Greetings,

Today I read a highly sophisticated analysis of Bundeswehr on the possible consequences of a global oil depletion crisis in near future and thought it might be of interest to FB readers.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

This is the part of report that pisses me off:

Peak oil would also have profound consequences for Berlin's posture toward the Middle East, according to the study. "A readjustment of Germany's Middle East policy … in favor of more intensive relations with producer countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have the largest conventional oil reserves in the region, might put a strain on German-Israeli relations, depending on the intensity of the policy change," the authors write.

Thus, I posted my oppsing comment in the related Facebook page here:

http://www.facebook.com/spiegelinternational

The report's suggetion to put aside politics in relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran for the sake of oil seems pathetic to me. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both among the worst abusers of human rights and neglecting the plight of these nations...  in order to secure cheap oil sounds too 3rd-reichian for a 'democratic' Germany. I think the report understimates the negotiating power of West in handling relations with oil-producing nations; the fact is that almost NO oil-producing country is capable of even 'exploring', leave alone exracting, their oil resources and all are dependent on the free world's big corporates. So, instead of pursuing a passive submission to the oppressive regime of Middle East, I suggest taking a brave, aggressive stand that will achieve two goals at the same time:

i) Securing the stream of oil to West
ii) Acting on the West's responsibilities towards promoting and protecting human rights and democratic rule
 
Regards

I would like to know what do FB reader think of the ongoing debate.

PL

Not necessarily. BTW, I realize your inherent opposition to 'bravery'.

Regards,

PL

Bravery means it's bad to succumb to Mullahs for the sake of securing oil, even when we all know they're going to make nukes, as those German 'experts' have suggested. It also means not bowing to Saudi king to appease the 'Muslim' world.

I hope I helped you out to grasp a minimalistic understanding of 'bravery'. I'm not interested in continuing this 'debate' though.

PL

Because I know Zorba's interested in anything but a 'debate' in its true meaning.

PL

PL, apparently you described what you see as cowardry. I asked what kind of bravery you had in mind. It's indeed hard to have a good debate if you can't even explain your own viewpoint...

Well, since I'm not into debating with queers, I leave Rick's inflammatory remarks ucommented as they're not even worth reading. I just ask the admins to see which idiot is starting flame wars.

But Zorba, I just pointed out that by bravery I mean not succumbing to despotic rulers such as Mullahs or Saudis for the sake of oil. In other words, not to sacrifice your human obligations in promoting democracy and human rights just to secure an oil stream for your economy. I don't know why you can't grasp the idea though.

Regards,

PL

give a man enough rope...

Oh dear - PL is an even bigger *rick than I thought on my first ever contact with him.

He seems to think that 'the West' should be promoting democracy like some religious crusade, and that democarcy is somehow tied to freedom!  Democracy is a form of political government, like many other forms and is, itself, riddled with problems. I do not see it as the West's right to impose it's preferred form of government upon other sovereign nations.

I also don't see the West as having a right to the oil under the ground of the oil-rich nations.  If the West believes so much in supply and demand and a free economy, then surely the inevitable outcome of that is that the oil-rich nations can charge what they want for their assets.

Let's face it, the West appeased the Kuwaiti regime by interjecting because of oil - I believe the second Gulf war was almost entirely undertaken for the black gold.

As for human rights - isn't it everyone's basic human right to be 'queer' or express their sexuality in any way they wish, so long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else?

PLcontaradicts his own arguments so many times that I think he should accet ridicule as his true human obligation.

So, instead of pursuing a passive submission to the oppressive regime of Middle East, I suggest taking a brave, aggressive stand that will achieve two goals at the same time:

i) Securing the stream of oil to West
ii) Acting on the West's responsibilities towards promoting and protecting human rights and democratic rule

So isn't taking an aggressive stand to ensure the stream of oil to the West an assumption that the West has a right to that oil?

Laugh My Bloody Ass Off.

I'll let the readers decide who the 'arsehole' is.