Trump’s Energy Plan, Same as Dick Cheney’s. Take the Oil.

September 9, 2016

Bumper sticker  foreign/energy policy.

Washington Post:

“To ‘take the oil’ would require the United States to occupy Iraq.  We tried that after 2003 with something approaching 200,000 troops and it did not work,” said Andrew Bacevich, a retired colonel and professor of history and international relations at Boston University.  “What would effective occupation actually require?  A minimum of a half-million troops, perhaps more.”

Bacevich added, “Presumably, Trump would have them stay until the oil runs out, which would entail an occupation running into decades. The total cost?  Probably more than the value of the oil itself.  The whole idea is beyond goofy.”

The troops tasked with taking the oil would also be in even greater danger than before because the seizure of the oil could ignite broader opposition across all Iraqi political groups.

“You could probably secure the area if you’re willing to have a forever war and 19-year-old Americans sniped at by Iraqis,” said Ollivant,  a former National Security Council director on Iraq for Presidents Bush and Obama.

 

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Trump’s Energy Plan, Same as Dick Cheney’s. Take the Oil.”

  1. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    Trump is to politics what pigeons are to chess.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    In addition to being the political equivalent of a chess-playing pigeon, Trump is also a “post turtle.”

    When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post turtle .You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb asses put him up there to begin with

    That’s an old Texas thing, and Trump also fits the “All Hat, No Cattle” label that Texans also use.


  3. It is worth noting H Clinton’s ties to the oil industry…. her pac has received more than 7m in donations… she will dance with “the one that brung her”.. climate change be damned …. this election cycle is insane.

    • indy222 Says:

      Gilens and Page (2014). Yes, Doesn’t matter Republican or Democrat; in Presidency, or Congress or Supreme Court. Regardless, 20 years, 2000 bills of legislation, in an environment of all of the above show that there is ZERO correlation between what the average voter wants and what laws get enacted, while the correlation coefficient for the Economic Elites (GP’s designation for this cohort), is almost perfect: 0.78. Look it up and read it if you haven’t already. It’s all a charade. Bread and circuses for the masses. We don’t have a democracy. We’ll continue on the path to Hell and the ones my heart breaks for, are the innocents not yet born. For us? We deserve what we get. We installed and supported this lunacy. Climate disaster is only one (the worst) consequence.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Well said. Don’t bother Louise with the FACTS—-she seems to be a bit of a motivated reasoner and knows what she WANTS to believe.

        Perhaps if she read Dark Money, Lies Incorporated, and Winner Take All Politics she might begin to understand.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Where did you get that $7 million figure from, Louise? Ir would appear to off by a factor of 10. Did you mean $700,000? From the WSJ (and we know how muvh they love Hillary)

      “A new report by The Wall Street Journal shows that Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pulling in far more money from the fossil fuel industry than her Republican opponent Donald Trump.

      “The report shows that, through July, Hillary Clinton has received almost three times as much campaign cash from fossil fuel employees than Trump, to the tune of about $525,000 compared to Trump’s $149,000. Her joint account with the Democratic National Committee has also received an additional $650,000 from fossil fuel executives and employees.

      “Clinton has also declared fracked natural gas a “bridge fuel” and she says that coal will play an important role in America’s energy future. The coal comments were made just a few months after she proposed a $30 billion investment to retrain coal workers to work in the renewable energy sector.

      “Her positions offer a clear picture as to why the dirty energy industry may favor her, but those positions are still far more dangerous to the industry than those of Donald Trump.

      “After all, unlike Clinton, Trump still claims that climate change is a hoax, and he has made it clear that drilling and fracking and coal extraction will be increased under a Trump administration.

      “So if her opponent is friendlier to the fossil fuel industry, why the sudden shift from GOP to Democrats in campaign spending?

      “The answer could have more to do with electability than with policy. The fossil fuel industry has fared exceptionally well under the Obama administration, and the policies are not likely to change under a Clinton administration, so the industry could possibly assume that Clinton’s higher poll numbers give them a better chance of having a friend in the White House.

      “Still, this move to the Democratic presidential nominee is unprecedented, as The Hill points out:

      “Since 1989, about 60 percent of the $500 million the industry spent on U.S. elections has gone to the GOP and its candidates, according to the CRP data provided to the Journal.

      **** “And so far in the 2016 cycle, oil and gas executives and employees have spent some 90 percent of their $71 million in campaign contributions on Republicans — those not named Trump — according to the Journal.

      “The interesting thing to note is that the Democratic Party is not favored over the Republican Party, in general — just with the Presidential candidates. House and Senate Republicans are still receiving the majority of oil and gas industry contributions.

      **** “As it stands right now, fossil fuel money is going to Republicans over Democrats by a rate of almost 9 to 1. And since we know that Clinton leads Trump, the rest of this money is going to down-ballot candidates.

      “So if the industry is certain of a Clinton victory — if that is the reason they are favoring her — then they must also feel certain that the Republican Party will retain control of both the House and Senate, since that’s where their money is going.

      “Studies have shown that individuals and companies that donate money to candidates are more likely to get private meetings with the politician once they get elected and that they are more likely to benefit from legislation sponsored by that politician.

      **** “If this trend holds, then America can expect a future dominated by further fossil fuel pollution of our democracy, health and the climate.

      (pay special attention to the ones marked ****)

      A parting question—-why do you hate Hillary so much? Are you transgender and now an misogynistic old white guy?


  4. I think I’ll take Trumps property assets. They are my assets in another country after all!


  5. EV and plug-in hybrid sales are doubling every 18 months. They’re now about 1.5% of global car sales. At that rate of growth they will be 6% in 3 years, 24% in 6 and over 80% in 9. As sales approach 100%, the growth rate will slow. In the US it took just 14 years (1900 to 1914) for 99% of horse-drawn transport to be replaced by the petrol-driven car. And that was the whole stock of vehicles, not just new sales. Assuming an average life of 12 years for a car, 8% of the global fleet will be replaced each year. 80% of oil demand is for transport. This means that oil demand will start falling by some 5% per annum within a decade, and will halve over the subsequent decade. Right now, oil exploration is at 70 year lows, and some fields only have a 5 or 6 year life, so there isn’t much new supply. In fact, supply may contract as rapidly as demand from 2025 onwards.

    We probably won’t need Iraqi oil.

  6. ubrew12 Says:

    You people need to stop worrying about the cost of an oil occupation.
    Trump will get the Iraqi’s to pay for it, believe me.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: