Your response sort of begs the question ... why are we spending so much money and expending so much military might and so many lives, if Middle Eastern oil can be secured, "locked up" in your terms, via long term contracts? Which is the logical approach? The one you attribute to China, or what has been our own to date? And, has Rep. Paul made any indication at all that he would oppose it?
Not that I am aware. Many with libertarian leanings are naive about the world outside our borders, including those who seem to think this country and it's constitution could survive the free-for-all of unfettered immigration, legal or otherwise. You have a fair point in that. Contracts, however, international or otherwise are a legal and constitutional approach and would not be opposed.
Strange it certainly is, when China of all countries, would appear to be taking a more constitutional approach than the country to which that constitution belongs, wouldn't you say?
Ron Paul will never be asked that because this whole country has gone softie libertarian as far as seeing we get oil sent here. We used to manipulate and overthrow governments to see that this was done. All foreign oil used to be under contracts prior to 1973
No one here cares what I am saying. But I see the ChiComs being pro-active and doing what we used to do. Back when we were not infected by liberalism and behaved like a great power. Our oil majors coordinated with a patriotic State Department and CIA to see that we and our allies got oil from the Middle East as contracted. Today we depend on the beneficence of the free market but when supplies get tight or we have war then that mode of trade goes out the window
comprenez vous?