies, just means the Europeans will need to have their own forces for their defense and the Americans will not have to spend the money for the support of the alliance (the USA pays for nearly 70% of the money for NATO as of the 2011 this may have changed).

OmegaXI:

Nikolaz72:

OmegaXI:
Snip

You favor America breaking it's alliances with the Europeans? Huh. First time I've heard that one actually.

The Alliance is a relic from the cold war, and with NATO Europeans have become complaisant in the nature of their own defense. If something where to go horrible wrong in global politics they are not prepared to do anything without American support, this isn't good for the Europeans and it isn't good for the Americans. One example I will use is the action taken in Libya, the European forces ran out of bombs so they had to get more from the Americans who where not directly involved besides supporting the ideals and goals of the action. If they don't have enough ammunition to carry out a military action of that nature, what are they going to do if its EU under attack?

Now you may think that the EU will never come under attack but not you nor I have a Crystal Ball that can see into the future. Just because they Americans will not have a military alliance with the EU does not mean the two would be enemies, just means the Europeans will need to have their own forces for their defense and the Americans will not have to spend the money for the support of the alliance (the USA pays for nearly 70% of the money for NATO as of the 2011 this may have changed).

The reason that America pays so much is because it has a large military and can't really afford to get rid of it. They also have the NATO alliance and other alliances because that gives them permission to build bases on Foriegn Soil, which is a key part of their military doctrine of being able to project their military power anywhere in the world. No alliances means no more military bases, which means that the entire strategy you've build your armed forces around no longer works, which means either spending more of your own money to restructure your military or cutting a lot of funding to it, and the Republicans are more likely to vote for Gay Marriage, Universal Healthcare and stricter gun laws than they are to cut the military budget by any meaningful degree.

More to hte point if America started breaking alliances with people they'd soon find themselves out of allies and trading partners. Breaking an alliance with an ally is a great way to make sure nobody ever trusts your word again.

Shaoken:
More to hte point if America started breaking alliances with people they'd soon find themselves out of allies and trading partners. Breaking an alliance with an ally is a great way to make sure nobody ever trusts your word again.

You had me going right up until here, then I knew you really have no idea what you are talking about.

First, let us keep in mind that China is not an ally of the United States, but it is one of our biggest trading partners.

The global economy is hinged on the US, regardless of what your politics are. Just step back for a second and try to imagine that one day the US is in the global economic landscape, and the next day it is not; now try to tell me which country, or block of countries, would be able to step up and fill the economic power vacuum without the entire global economy imploding?

Simplest answer; there is none, and the future of globalisation (not that I agree or disagree, only that its the direction we continue to move in) would completely collapse and only a handful of 1st world countries, if any, would be able to step up and continue without the current global marketplace.

This isn't me tooting some 'merica-fuck-ya horn, this is just acknowledging what is and what isn't. Personally I agree nearlly 100% with what @OmegaXI said and without having to vote Libertarian, would absolutely love a liberal government that was more concerned with the poverty and lack of necessities of it's own people before sending money to outside entities with only small percentages actually reaching it's targeted goal.

Shaoken:

The reason that America pays so much is because it has a large military and can't really afford to get rid of it. They also have the NATO alliance and other alliances because that gives them permission to build bases on Foriegn Soil, which is a key part of their military doctrine of being able to project their military power anywhere in the world. No alliances means no more military bases, which means that the entire strategy you've build your armed forces around no longer works, which means either spending more of your own money to restructure your military or cutting a lot of funding to it, and the Republicans are more likely to vote for Gay Marriage, Universal Healthcare and stricter gun laws than they are to cut the military budget by any meaningful degree.

More to hte point if America started breaking alliances with people they'd soon find themselves out of allies and trading partners. Breaking an alliance with an ally is a great way to make sure nobody ever trusts your word again.

France withdrew from NATO in 1958, yet Americans and other NATO members were still allies/Friends with them during the cold war, besides over the years it seems most Europeans seem to be vocal enough in their dislike and hatred for the USA that well maybe the USA should withdraw from Europe and end the Alliance and each pursue their own separate paths. Both will continue to have good relations with each other and continue to be strong trading partners, but let me ask you this; Why should the Americans be spending money for an Alliance that is for the defense of Europe when the Europeans do not and at times it seems will not provide for their own defense or that Alliance?

