Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
Part of the problem methinks is that in their view, our desire to control "the planetary energy supply" steps hard on their collective individual liberty.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they think we're using, rather, squandering the wealth beneath their sand on frivolous luxury and hijinks. And because of our lust for the stuff, we have a habit of supporting tyrannical despots who are easily bought.
Imagine if they considered that we in the US controlled the planetary wheat supply and behaved as though they had say so over the disposition of same.
|
I imagine more folks in the west are concerned about "squandering" then the owners of the oil. All of the tinpot dictators and kings serve our purposes or they don't. As long as they don't f**k with the oil supply we tolerate them. Step out of line and it's a new relationship.
This is what we call, 'statecraft." Is it moral? I think that is what you are arguing about. Good question. If it is immoral for our country to behave as it does then that means it is immoral for us as individuals to support it and also immoral for us as individuals to put the gov in a position that it behaves as it does.
So if we have a moral problem with the current model we should each one of us individually, act NOW to reduce our use of petroleum products. Failing to do so is immoral. Waiting for the gov to issue an edict forcing national compliance is simply cowardice--blaming our failure on somebody else.
Bot