Biden Administration Approves Huge Alaska Oil Project

China is the largest foreign market for American agriculture. $35 billion. If any president tried to ban agricultural exports to China they would lose the support of both parties, and rightly so IMO. We buy stuff from China, they buy stuff from us. That’s the way it works.

If American farmers didn’t want their product going to China they would stop the practice, but they don’t. And those farmers aren’t so much a bunch of guys in coveralls with a 100 acres, as Big Ag run from cities, who know exactly who their markets are.

Food and oil are both vital commodities. Banning the selling of American oil to China makes as much sense as banning the selling of American food to China.

Another source of amusement for me: two years ago some of the right-wing media were complaining that the new administration were trying to start a war with China! Now some of these same outlets are complaining that the administration isn’t doing enough to prepare for a war with China!

Politics as usual. If another administration was in power this silliness would also occur.

Yes it is if because we’re talking about the future drilling in Alaska not what’s happening right now.

Speak for yourself

1 Like

As a true conservative, how about we let the folks investing their time and money in producing food and oil - sell that food and oil to the one willing to pay the most for it. And we keep the goverment out of interfering with this process.

Owning a small business doesn’t make you a capitalist.

Not with that attitude.

1 Like

So if Hitler were the high bidder for oil in 1937, we should have had convoys delivering him our production?

Not saying China is Hitler…yet…although the Uyghurs might disagree.

We’re not at war with China. And China is not at war with our allies.

Russia is at war with a friend of ours. And so we don’t sell to Russia.

And oddly enough, Russia allows Ukraine to export some things to the rest of the world, even though they could prevent it.

A complicated situation.

China is an ally of Russia, but in world politics one degree of separation doesn’t affect trade. In WW1 Holland was neutral and sold goods to both sides, so neither side attacked Holland.

Similar to our relationship to Nazi Germany in 1937.

Also oddly enough, oil exports from Alaska to China have crashed. Why? Because China is undercutting our sanctions on Russia by buying their cheap oil. Yeah, TOTALLY someone we should be trying to sell oil to.

Alaska’s pricey crude pushed out of China by Russian oil - Oil & Gas 360 (oilandgas360.com)

Once again you’re going down a blind alley of false reasoning.

For some reason you’ve equated China with Nazi Germany. Does that you mean you want to stop selling China oil (as if that were possible on a world oil market)? But we keep buying things from them, enriching their economy, giving them our money?

How does that help us “defeat them”?

Or do you want a total trade embargo between the nations?

Where is this line of reasoning taking you?

Sell at the best price you can get and buy whatever goods and products from whoever offer the best price, terms and condition for whatever you desire.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/

False. For review:

The quicker we come to the realization that china is NOT our friend, the better we’re going to be. YES, the goal should absolutely be to separate ourselves from them. It won’t be easy, it won’t be painless, it probably won’t be bloodless, but it needs to happen.

Well, then, I am sure you will agree that the administration did the right thing to have the Nimitz carrier strike group patrol the area to dissuade Chinese moves on Taiwan. Ditto the UK carrier strike group based on Queen Elizabeth which patrolled near Chinese waters during this administration. An amount of US/NATO firepower not seen in these waters since the 1996, when P42 sent in the USN in a massive display of force to dissuade China from any attempt to attack Taiwan.

In fact, I may be wrong, but I don’t recall any such of display of American/allied naval force arrayed near China between 1996 and now, do you?

And I’m sure you agree that it was a good thing for our vice president to meet with Taiwan’s vice president about defense, even though it pissed off China (and some members of the Opposition, who accused her of trying to start a war with China.) Pissed them off because no such high-level meeting had taken place before.

And I’m sure you’re happy with the present administration negotiating a deal to arm Australia with one of the most potent weapons known to man: nuclear submarines. Turning what is a very valiant and determined navy, though woefully outclassed, into a real threat against China.

And I’m sure you’ve watched with approval as this administration has not shouted and threatened and made silly nicknames for dictators (who he then professes to admire and love, and call them “genius” when they stab their neighbor in the back), but who instead goes to UK, France, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Germany to hammer out real defense deals and economic pacts to put China in a box.

This administration prevailed on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to turn its sights on the China Sea. Who ever did that before?

An administration who is approving or has approved a $4.5 billion dollars of arms for Taiwan. An arms deal slowed down only by the fact that we have to arm Ukraine against a legit power-hungry dictator who has invaded a peaceful European country (while increasing numbers of the Opposition call P46 a warmonger for defending Ukraine.)

There. I’m glad we have something we can agree on. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Only partially. I support separating from China, not provoking them into war over something like Taiwan. Are we prepared to send boots on the ground (and caskets on the return flights) and see our ships sunk in the defense of Taiwan? And after that first aircraft carrier is sunk, how far are willing to escalate? EMP strike? Tactical nukes? Everyone who supports this escalation better have thought about the endgame here.

I don’t support sending this vice president anywhere or tasking her with anything important.

I could support arming Australia on a zero cost to US taxpayer basis because our long history.

How can we have a “One China” policy (which includes Taiwan), then be willing to go to war when they try to implement that exact policy?

As far as Ukraine, it is admittedly a very tricky, fine line to maneuver. In general, I support how he’s handled it so far especially not sending M1 tanks or our fighter aircraft.

I support coordinating with NATO for security concerns as long as they are paying their share.

What does that mean? Each nation has a huge economic interest in the other. So what does "separation " mean?

Untangling that huge economic interest. Similar to exporting oil to our enemies, what’s in the economic interest isn’t always what’s in the national interest.

True.

@Capt_Phoenix:

is not the same as

For someone who likes to question others literacy and comprehension, this is not a good look for you bro.

Pretty vague. We sell food but not oil? Timber but not fish? Who decides who the winner and losers are on the American side?