They (EU) have a large economy and a large population pool to recruit troops from, nothing says that a military alliance is a requirement to strong trade relations with the EU. If they feel the Russian or the Chinese would be better military Allies then well that is the path they choose to walk.

l0ckd0wn:

Shaoken:
More to hte point if America started breaking alliances with people they'd soon find themselves out of allies and trading partners. Breaking an alliance with an ally is a great way to make sure nobody ever trusts your word again.

You had me going right up until here, then I knew you really have no idea what you are talking about.

First, let us keep in mind that China is not an ally of the United States, but it is one of our biggest trading partners.

The global economy is hinged on the US, regardless of what your politics are. Just step back for a second and try to imagine that one day the US is in the global economic landscape, and the next day it is not; now try to tell me which country, or block of countries, would be able to step up and fill the economic power vacuum without the entire global economy imploding?

Simplest answer; there is none, and the future of globalisation (not that I agree or disagree, only that its the direction we continue to move in) would completely collapse and only a handful of 1st world countries, if any, would be able to step up and continue without the current global marketplace.

This isn't me tooting some 'merica-fuck-ya horn, this is just acknowledging what is and what isn't. Personally I agree nearlly 100% with what @OmegaXI said and without having to vote Libertarian, would absolutely love a liberal government that was more concerned with the poverty and lack of necessities of it's own people before sending money to outside entities with only small percentages actually reaching it's targeted goal.

Just don't assume only the rest of the world would get the short end of the stick. After all, cut ties with other nations and there's no more cheap job outsorcing, no more cheap imports - and while returning jobs home in times of crisis would be a good thing, prices would go up, and with a lot of the population already on the last notch of their belts, that wouldn't go down all too well.

China, Russia, USA, EU, doesn't matter, one of them vanishes from the global economic stage and there's going to be a clusterfuck. And whichever it is, they're not only screwing everbody else over, but themselves as well.

Vegosiux:

Just don't assume only the rest of the world would get the short end of the stick. After all, cut ties with other nations and there's no more cheap job outsorcing - and while returning jobs home in times of crisis would be a good thing, prices would go up, and with a lot of the population already on the last notch of their belts, that wouldn't go down all too well.

China, Russia, USA, EU, doesn't matter, one of them vanishes from the global economic stage and there's going to be a clusterfuck. And whichever it is, they're not only screwing everbody else over, but themselves as well.

How would withdrawing from NATO military Alliance effect trade treaties? There is no clause saying that strong trade relations is only gained if there is a Military Alliance before hand. As was stated in a post above the United States has trade treaties and relations with China and India but there is no military alliance with those countries that requires the USA to pay a large majority of the funds required to support the Alliance. If I am wrong please provide the source of the treaty and clause stating as such and I will admit I was incorrect and my information was false.

l0ckd0wn:

Shaoken:
More to hte point if America started breaking alliances with people they'd soon find themselves out of allies and trading partners. Breaking an alliance with an ally is a great way to make sure nobody ever trusts your word again.

You had me going right up until here, then I knew you really have no idea what you are talking about.

First, let us keep in mind that China is not an ally of the United States, but it is one of our biggest trading partners.

The global economy is hinged on the US, regardless of what your politics are. Just step back for a second and try to imagine that one day the US is in the global economic landscape, and the next day it is not; now try to tell me which country, or block of countries, would be able to step up and fill the economic power vacuum without the entire global economy imploding?

Simplest answer; there is none, and the future of globalisation (not that I agree or disagree, only that its the direction we continue to move in) would completely collapse and only a handful of 1st world countries, if any, would be able to step up and continue without the current global marketplace.

This isn't me tooting some 'merica-fuck-ya horn, this is just acknowledging what is and what isn't. Personally I agree nearlly 100% with what @OmegaXI said and without having to vote Libertarian, would absolutely love a liberal government that was more concerned with the poverty and lack of necessities of it's own people before sending money to outside entities with only small percentages actually reaching it's targeted goal.

Just because the current world economy heavily relies on America doesn't mean the rest of the world is just going to take any abuse the US puts up with. If America makes a deal with someone then breaks it that's not going to encourage other nations to take America's word at face value, so they're either going to make more deals with China (who is in a position where America can't afford to break their word because of how much they are dependent on China and vice versa) or get more from America up front so that if/when America breaks their word again they're better off.

This isn't an instant "American broke it's word once let's all ditch it", it's a "well we would have agreed to your terms before, but seeing as you broke your deal with David over there we want this from the deal with this much up front." Long term America would end up paying for it.

OmegaXI:

Vegosiux:

Just don't assume only the rest of the world would get the short end of the stick. After all, cut ties with other nations and there's no more cheap job outsorcing - and while returning jobs home in times of crisis would be a good thing, prices would go up, and with a lot of the population already on the last notch of their belts, that wouldn't go down all too well.

China, Russia, USA, EU, doesn't matter, one of them vanishes from the global economic stage and there's going to be a clusterfuck. And whichever it is, they're not only screwing everbody else over, but themselves as well.

How would withdrawing from NATO military Alliance effect trade treaties? There is no clause saying that strong trade relations is only gained if there is a Military Alliance before hand. As was stated in a post above the United States has trade treaties and relations with China and India but there is no military alliance with those countries that requires the USA to pay a large majority of the funds required to support the Alliance.

Oh for crying out loud.

The post I quoted, the post I was responding to, basically asked what would happen if "USA just poofed from the global economic landscape". So, for the sake of the argument, I went with that assumption.

So, to answer your ending...

If I am wrong please provide the source of the treaty and clause stating as such and I will admit I was incorrect and my information was false.

You did not check the context in which I said what I did. Check your target and what's around it before shooting, seriously.

OmegaXI:

Vegosiux:

Just don't assume only the rest of the world would get the short end of the stick. After all, cut ties with other nations and there's no more cheap job outsorcing - and while returning jobs home in times of crisis would be a good thing, prices would go up, and with a lot of the population already on the last notch of their belts, that wouldn't go down all too well.

China, Russia, USA, EU, doesn't matter, one of them vanishes from the global economic stage and there's going to be a clusterfuck. And whichever it is, they're not only screwing everbody else over, but themselves as well.

How would withdrawing from NATO military Alliance effect trade treaties? There is no clause saying that strong trade relations is only gained if there is a Military Alliance before hand. As was stated in a post above the United States has trade treaties and relations with China and India but there is no military alliance with those countries that requires the USA to pay a large majority of the funds required to support the Alliance. If I am wrong please provide the source of the treaty and clause stating as such and I will admit I was incorrect and my information was false.

There's a difference between "withdrawing" and "breaking." In the situation we are talking about America is breaking not just their NATO commiments but also any deals they had with each individual country. So by breaking alliances (because what you are proposing is a breaking of all alliances, not just withdrawing from NATO) you're giving the rest of the world very good reasons to doubt that you will uphold any other deals you offer in the future.

Shaoken:

Just because the current world economy heavily relies on America doesn't mean the rest of the world is just going to take any abuse the US puts up with. If America makes a deal with someone then breaks it that's not going to encourage other nations to take America's word at face value, so they're either going to make more deals with China (who is in a position where America can't afford to break their word because of how much they are dependent on China and vice versa) or get more from America up front so that if/when America breaks their word again they're better off.

This isn't an instant "American broke it's word once let's all ditch it", it's a "well we would have agreed to your terms before, but seeing as you broke your deal with David over there we want this from the deal with this much up front." Long term America would end up paying for it.

As New Zealand broke it's word with America to let US military ships into port, but then stated any ship that has nuclear materials-reactors or weapons would not be permitted to enter New Zealand ports to anchor. The Treaty can be legally withdrawn from with future notice given.

It would only be considered breaking America's word if a nation we were in a current defensive treaty or military Alliance with was Attacked and we then chose to do nothing. Both treaties NATO and ANZUS have a clause that permits an party to withdraw from the treaty as long as future acknowledgement was given. You claim the Americans would end up paying for it, but let me ask you this; did France pay for their withdrawal from NATO in 1958 did New Zealand pay for effectively barring many American capital ships with any type of nuclear material (reactor or missiles) from entering their harbors in 1985? The answer is no they did not, the United States Respected their choice of changing their paths but continued to have friendly diplomatic and trade relations with them. So why hold Americans to a different standard than anyone else? People want the USA to treat them as equals yet the USA is held to a different standard, and I ask you why?

