Bush Foreign policy

[gbear]

So I'm sitting at home yesterday before heading out to the dentist for my checkup and the following thought hits me: Why aren't we trying to mediate in Venezuella?

Wouldn't a resolution on that front make our economy much stronger and wouldn't it help settle some of the economic fears that are currently plagueing our stock market as we contemplate war in Iraq. Seriously, we don't get a huge percentage of our oil from Iraq anyway, and I suspect much of our economic fears about the war stem from a fear of rising energy prices. If we could mediate a workable solution there, wouldn't it significantly reduce the potential costs of going to war in Iraq?

Anyway, I just bring this up becuase it doesn't seem to get much press lately, and it would seem to be where Bush should be spending some of his energy.

[Buford]

how much Oil is down there?

[Kilmer17]

We have sent envoys (is that the right word?) as well as political and economic advisors to assist. Theyve been there for months now.

In short, Bush IS trying to assist them. It's not as juicy as the IRaq/anti american field day the press wants to cover. Any lull is filled with Lacy Peterson news.
Venezuela just isnt sexy.

[fansince62]

gbear.....nice post........

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Bandit
how much Oil is down there?

I believe Venezuela is our second or third biggest foreign source of oil, after Saudi Arabia and maybe Mexico.

Venezuela was actually the country that started OPEC!

[Art]

I can't recall precisely, but I believe a huge portion of what we get is from South America and Venezuela. I'm not sure what Bush is or is not doing in this case. There's a general strike going on. There isn't a great deal of reported violence. I'm not sure one nation should be the mediator for another nation in the middle of a general strike.

If there was war and strife I would bet we would pick a side and help it win to return the oil flow though, so we would and do have an interest down there. But, since oil isn't the reason we're bothering with Iraq, it's likely oil worries are not what's driving Bush at the moment. Fear of more dead Americans probably is the driving force. But, only if you listen to what he says and not those who've created a conspiracy regarding the "real" reasons behind our interests.

[fansince62]

Art....I think gbear's idea was that market instability based upon war and energy concerns has caused increased risk discounting......and he wanted to know if the administration was looking at alternatives for abating some of the discounting that is presently moving the market....not a bad question.......I don't know either....

[gbear]

I know it's not sexy. But in the past, haven't we gotten more oil from there than from Iraq? I thought they were in our top 4 oil exporters.

It just seems like getting the oil flowing again would more than make up for any burning oil fields (atleast in terms of US consumption). I know it's a different story for Europe and Russia, and that might explain some of their reluctance to go to war in Iraq.

Isn't there more we can do? I'm not advocating any one of these without more research but scab workers? economic subsidies? sending our oil companies with favorable contracts perhaps subsidized by the fed? spending a third of the foreign political capital we are now spending on Iraq to getting other countries without a stake to mediate the dispute? What about just bailing out the government which has huge debts by increasing the price for the oil (I know that's what we were doing). Would it be worth a slight increase in the costs to have a steady supply if things go poorly in Iraq?

As for how much oil is there? According to ask jeeves, it's about 77 billion barrels. They accounted for about 17% of the oil imported here, though I believe that number is dated. I believe it was lower last year (strikes and other reasons).

[Buford]

you'd think after all this mess we'd really throw some serious resources into Alt. Energies.

How sweet would it be if the U.S. was 100% set on Energy because we produced all we need?

[Kilmer17]

Never happen. Moose have rights.

[Art]

I understand the question Al.

And again, we're talking about a general strike in that nation, not civil war. Though we clearly have an interest in what goes on, it's hard to fathom the U.S. being a major player in their general strike. I suspect we do have some diplomatic action going on there.

The President did announce that if necessary he would tap the reserves and that would only be necessary if the flow from South America doesn't pick up over the next year or so. Again, I don't know what's being done there or what's not.

[fansince62]

roger!!

[AJWatson3]

Originally posted by Bandit
you'd think after all this mess we'd really throw some serious resources into Alt. Energies.

How sweet would it be if the U.S. was 100% set on Energy because we produced all we need?

a novel idea, but the rich and powerful have to much to lose if this were to happen. maybe when the hippies and the environmentalists start pumping money into political campaigns something will actually be done.

bush did propose spending over a $billion on a hydrogen engine to power cars in his state of the union... but this could be as accurate as him saying he was in favor of the Kyoto treaty (campaign promise). he voted against it making us the only industrialized country in the world to stand against reducing emmisions.

[Kilmer17]

What a load of crap.

Do you know how many countries signed the Kyoto agreement?


One.

That would make about 300+ nations that joined us in not signing it.

And I'd love to see a link to where he promised to sign it.

[AJWatson3]

Glad to oblige:

http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html

If you go to the link, "List of Signatories & Ratification of the Convention ( Parties in chronological order (pdf) )", you will find a list of countries signing it. The number stands at 193.
Ratification passed by 188 of them... a few still left.

The next step is the actual signing of the Kyoto Protocol.
Under this link, "List of Signatories & Ratification to the Kyoto Protocol, Parties in alphabetical order (pdf)", you will find that 84 parties have signed and 105 have ratified it.

That's about 83 more than you suggest Kilmer, when looking at it in the strictest way possible. Your source is a bit outdated, but would be accurate if your post was made on November 3, 1998.

As far as the W is concerned I have searched thouroughly for documentation about his signing the treaty and it does not exist. If fact he had always pledged to take us off the list. He did make a campaign promise to impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions, but that was taken back in MAR 2001.
links to this @
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/welchb/...ush-kyoto.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarm...465515,00.html
article by a kid about it:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/ed...ush_kyoto.html