I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:05 am Post subject: when will the US "overtly" declare war on the worl
For argument's sake, let's assume that the likes of Michael Ruppert (FTW, Crossing the Rubicon) are correct, and that Afghanistan and Iraq are the opening moves in a sequential (and permanent) war to control the world's remaining energy reserves.
Given that, my question is .... when do we benefit? and how? and when do we take the heat? When do we get oil that never hits the open market. When do we say "F-you" to Europe, China, India and Russia and TAKE the oil we need?
Presumably, there will come a time when the US can't afford to buy oil on the open market. Is that the trigger point? I think so. Why build the military infrastructure around it if we could just buy it? If we were just re trying to keep another country from taking it, all it would take to provide security is a couple carrier groups parked in the Gulf. But instead we've got 16 permanent military bases in Iraq and a dozen in the "Stans".
So there must be a plan to divert oil from the markets to the US at some point. And when that happens, we will basically have declared war on the global market and all its participants.
I'm sure they (Bush's high cabal) have a plan for this, including a short list of countries we're going to "take with is", as in, bring along for the ride, as well as the bullshi*t pretext we will use to create more enemies abroad. Should be interesting to watch, just a question of from where.
***btw, I think discussing the morality of all this and resenting the US is silly. In all of human history, things get ugly when there are scarce resources. Also, most countries in history with power and means took what they wanted, it was called colonialism and even the tiny Dutch got in on the act .... oh, and it never ended either (economic colonialism - i.e. world bank/imf). The problem as I see it is that we didn't create a one world government soon enough; it needed to happen 30 years ago so we could deal with this as a planet, but instead, we've still got nation states and men clinging to power and national identity. I personally blame the chinese for not instituting effective population control. They're the reason this is all coming to a head now instead of later. Not that it would have mattered, I don't think the current human paradigm is capable of the mass consciousness needed to think and act for the collective good (a non-zero sum game). Not enough buddhists, not enough people realizing the interconnectedness of all of us, of the planet and universe as a single system. Oh well, better luck next time human race.
Joined: Sep 05, 2004 Posts: 205 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:59 am Post subject: huh?
Quote:
I personally blame the chinese for not instituting effective population control. They're the reason this is all coming to a head now instead of later.
What does this matter? The important fact is not that it's happening sooner rather than later... The important fact is that we are shortsighted enough to allow this to happen AT ALL!
Americans could use less than a 1/4 of all global petroleum production... India could've slowed population growth too... Does Europe need 450 million people?
coulda-shoulda-woulda.... water over the dam now.... we gotta lie in the bed we have made.[/quote]
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:22 am Post subject:
The chinese have implemented population control. China consumes far less energy than the us right now, total, and per capita. The argument that the Chinese are to blame is unwarranted and unfounded.
Why can't the US control its borders? It's population. Given that per-capita consumption is so high in the US, the best bet would be to lock down the borders in the US and then, step-wise, force per-capita consumption down.
Let's just blame evolution. Humans are on the top of the evolutionary ladder. One small mistep, and down we go. Crash.
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:00 pm Post subject:
Under Bush, the US has forgotten how to play the game. In the game, you make your enemies destroy each other and profit from it. In the early '80's Iraq, a US ally headed by a certain Saddam Hussein, attacked Iran. The industrialized countries in the world profited from arms sales to both countries in exchange for cheap oil. Prior to the war, oil was at it's record high price. Most Americans had little sympathy for Iran, in light of the hostage crisis and the most expensive oil of all time. Reagan probably had a picture of Saddam that he kissed every night before bed. Within two years, the world had cheap oil again and the economy boomed.
In the Bush administration you destroy your enemies by..., well, destroying your enemies. Doing your own dirty work is fantastically expensive and a PR nightmare. Bush has the imagination of a, well, shrubbery. In order to win at the game, you have to know how to play - something which, I'm sorry to say, isn't one of GW's strong points. The US winning WW3? Not while Bush is in charge!
There will be a rebel alliance when the redneck working class starts to feel pain from all of this. High gasoline prices and no job will tend to focus attention.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1322 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:38 am Post subject: Re: when will the US "overtly" declare war on the
Mindful wrote:
For argument's sake, let's assume that the likes of Michael Ruppert (FTW, Crossing the Rubicon) are correct, and that Afghanistan and Iraq are the opening moves in a sequential (and permanent) war to control the world's remaining energy reserves.