People continually state that they are tired of America being the world's policeman and that America sticks its nose in places where it doesn't belong, the first step for so many of you to get what you want is for the USA to withdraw from these defense treaties then all the USA has to worry about is the USA. Its like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I'm not saying this to be rude or confrontational I'm stating it because this is the way things are.

OmegaXI:
As New Zealand broke it's word with America to let US military ships into port, but then stated any ship that has nuclear materials-reactors or weapons would not be permitted to enter New Zealand ports to anchor. The Treaty can be legally withdrawn from with future notice given.

Yet despite all that America and New Zealand never pulled out of ANZUS; the Americans just suspended their obligations to it.

It would only be considered breaking America's word if a nation we were in a current defensive treaty or military Alliance with was Attacked and we then chose to do nothing. Both treaties NATO and ANZUS have a clause that permits an party to withdraw from the treaty as long as future acknowledgement was given. You claim the Americans would end up paying for it, but let me ask you this; did France pay for their withdrawal from NATO in 1958 did New Zealand pay for effectively barring many American capital ships with any type of nuclear material (reactor or missiles) from entering their harbors in 1985? The answer is no they did not, the United States Respected their choice of changing their paths but continued to have friendly diplomatic and trade relations with them. So why hold Americans to a different standard than anyone else? People want the USA to treat them as equals yet the USA is held to a different standard, and I ask you why?[/quote]

You say New Zealand didn't pay but in fact they did; Relations between New Zealand and the United States weren't that great and America refused to sign any Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand as long as their anti-nuclear policies prevented US warships from entering docks, so in short America did make New Zealand pay for it's actions. And nobody withdrew from ANZUS; the US simply suspended it's commitments to New Zealand.

So really you've done nothing by prove my point; New Zealand went and broke their word to the US about the use of their ports, and as a result the US has refused time and again to open up any Free Trade Agreement over that issue.

Shaoken:
Yet despite all that America and New Zealand never pulled out of ANZUS; the Americans just suspended their obligations to it.

You say New Zealand didn't pay but in fact they did; Relations between New Zealand and the United States weren't that great and America refused to sign any Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand as long as their anti-nuclear policies prevented US warships from entering docks, so in short America did make New Zealand pay for it's actions. And nobody withdrew from ANZUS; the US simply suspended it's commitments to New Zealand.

So really you've done nothing by prove my point; New Zealand went and broke their word to the US about the use of their ports, and as a result the US has refused time and again to open up any Free Trade Agreement over that issue.

New Zealand was declared a friend and not an ally and other countries the USA has alliances with it does not have free trade with such as the EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others. Why must the USA spend money to be an ally when it can just be a friend and conduct trade relations ? And why should anyone hold the USA to a different standard than any other country?

OmegaXI:

Shaoken:
Yet despite all that America and New Zealand never pulled out of ANZUS; the Americans just suspended their obligations to it.

You say New Zealand didn't pay but in fact they did; Relations between New Zealand and the United States weren't that great and America refused to sign any Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand as long as their anti-nuclear policies prevented US warships from entering docks, so in short America did make New Zealand pay for it's actions. And nobody withdrew from ANZUS; the US simply suspended it's commitments to New Zealand.

So really you've done nothing by prove my point; New Zealand went and broke their word to the US about the use of their ports, and as a result the US has refused time and again to open up any Free Trade Agreement over that issue.

New Zealand was declared a friend and not an ally and other countries the USA has alliances with it does not have free trade with such as the EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others. Why must the USA spend money to be an ally when it can just be a friend and conduct trade relations ? And why should anyone hold the USA to a different standard than any other country?

How is it a different standard? New Zealand is all for a Free Trade Agreement with the US and the US response was "we would, but not while you're keeping our ships out of your ports." So again, New Zealand didn't live up to their word in their relationship with the US and the US is holding that against New Zealand when it comes to something New Zealand really wants.

It seems like you're arguing some entirely different point that hte rest of us here.

