The alternative is to withdraw and let China become a dominant outside player in Middle East politics. They’d be fine w that, and we wouldn’t. Which means we’re really paying to maintain influence, not to subsidize china’s energy consumption, right?
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
#IHopeSomeoneHereHasBeatenMeToItBut Eh, "virtually" is an adjective that's doing a lot of the work. We're "self-sufficient" in the same way that someone drinking a 256 ounce "Yuge Glug"* on ice is self-sufficient: There's much dregs to be had at bottom, by breaking up the rocks. -
256 ounce "Yuge Glug" = Made that up, but won't be surprised if that's a thing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Bad take. The fact that oil-by-sea is vital to China (also Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc) means that US Navy holds enormous strategic leverage with both allies and rivals in Asia because it can both protect and interrupt this flow.
-
Also means it's easy to create an incident justifying violence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But America is an oil seller so high oil prices are in their interest.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Really? Imagine China controlling oil production.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.