Given that, my question is .... when do we benefit? and how? and when do we take the heat? When do we get oil that never hits the open market. When do we say "F-you" to Europe, China, India and Russia and TAKE the oil we need?
Presumably, there will come a time when the US can't afford to buy oil on the open market. Is that the trigger point? I think so. Why build the military infrastructure around it if we could just buy it? If we were just re trying to keep another country from taking it, all it would take to provide security is a couple carrier groups parked in the Gulf. But instead we've got 16 permanent military bases in Iraq and a dozen in the "Stans".
So there must be a plan to divert oil from the markets to the US at some point. And when that happens, we will basically have declared war on the global market and all its participants.
This has been puzzling me too.
Possibly the US could declare some major consuming countries to be "evil" and embargo their oil imports. This would make oil more plentiful for the rest of the world and reduce prices. But the only likely target is China - the other major consumers being Europe, Japan and India.
Another possibility is that when (not if) the anachronistic Saudi regime collapses, the US will unilaterally invade to "protect" the oil facilities. Remember that the US had problems exporting oil from Iraq after the invasion because of uncertainty over who owned the oil. They fixed this by getting a UN resolution. But if they can't get a UN resolution on the ownership of occupied Saudi oilfields, they will have no choice but to ship all Saudi oil to the US. Too bad for the rest of the world. And the same could happen with Iran, Kuwait and the Gulf states. (And BTW, by US law, Alaska oil can only be shipped to the US, even if there are higher prices elsewhere).
But I think the real plan is to divert not the oil but the oil revenues. Notice that since the conquest of Iraq, most of the Iraqi revenues that flowed to France, Germany and Russia have been diverted to US companies. This makes the oil affordable to the US.
Joined: Oct 19, 2004 Posts: 108 Location: Carlisle, PA
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:45 pm Post subject:
Colorado-Valley wrote:
There will be a rebel alliance when the redneck working class starts to feel pain from all of this. High gasoline prices and no job will tend to focus attention.
Their attention may be focused, but it won't be focused against the government. It will be focused against a scapegoat. Given the recent election results, [Parts of this post have been deleted due to references to peoples sexuality. MissingLink]
However, it will be necessary to scapegoat one group after another since scapegoating will not "fix" the problems.
I remind everyone that "liberal" was a dirty word in the American consciousness long before "terrorist" became one. I expect that eventually, half the country will become scapegoats.
Fascism is the ordinary result of severe economic problems; it takes a powerful and wise leader to avoid it. Given that we do not have one, I expect very bad stuff ahead.
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: when will the US "overtly" declare war on the
Mindful wrote:
I personally blame the chinese for not instituting effective population control. They're the reason this is all coming to a head now instead of later.
How so? Sheer numbers? The most overpopulated country in the world is the USA. In terms of impact on the environment, we are the equivalent of 10 billion Chinese! We are less than 5% of the world's population and consume 25% of the world's oil, 30-40% of the world's raw materials, and produce 70% of the world's pollution, no matter where you find it.
Per capita consumption is 50 times that of any other human on earth. We have 50 slaves working for us every day. So, I think that maybe we need to start with the US population problem first. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 243 Location: the Village
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:09 am Post subject: re:
Look, it doesn't matter.
People know what's what, if they cared then this would all be different.
They don't care, they are liars and cheats, and they go along with conspiracies to keep this all spiritually corrupt and they know they are knowingly a part of that - then they invent all this other crap like the NWO so they can blame them for it.
Dark City type stuff is the least of what they are deliberately doing.
All 'peak whatever' really is is low-consciousness' choosing destrcution and choosing limitation, and trying to drag heavenlies down with them. Possibly to try and hide their part in creating the whole Fall and not owning up to it. _________________ the frogurt is also cursed
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:39 am Post subject: OK
Midful wrote
Quote:
For argument's sake, let's assume that the likes of Michael Ruppert (FTW, Crossing the Rubicon) are correct, and that Afghanistan and Iraq are the opening moves in a sequential (and permanent) war to control the world's remaining energy reserves.