Well this thread took a turn for the---- Nevermind, it's actually on topic. Alright, Omega. France has been shy of just about every single thing ever, and them withdrawing from NATO when it seemed like Russian and American relations were stumbling seems to be reasonable considering that they were still rebuilding after world war two.

New Zealand withdrew from letting the U.S dock it's nuclear naval vessels and in return the U.S cut them off from sweet trading deals, seems as if this kind of stuff comes back to bite you, hard.

Except America wouldn't be looking at one part of the list and thinking "Yea, my people wouldn't like that" They'd be throwing the 'entire' list itself, the idea of these agreements, into a fire.

You don't think there would be 'any' repercussions whatsoever? And that if there were it'd be people holding America to some 'higher standard' No, if there were severe repercussions over this, the fact that other nations still rely on them would probably make sure that they wouldn't face enough repercussions to justify the trust they broke. America effectively ruled over dozens of nations foreign policies for decades in return for a plausible aid in defense should it ever come to war, said countries changed their foreign policies, their militaries (U.S forced many EU nations to adopt Drafting, A move not popular with many peoples. They only enforced that during the Cold-War but people don't forget 'that' quickly.), and allowed America's presence in the form of Military bases. And in return for all this trust, change, string-pulling. All of that, and the Europeans coming the America's aid in neigh-every war since. And you suggest all those nations gets nothing but betrayal of trust?

And you think facing any negative outcome from that would be holding the U.S to a higher standard?

'Merican u crazeh.

Nikolaz72:
Well this thread took a turn for the---- Nevermind, it's actually on topic. Alright, Omega. France has been shy of just about every single thing ever, and them withdrawing from NATO when it seemed like Russian and American relations were stumbling seems to be reasonable considering that they were still rebuilding after world war two.

New Zealand withdrew from letting the U.S dock it's nuclear naval vessels and in return the U.S cut them off from sweet trading deals, seems as if this kind of stuff comes back to bite you, hard.

Except America wouldn't be looking at one part of the list and thinking "Yea, my people wouldn't like that" They'd be throwing the 'entire' list itself, the idea of these agreements, into a fire.

You don't think there would be 'any' repercussions whatsoever? And that if there were it'd be people holding America to some 'higher standard' No, if there were severe repercussions over this, the fact that other nations still rely on them would probably make sure that they wouldn't face enough repercussions to justify the trust they broke. America effectively ruled over dozens of nations foreign policies for decades in return for a plausible aid in defense should it ever come to war, said countries changed their foreign policies, their militaries (U.S forced many EU nations to adopt Drafting, A move not popular with many peoples. They only enforced that during the Cold-War but people don't forget 'that' quickly.), and allowed America's presence in the form of Military bases. And in return for all this trust, change, string-pulling. You suggest all those nations gets nothing but betrayal.

And you think facing any negative outcome for that would be holding the U.S to a higher standard?

'Merican u crazeh.

You bring up some very good points and I thank you for giving me additional and new perspectives.

The EU has not one but two permanent UN security council seats, yet for the defense treaty with NATO the EU who is large in in economy and populations contributes less than 30% (as of 2011) to the Organization where as the USA contributes nearly 69-70% (as of 2011). Why does the EU provide so much less ? Why not make it 50/50 split? Further more what aid could the US expect from the EU in the event the US was invade or its back was against the wall? The EU needs to take care of itself as the US needs to take care of itself, a military alliance is not needed for that. The EU and the US can be friends but not allies. The US would not need to pay for nearly 70% of the Alliance and the EU could take care of its own defenses rather than requiring American Support. The EU is a world power with 2 UN security council permanent seats so why must the US pay so much of the bill for that Alliance. Why is the Alliance even needed? Can we not just trade? why must Americans have a military Alliance with the EU in the post cold war era?

You can take care of your own as we can take care of our own. Friends not Allies.

While a decline in dependency on foreign oil will certainly effect US relations with many countries--especially those we've only supported out of sheer necessity (a la Kissinger's Cold War chessboard, for example)--there are several factors which will mitigate any kind of "full pull out".

