Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Strengthen ties with Brazil?

twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:25:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm looking for some feedback from DDO members. With the rise of Petrobras, the new number 3 oil producer in the world, and the seemingly perpetual U.S. dependency on foreign oil, does it make sense to strenthen ties with Brazil in hopes of forming a better partnership and purchasing oil at lower prices than OPEC?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:27:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Strengthen ties
That's not a policy, that's **** spewing out of a diplomat's mouth. Try again asking if a policy makes sense.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:37:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:34:52 AM, twsurber wrote:
rephrase: Pros and Cons of strengthening ties with Brazil
fail.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:41:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:37:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:34:52 AM, twsurber wrote:
rephrase: Pros and Cons of strengthening ties with Brazil
fail.

I agree, but why you feel we shouldn't?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:42:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:41:38 AM, twsurber wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:37:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:34:52 AM, twsurber wrote:
rephrase: Pros and Cons of strengthening ties with Brazil
fail.

I agree, but why you feel we shouldn't?

You missed the point. It's not a policy that should or shouldn't happen. You haven't suggested anything that MEANS anything.

So, start MEANING something.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:43:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Like, for example, are you asking if we should tie a rope from Florida to some northern port in Brazil?
No, it's expensive and useless. Or what?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:45:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:43:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Like, for example, are you asking if we should tie a rope from Florida to some northern port in Brazil?
No, it's expensive and useless. Or what?
More precisely from Washington D.C. to Brazília.

He means strengthen political ties. There is little to misunderstand.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:47:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:45:55 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:43:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Like, for example, are you asking if we should tie a rope from Florida to some northern port in Brazil?
No, it's expensive and useless. Or what?
More precisely from Washington D.C. to Brazília.

He means strengthen political ties. There is little to misunderstand.

That doesn't solve the problem Mirza.

"Should we have more money?" It seems obvious yes, but that is NOT A POLICY. You don't just wave a magic fairy wand and get more money or stronger political ties. To figure out the pros or cons, one needs to know the proposed policy to figuratively strengthen these figurative ties.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:49:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:47:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:45:55 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:43:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Like, for example, are you asking if we should tie a rope from Florida to some northern port in Brazil?
No, it's expensive and useless. Or what?
More precisely from Washington D.C. to Brazília.

He means strengthen political ties. There is little to misunderstand.

That doesn't solve the problem Mirza.

"Should we have more money?" It seems obvious yes, but that is NOT A POLICY. You don't just wave a magic fairy wand and get more money or stronger political ties. To figure out the pros or cons, one needs to know the proposed policy to figuratively strengthen these figurative ties.
Yes, but what he asks if whether or not the relations between the U.S. and Brazil should improve or not, for the sake of oil prices being lowered. That is what he refers to.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:51:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:49:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:47:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:45:55 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:43:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Like, for example, are you asking if we should tie a rope from Florida to some northern port in Brazil?
No, it's expensive and useless. Or what?
More precisely from Washington D.C. to Brazília.

He means strengthen political ties. There is little to misunderstand.

That doesn't solve the problem Mirza.

"Should we have more money?" It seems obvious yes, but that is NOT A POLICY. You don't just wave a magic fairy wand and get more money or stronger political ties. To figure out the pros or cons, one needs to know the proposed policy to figuratively strengthen these figurative ties.
Yes, but what he asks if whether or not the relations between the U.S. and Brazil should improve or not, for the sake of oil prices being lowered. That is what he refers to.

THAT DOESNT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THAT IS NOT A POLICY. It might be a goal, but it's not a POLICY for getting there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:56:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:51:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
THAT DOESNT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THAT IS NOT A POLICY. It might be a goal, but it's not a POLICY for getting there.
He asked, ". . . does it make sense to strenthen ties with Brazil in hopes of forming a better partnership and purchasing oil at lower prices than OPEC?"

His question is not about finding a solution already. He wants to know whether or not the U.S. should even lead any policies to strengthen the ties with Brazil. It is not about "what" it should do but "should it" do it at all.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 12:10:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to Canada.

Furthermore, look to nuclear energy as an energy source, not oil, or gas, or any fuel which going to run out. Uranium will run out, but not for a long, long time, and by then we'll have Nuclear Fusion Nuclear Stations running on the infinite Deuterium.

So, no.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 12:57:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's actually more complicated than simply saying they have oil, let's be buddies. That region is interesting, and Brazil is a major player with the Chavez component. Add to that their elections are in about a week, and Lula (their current leader) cannot run again because of their constitution. Actually Volkov is really up on this stuff, but there are two possibilities, one that goes toward Chavez, and one that goes toward the US. In any case Brazil is too big to be led by Chavez, but influenced yes.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:30:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 12:10:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to Canada.

Lol, what? We import more oil than we use from our oil sands.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:32:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:30:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/30/2010 12:10:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to Canada.

Lol, what? We import more oil than we use from our oil sands.

I think he meant Canada is the biggest exporter to the US.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 6:38:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:56:47 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:51:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
THAT DOESNT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THAT IS NOT A POLICY. It might be a goal, but it's not a POLICY for getting there.
He asked, ". . . does it make sense to strenthen ties with Brazil in hopes of forming a better partnership and purchasing oil at lower prices than OPEC?"

His question is not about finding a solution already. He wants to know whether or not the U.S. should even lead any policies to strengthen the ties with Brazil. It is not about "what" it should do but "should it" do it at all.

It's still vacuous. The value of people liking you, if it were free, is difficult to dispute, at least on a whether basis (how much is of course disputable). the only place for a real dispute is if you have a policy on the table that has genuine costs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 12:46:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 6:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:56:47 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:51:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
THAT DOESNT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THAT IS NOT A POLICY. It might be a goal, but it's not a POLICY for getting there.
He asked, ". . . does it make sense to strenthen ties with Brazil in hopes of forming a better partnership and purchasing oil at lower prices than OPEC?"

His question is not about finding a solution already. He wants to know whether or not the U.S. should even lead any policies to strengthen the ties with Brazil. It is not about "what" it should do but "should it" do it at all.

It's still vacuous. The value of people liking you, if it were free, is difficult to dispute, at least on a whether basis (how much is of course disputable). the only place for a real dispute is if you have a policy on the table that has genuine costs.
Good, but tell that to OP because I did not make any pro/con claims.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:33:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:30:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/30/2010 12:10:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to Canada.

Lol, what? We import more oil than we use from our oil sands.

To America. lol.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.