Ok, let us assume America is going to take control. Just for the sake of your arguement as you stated. America probably would not benifit from this much. We give so much away to other countries in forms of aid. The oil would be given away as the tankers sailed for the American coast. When the tankers arrive they will be empty and have only a bill for us to pay. This could actually save america some money. Instead of having the tankers sail to America and then back to a country to be given away. We couldjust have the tanker stop at the country it would be given to and just fax the bill in. Thus saving the cost of the tanker sailing all the way here and then back to where the oil is given away at.
We will just throw the bill in with all the others. The more than 1 trillion dollars of aid that America has given away sense WWII. The cost of giving away a tanker would be a drop in the bucket.
The answer is, America would never benefit from such a move. _________________ Peace out!
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1322 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: OK
MissingLink wrote:
Midful wrote
Quote:
For argument's sake, let's assume that the likes of Michael Ruppert (FTW, Crossing the Rubicon) are correct, and that Afghanistan and Iraq are the opening moves in a sequential (and permanent) war to control the world's remaining energy reserves.
Ok, let us assume America is going to take control. Just for the sake of your arguement as you stated. America probably would not benifit from this much. We give so much away to other countries in forms of aid.
Isn't most of the aid in the form of military and "internal security" aid to countries you are trying to control?
Joined: Nov 10, 2004 Posts: 75 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: OK
MissingLink wrote:
Ok, let us assume America is going to take control. Just for the sake of your arguement as you stated. America probably would not benifit from this much. We give so much away to other countries in forms of aid. The oil would be given away as the tankers sailed for the American coast. When the tankers arrive they will be empty and have only a bill for us to pay. This could actually save america some money. Instead of having the tankers sail to America and then back to a country to be given away. We couldjust have the tanker stop at the country it would be given to and just fax the bill in. Thus saving the cost of the tanker sailing all the way here and then back to where the oil is given away at.
We will just throw the bill in with all the others. The more than 1 trillion dollars of aid that America has given away sense WWII. The cost of giving away a tanker would be a drop in the bucket.
The answer is, America would never benefit from such a move.
Man what are you talking about? We give the least foreign aid per capita (*) when compared to other developed countries. And military/security "Aid" - yeah that's truly appreciated. That's why SA wants us out.
In the Bush administration you destroy your enemies by..., well, destroying your enemies. Doing your own dirty work is fantastically expensive and a PR nightmare.
The widespread support for the war would evaporate overnight if the US Citizen was paying for the wars out of pocket. At least for a 'war without a plan' as Iraq has been called by more than a few ex-fighters of the Iraq conflict II.
Instead, the war is being funded by borrowing from the future taxpayers.
Depends on how one views the world - on a money basis then:
WW1 - entered into to prevent creditors from nulling out the debts.
WWII - After supplying arms and fuel on credit - America was attacked.
'Nam - pushed the US off the gold standard, bankruptcy nearly happened.
The US PR 'nightmare' is how one convinces people with words to fly airplanes into buildings. To 19 people, they were convinced that American actions were SO bad in the world that they should give up their lives in an attempt to foster change/obtain revenge.
Think about some of the bullet points of change requested by /bin/ladin:
1) US out of Saudi Arabia (done)
2) Bankrupt the US economy (Working on that from my POV, thank you very much)
Someone is very happy about the world and it ain't me.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1322 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:02 am Post subject:
rerere wrote:
Kingcoal wrote:
In the Bush administration you destroy your enemies by..., well, destroying your enemies. Doing your own dirty work is fantastically expensive and a PR nightmare.
Think about some of the bullet points of change requested by /bin/ladin:
1) US out of Saudi Arabia (done)
2) Bankrupt the US economy (Working on that from my POV, thank you very much)
Someone is very happy about the world and it ain't me.
Would you be happier if the US was "in" Saudi Arabia (and perhaps Iran) like it is "in" Iraq? Do you have kids in the military?
I don't have a /bin/ladin or a /bin/laden thanks to my OpenBSD firewall (lame UNIX humour - Windozers & Mac-fans please ignore).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
(lame UNIX humour - Windozers & Mac-fans please ignore).