1) Homeland security begins abroad: Maintaining military bases in strategic locations around the world allows for US military build ups when necessary--this is why our primary base in Japan is vital to US military projection in Asia. We also need bases in the middle east, etc, for when situations go to hell in a hand basket. Having people on the ground abroad dealing with potential threats means we can often stop terrorist threats before they show up at our doorstep in the form of another 9/11 attack.

2) Contractual obligations with foreign countries: (tied with above) NATO was necessary against the USSR during the Cold War and it serves as an ongoing foundation for maintaining military and political teamwork (not the best choice of words, but I'm sleepy and about to go to bed--forgive me if I'm not wording this very well). If we just pulled out and circled our wagons at our borders then we'd have to "reinvent the wheel" the next time the US and NATO/EU powers need to work together to put out forest fires across the globe.

Humanitarian interests do matter and influence political decisions--including intervening to stop the latest acts of genocide here, there, or yonder. Somalia, anyone?

Also there's the US/Israel alliance. The US isn't going to wave goodbye and say "good luck" to Israel and take all our toys home.

3) ....

I had a couple of more points but I'm drawing a blank. Sorry, but it's time to head to bed. I hope what I wrote here makes sense. I'll try to clarify things tomorrow after I've gotten some shut eye if anyone wishes.

G'nite. :)

OmegaXI:

Nikolaz72:
Snip

You bring up some very good points and I thank you for giving me additional and new perspectives.

The EU has not one but two permanent UN security council seats, yet for the defense treaty with NATO the EU who is large in in economy and populations contributes less than 30% (as of 2011) to the Organization where as the USA contributes nearly 69-70% (as of 2011). Why does the EU provide so much less ? Why not make it 50/50 split?

You can take care of your own as we can take care of our own. Friends not Allies.

EU is not like the U.S, 'our' two U.N council seats rarely agree with each-other on much of anything. And 95% of the countries don't 'have' a seat on that council. What does the council seats even matter when the largest nations just invades whomever they want willy-nilly regardless of what that council says?

The simple reason the U.S spends more is that it has an over-bloated military depending on those military bases, the Alliance wouldn't necessarily be void without those, but the EU would certainly pay 50% if the U.S just, chose to pay less to match. The various European armies aren't undersized or under-budget, the U.S is just too big, too damn big.

Cut the unnecessary fat off and the EU 'would' be paying 50%. Probably more.

Being said, in my opinion we should pay more so that the U.S can pay less. But it's harder to get your people to agree to pay more than it is to agree to make them pay less.

OmegaXI:

You bring up some very good points and I thank you for giving me additional and new perspectives.

Further more what aid could the US expect from the EU in the event the US was invade or its back was against the wall? The EU needs to take care of itself as the US needs to take care of itself, a military alliance is not needed for that. The EU and the US can be friends but not allies. The US would not need to pay for nearly 70% of the Alliance and the EU could take care of its own defenses rather than requiring American Support. The EU is a world power with 2 UN security council permanent seats so why must the US pay so much of the bill for that Alliance. Why is the Alliance even needed? Can we not just trade? why must Americans have a military Alliance with the EU in the post cold war era?

You can take care of your own as we can take care of our own. Friends not Allies.

U.S invasion that gets its back against the wall? Let me tell you bluntly, if that ever happens the world is fucked up. But the west would be fucked up aswell, because in the event EU didn't get attacked first (Which is unlikely due to our position) all of our militaries would be sent to the states. Well, youknow... Unless they cancelled our alliance in hopes of saving a buck.

The EU Isn't a country, again. I explained last paragraph.

The world Isn't designed like that, America can't just take everything they want from an agreement and then pull out. That would essentially be enough reason to not trust them in trading agreements, it would be 'possible' but as said before. It'd be far less lucrative than just sticking with the Alliance and spending less on the military.

@ Nikolaz72
@ Copper Zen
and
@Shaoken

I am heading to bed myself I thank you for the frank yet civil discussion I look forward to continuing it another day take care and good night

Vegosiux:
Just don't assume only the rest of the world would get the short end of the stick. After all, cut ties with other nations and there's no more cheap job outsorcing, no more cheap imports - and while returning jobs home in times of crisis would be a good thing, prices would go up, and with a lot of the population already on the last notch of their belts, that wouldn't go down all too well.

