Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 9:32 pm Post subject: Future picture?
Looking at what will happen after the election.
I think it was probably bad to go into Iraq. I see and believe I understand the reason our president made the decision he did. I am not second guessing the decission. We are there now.
I believe it will be really bad to turn tail and run now. I think this would be a major error. I really believe the message sent to the Muslim world will be a negative massage and long term will hurt us gravely. If you have been reading many of the other posts on this site. You will know that at least one muslim leader is telling the muslim peoples to use oil and money against us.
Soooo.... What I am saying is that at this time I believe Bush is who I will vote for. I think if a president gets in there and pulls us out that we will get F@({#d by the people who believe us enemies. If we 'stay the course'. That friendly muslim peoples will not be oppressed anymore in Iraq and this will be good for the common Iraqi citizen and for us as well. It will be tough but a very positive out come will result if we 'stay the course'.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 7002 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 9:59 pm Post subject:
I have an incredible respect for the office of the President, and the people that have, and are – right now – putting their life on the line to follow the orders of that office.
There is a high school ½ mile away from my home and every time I hear the National Anthem played before a football game I stand at attention – in my backyard. Still, I do second-guess the decision; I believe it was wrong.
I agree with you however, can’t run.
Leaned that in grade school; can’t run. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 293 Location: San Jose, CA
Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 11:15 pm Post subject:
I believe that it was a mistake to go in there too. The whole thing has turned into a quagmire, and we can't just leave now. That has been the complaint we've heard before - that the U.S. doesn't finish what it starts. That we just leave our messes behind.
If you think the Iraqi people are angry with us now, see what happens when we just leave, with their infrastructure still in ruins and security non-existent.
I voted for Bush. Looking back, I have to wonder how Gore would have handled the aftermath of 9/11. Would he have done a better job?
I'll be voting for Kerry in November, though I don't have much enthusiasm for him. However, I'm deeply disturbed by what the Bush administration is doing domestically & internationally.
Joined: May 15, 2004 Posts: 253 Location: Southeast USA
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 7:46 am Post subject: Can't blame this on me
I'm glad I can't vote yet so any of this mess can't be blamed on me for voting for whoever. It seems really odd that for the next four years that may be the most important 4 in human history, we have some of the worst leadership choices ever. _________________ In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high.-Thoreau
Peak Oil
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 8:34 am Post subject: proof in the pudding
Depends on what happens I think.
If war or some other disruption were to cut off oil shipments from that region, having a military presence on the spot would seem like every good idea, not only for the US, but for all consumers of OPEC oil.
There seems little doubt that the mid-east region will remain unstable and dangerous for years to come. How many hundreds of years should we wait for a reformation of religious and cultural thinking in the mid-east? To me, it looks as if the region is "stuck" in an old pattern, and can't break out. For many years the western world has tolerated the situation, and even exploited it, out of fear of international conflict, and recognition of centuries old cultures. Much is made of American imperialism, and with just cause, but the culture of fear and repression, violence and discrimination which characterizes many mid-east societies, almost guarantee instability in the region.
So sitting on top of the most vital resource on the planet, are many unstable and violent societies, which do not seem inclined to change their Jihad ways anytime soon. Can anyone seriously doubt why the US and it's allies are in Iraq & Afghanistan today? Oil is simply too important to the US, and indeed the entire world, to leave in the hands of unstable countries. As bad as it is for America to impose it's will on foreign cultures, it's nothing compared to the tragedy which would befall the world, should oil shipments falter for any reason. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Why does the West feel that it is entitled to the resources of the Middle East? It is not the West's for the taking. Hence, I do not agree with the installation of the military in that part of the world. I believe that the U.S should not have gone into Iraq and they should leave immediately, whatever the consequences. They have no business there. At the rate the Muslim fundamentalists are going however, notably Al Quaeda, the oil flow from that region might be reduced to a trickle in any event. The military is not well equipped to deal with suicide attacks on oil facilities which will get increasingly common. Sooner or later, ther are going to pull off a WTC like attack on the Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi and Kuwati oil export facilities. They don't have to attack the West in the West to level Western society. The West had better learn that we cannot continue on this course of conspicuous and exponential consumption. Exponential consumption will eventually lead to the termination of humanity. We should be planning to go towards a steady state economy with a reduced population fueled by the energy income of approximately 1KW/m2 from our nuclear reactor 93 million miles away as green plants have been doing ad infinitum. Not doing so is setting ourselves up for eventual extinction. (Nuclear missiles will most likely be the method of annihilation)
Why does the West feel that it is entitled to the resources of the Middle East? It is not the West's for the taking. Hence, I do not agree with the installation of the military in that part of the world. I believe that the U.S should not have gone into Iraq and they should leave immediately, whatever the consequences.
It's a tough question and I admire your tenacity, Andy. I was against US forces entering Iraq, and up until recently, a proponent for them leaving also.
What's changed my mind? Just trying to weigh up the possible post-peak futures. Maybe we're sitting on the peak now, or maybe we have as much as 10 years till peak, 13 or 14 till we realise. That's a fair bit of time for things to change. Newspaper headlines in the morning reading 'Massive scientific breakthough in cold fusion', followed up by Rick Smalley figuring out how to make efficient nanotech electricity storage batteries next week, and we might just have the breathing space to squeeze in the lead times. Consequences of peak oil solved! (Ok ok, except for food)
Now I'd love to hear what everyone has to say about this (I'm new here so if it's been discussed, could you point me in the right direction), do you think that it would be possible, or even likely, that the US might attempt to sequestor most of the middle east oil, if it found itself in a tight spot. There's are a few clear benefits - first, if oil was cut off to major objectors quickly, they might be compromised in their ability to retaliate by severe sudden oil crisis. Second, Bush or Kerry wouldn't have to tell people that they have to start saving energy, people would see the rest of the world going to hell and realise how serious the situation is.
Of course, the whole expedition in Iraq questions the very ability of US forces to pull off such a stunt. Nonetheless, do people here see that as likely, possible, etc.
I believe the biggest change in a post-peak will be a change in ethic. The values that western civilisation holds dear are, in my opinion, premissed to some extent, on the abulance of cheap energy. I'm not sure if a post-peak society could sustain ideals like equality (at least until a sustainable population was reached). This is what scares me most about the prospect of peak oil. What will happen to our values?
I'm no luddite, but I find an awful lot of modernity distasteful. Hyper-litigation, mass apathy, and let's not forget American Idol, that great weapon of mass distraction. But what we have got is a pretty good set of values. (now i'm going to get attacked cause the west is happy to mass exploit the second/third world - things aren't perfect, no, but they could be a lot worse).
My point is, although I agree with you Andy in principle: the US shouldn't mess with Middle East property/resources, what if one last shindig, a new manhattan project if you will, funded by oil sequestored by the US to the exclusion of the rest of the world, was the last chance to find the solution that may allow us to keep our values?
Maybe that's a bit far-fetched anyway... (sorry... looking hard for hope )
Not necessarily to sequester the oil for Americas use... but everyones use.
Terrorism, war, and political unrest could potentially threaten oil production in the mid-east. Any serious disruption in oil would have devastating effects on all markets everywhere.
I don't see the US stealing mid-east oil for ourselves... but the ability to respond quickly in the region to anything which threatens oil supplies is probably a good idea.
While I'm not sure how effective our military can be in protecting the whole area, it's sure more effective than just hoping things will go well. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 2:52 pm Post subject: Just saving the world...
Aaron wrote:
Not necessarily to sequester the oil for Americas use... but everyones use.
What I'm suggesting is, if the world were to peak really soon, and this led to supply crises and rolling resession, etc, then a bold oil grab would be impossible to counter (military need oil), and easy to justify.
Easy to justify because it would not be oil for America, rather, it would be oil for the world. The sequestored oil would be used "to facilitate the development of new energy technologies", for "the benefit of humanity". Maybe one can imagine such a justification after having witnessed the 'war on terrorism' rhetoric.
I'm particularly intrigued by Goildstein's (is it his?) conversion problem. The one about how the cost to develop and change to new tewchnologies will be harder to reach as fuels get rarer, and as prices rise in both monetary and energy terms.
So the benefit of capturing the worlds oil to keep the US economy afloat whilst the rest of the world goes post-peak might be to gain a few more years of good stable society in which to do some hard-core research. Save the world kind of stuff. Not hard to ethically justify if you take a black/white kind of approach (aka Bush)
And also...
Aaron wrote:
I don't see the US stealing mid-east oil for ourselves...
re:ourselves... Note that soft landing lives in America's 51st state...
Not stealing it at all. In fact, I'm confident we would much prefer to simply buy it as we always have... much cheaper than invasion I think. But the consequences of a really bad disruption are so bad, it's pretty foolish to leave it to chance.
As for the "seize it and research" theory... the Apollo style project solution might be our salvation, or maybe not.
But it's hard to brute force primary science. Many times advancements in science are not tied to budget or resources or anything other than time. Good science just takes time.
Sounds like a footrace... _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 6:26 pm Post subject:
Are you really sure the only reason we entered was greed for oil? I believe greed is the biggest problem the world faces. I really believe that oil wasn't the main reason we entered. We were attacked here and have good reason to seek out the people who did so. Why did we invade Afganistan?Not for oil! Why? Drop our big buildings and watch out!
Joined: Apr 10, 2004 Posts: 143 Location: Tulsa OK
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 4:14 am Post subject:
Andy and Leaf to me you would have a better argument if you just said it was wrong for the U.S to invade Iraq because of their national sovereignty or that we can’t succeed . Unless you live in a hut that you built from natural occurring resources, with tools you chipped from stone and then heat with wood you chopped with your stone axe then the reason the U.S had to go into Iraq was to satisfy your selfish over consumption of oil. Huh…you’re on line, using a computer, what other sins have you committed that forced this awful course on the world? Do you or have you ever driven a car? How much oil did it take to build it? How much oil did you waste driving to the store to get a pack of smokes?
I regret making this personal but I just don’t see where you get off taking some moral high ground. It is pretty hypocritical to set at a computer and act like oil isn’t important to you too. What gives us the right is survival, and yes that means you too.
Onyered. I did not say oil is not important to me. It is every bit as important as it is to every other person on earth. What I am saying is that Middle Eastern oil does not belong to the West. Using the military to secure it is theft.
I actually drive a car with a very heavy heart because the urban situation in most areas of the the United States basically makes it impossible to do otherwise. I would gladly give up the vehicle if there were public tranist that did not stop running at 5:00pm. I actually went 10 years before succumbing to buying a car. I try however to minimize its use and was very careful in car selection. I drive a Volkswagen Jetta diesel that easily gets three times the mileage of the average SUV over 50mpg on the highway and can potentially use biofuels. I also communicate via computer, but as bad as that is, the environmental effects of computers are as much as 10 times less than that of driving a vehicle.
I say that the more pragmatic option for the West is to reduce demand and implement the sustainable non-nuclear alternatives, first by doing things like having reasonable public transit and shifting away from personalized transport, encourage cycling and walking facilities, keeping computers for longer (they can last at least 6 - 10 years), reducing the need for transportation by making things closer, producing food closer to point of consumption etc. Leave oil to do the essential things like providing plastics, fertilizer etc. As I said before, it is also important to put the brakes on population growth. Exponential population growth will cripple all attempts at a solution.
Stealing oil by military means is no solution and will lead to our extermination. There are enough nuclear weapons in the big powers to exterminate every higher lifeform on earth is quick succession. Just remember, all the countries big enough to matter when crunch time comes for oil competition either already have nuclear weapons capability or can get that capability in short order (think Brazil, Japan, Germany).
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 11:44 am Post subject: Contoversial Response
All this talk of conservation and moral high ground grabbing has got me thinking.
1. The 'higher' the peak, the steaper the decline.
2. It seems impossible to get this idea through to the masses in the absence of a crisis.
so... just imagine if a group of people geared themself up to be energy self sufficient, but at the same time, ramped up their energy usage to extrodinarily large levels. These people would be responsible for bringing the peak forward (to a presumably lower level. and if not technically lower, the extra height would be artificial anyway), hence softening the decline. Also, these people would represent 'surplus capacity' for efficiency gains.
This could be construed as the ethical response to peak oil awareness.
If you are already conserving as much as you can now, then how do you plan on helping (ie. conserving) in times of crisis.
Just a non-conventional thought to keep minds open.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
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
)