China, Russia, USA, EU, doesn't matter, one of them vanishes from the global economic stage and there's going to be a clusterfuck. And whichever it is, they're not only screwing everbody else over, but themselves as well.

Let me first say that I don't disagree with your first paragraph at all, however I do completely disagree with your second and think the only country that has the man power to step up would be China. I don't think that EU would even have a remote chance of stepping into the US' place. However, this would be as if we deleted the US from existence, and thus I think with the relationships within the European block would probably have enough diversity to step up and be mostly self sustaining but in all would take the entire rest of the world to not have a global economy completely implode, but at this very moment in time I do not think it would happen and I think a global economic meltdown would occur, mostly because any type of credit would evaporate with the US. I do agree that if the US suddenly took a complete isolationist approach that it also would nearly completely implode, either that or it would really re-balance the US and force it to use it's own resources which there is an abundance of, completely capable of sustaining the country without external energy resources.

Shaoken:
Just because the current world economy heavily relies on America doesn't mean the rest of the world is just going to take any abuse the US puts up with. If America makes a deal with someone then breaks it that's not going to encourage other nations to take America's word at face value, so they're either going to make more deals with China (who is in a position where America can't afford to break their word because of how much they are dependent on China and vice versa) or get more from America up front so that if/when America breaks their word again they're better off.

This isn't an instant "American broke it's word once let's all ditch it", it's a "well we would have agreed to your terms before, but seeing as you broke your deal with David over there we want this from the deal with this much up front." Long term America would end up paying for it.

In dealing with your first paragraph, the US has pretty much fucked over every other nation we've dealt with in one way or another, it just depends on who you ask and generally how wealthy they are. Diplomatic relations and the way trade is handled is first a political question, then an economic one. It's the constituency of the politicians (READ: Corporations with money) which dictate how the US deals with other countries, so to say that other governments are 'not going to take it' means that the constituency of the trade country has more clout and leverage than the moneys coming into that country from the US. In just about all cases, the US generally dictates, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

Personally, beyond a more isolationist approach, a first world alliance would be the best overall approach and would force consistency on all fronts if there was the group of first world nations that offered trade and a black list; you can either trade with all the first world, or you can be on the black list and trade with just those other entities and states on the black list. It would be highly advantageous on all fronts for countries to agree to 'first world' rules and if they were caught conducting trade with countries on the black list (say like Iran in today's current climate), would then be singled out as an economic pariah and the country forced to adhere to not trading with nations that terrorize or support terrorism, or in specific cases of companies, that company would be disassembled and sold off to it's competitors.

I also want to make clear that this alternative method is very unilateral and authoritarian, and personally it doesn't bother me as it would put pressure on multiple fronts for the companies and politicians within outside countries to be honest, not deal with or fund terrorism, and make the first world much safer. This would apply in every possible way from transportation to food/economic aid to everything. You're either with us as an economic/geopolitical ally or you aren't, and if you aren't you get no benefits from the civilized societies who adhere to the rules. I want to make clear that the last paragraph I wrote is completely ideological, irrational and nearly impossible, but I still think it would create what is needed to bring so many 3rd world countries up to the first world. I also would not want a single currency and would be fine with a global economy of "us and them."

OmegaXI:
If something where to go horrible wrong in global politics they are not prepared to do anything without American support, this isn't good for the Europeans and it isn't good for the Americans.

I disagree. Firstly, the US enjoys total military dominance. Things would be different if the EU had more weight to throw around. Not in the sense that it'd directly threaten the US, but in the sense that the US doesn't get to determine which third world country gets terrorised anymore. If the EU can start invading nations without US involvement, it's going to be a big shift for US foreign policy.

Secondly, there's not much point in any individual EU nation spending that much on its military. The US military is always going to be way, way bigger. A nation that spends as much of their GDP on their military as the US is still very much the junior partner.

Having said that, if the EU federalises, collectively the EU might be able to get the strength to compare to the US. Again, not to threaten it directly, but to be considered an equal.

Nikolaz72:
[snip]

I think this is just coincidence.

Whilst the US can be oil independent it still needs Middle Eastern oil. If for no other reason, because it keeps the global price of oil down. Of course, I guess the USA could go protectionist and decouple its oil from the global market, but that probably wouldn't go down well politically at home.

The US meanwhile is pulling out of the Middle East because there's precious little for them to do there - it's not like there are (currently) any conflicts seriously damaging their interests. There are just a few civil wars in oil poor countries, and the worst days of international Islamic terrorism seem years past.

I for one have been for years behind the U.S. becoming more isolationist.

I understand we are a global economy, and our economy is based in an international market. However, I want us to stop intervening, and I want us to stop getting tangled up in foreign alliances that aren't economic in nature.

Economic alliances are one thing, but political and military alliances are something quite different. While I am not happy with the state of the world and would like to change it, I would also like to see the U.S. 'take care of its own house' before trying to clean up other peoples.

I am also very tired of being the imperialist boogeyman. Since the U.S. can do only wrong to a large chunk of the rest of the world, I believe we should simply stop doing to the rest of the world.

IF we intervene somewhere, we're imperialist bastards only trying to extend our influence over oil. If we don't, we're ignoring the plight of poor people.

This does not necessarily mean cutting off economic aid to countries with good relations to us. Some countries are quite grateful for what we give them. But acknowledging that a chunk of the world hates us so they can screw off, if they don't want us around we won't be around, seems fair to me.

I am especially tired of the sons and daughters of the European nations telling me I am a facist, a homophobe, a racist, an imperialist. So I would rather we back out of european politics, and all other foreign politics as much as we can, and focus on fixing the system within the U.S. from its current broken state.

And if exporting oil allows us to move towards that, then I'm all for it.

Bentusi16:

Economic alliances are one thing, but political and military alliances are something quite different. While I am not happy with the state of the world and would like to change it, I would also like to see the U.S. 'take care of its own house' before trying to clean up other peoples.

Would help to overhaul your political system a bit then. It's not a matter as simple as just reallocating them dollars.

I am especially tired of the sons and daughters of the European nations telling me I am a facist, a homophobe, a racist, an imperialist. So I would rather we back out of european politics, and all other foreign politics as much as we can, and focus on fixing the system within the U.S. from its current broken state.

Say, how many Europeans have actually told you that? Since you're talking about yourself personally, that's what I mean with "you" here as well.

Oh and I know it's crazy, but it's possible that the people damning you if you do are not the same as the ones damning you if you don't...

thaluikhain:

OmegaXI:
If something where to go horrible wrong in global politics they are not prepared to do anything without American support, this isn't good for the Europeans and it isn't good for the Americans.

I disagree. Firstly, the US enjoys total military dominance. Things would be different if the EU had more weight to throw around. Not in the sense that it'd directly threaten the US, but in the sense that the US doesn't get to determine which third world country gets terrorised anymore. If the EU can start invading nations without US involvement, it's going to be a big shift for US foreign policy.

Fairly certain the EU CAN, but pragmatically it's far too expensive.

Oh my, does this mean we can join OPEC now?

All fat chances aside, this is certainly be a big impact on US Foreign Policy. I do not foresee us leaving the Middle East entirely, but we will probably have a massive draw down due to this and our direct involvement in Afghanistan coming to a close. I however do not see our military getting any significant cuts as a whole. Our military focus has been shifting to East Asia for quite some time, and I see this development only accelerating that. Seeing as East Asia is our foreign center of manufacturing we will probably continue to have a powerful naval presence there for years to come, in addition to more overseas Air Bases. We also have our allies in Asia to think about, with a rising China(with whatever that may entail) they will not only want a US presence, they will need one.

As for the US becoming more Isolationist, I do not see that happening. As long as we have vital economic interests overseas we will always be an ever present force on the world stage.

This does raise personal concerns with our long term energy plans, I have always been a proponent of the US shifting to Nuclear and Green Energies, and I see this development as something that will definitely see that being set back for quite some time.

Talking crude only: Current projection are requiring 4 million bpd at least into 2020's so it's possible by 2030 providing demand drops at a steady pace though our internals have it as not very likely. Projections are also the US overtaking Saudi Arabia in terms of crude production sometime around 2018 and remaining there for at least 5 years before SA take the top spot again.

Finished oil products: The US has been a net exporter since 2011 anyway.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked