[PeakOiler]

Source: triple-digit-crude-prices-almost-upon-us

Steve Hargreaves reporting at CNNMoney.com quotes analyst Bruce Lanni of A.G. Edwards, saying: "If another event takes place, it's not at all unrealistic for oil to spike to $100," adding, "there's no fundamental reason in this current climate to see oil prices retreat below $70 in the next few months." Though Lanni believes many of these geopolitical tension are near a peak and at least some will inevitably ease off, he also notes we are just only now entering hurricane season.

Near a Peak? In more ways than one...

[Jack]

While geopolitical tensions may be near a peak for the present confrontation, I doubt it's anywhere near THE peak. When I start seeing serious discussion of the crises relocation plan (move everyone in the U.S. out of major cities into host communities around the country) being implemented then I might believe we're at peak tension.

Of course, the way things are going, that might occur one of these fine days....

[TheTurtle]

Of course, the way things are going, that might occur one of these fine days....

Some people call me a doomer, but I've got to tell you, there are days when reading your posts leave me feeling really gloomy, Jack.

{I moved this thread to the Geopolitics forum, by the way.}

[Lore]

While geopolitical tensions may be near a peak for the present confrontation, I doubt it's anywhere near THE peak. When I start seeing serious discussion of the crises relocation plan (move everyone in the U.S. out of major cities into host communities around the country) being implemented then I might believe we're at peak tension.

Of course, the way things are going, that might occur one of these fine days....

I agree, I doub't we're anywhere near the peak of current events. We're still on the upward slope of a worldwide escalating crisis. I watched former Speaker of the US House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) this moring on "Meet the Press" and he thinks that this is really WWIII once you connect the dots. While not in agreement, it got me to thinking whether or not the Bush doctrine of preemption and democratization has destabilized more places then just the Middle East as we watch countries like Iran, and N. Korea play off one another as the US is shown to be less and less effective to do anything about the situatation.

Add on top of that all the fleas that come out to bite an irritate the situation, such as the rebels in Nigeria, the Palistinian Hamas, and Syrian lead Hezbollah. Also, the growing boldness of Russia and China in that they now wield some substantial economic and political influence to play in this chess game.

[americandream]

As the saying goes, we're all peaked out and nowhere to go.

[rwwff]

I don' t see how you can logically state the US is ineffective, and then simultaneously claim the US has successfully destabilized much of the world with its policy of preemption and democratization.

To the outside observer, it appears that the US is incredibly effective; just not necessarily as a force for peace and stability.

[rogerhb]

To the outside observer, it appears that the US is incredibly effective; just not necessarily as a force for peace and stability.

A bull in a china shop may be considered 'effective'.

[rwwff]

To the outside observer, it appears that the US is incredibly effective; just not necessarily as a force for peace and stability.

A bull in a china shop may be considered 'effective'.

Got it in one. Especially from the point of view of the china shop down the street.

[Lore]

I don' t see how you can logically state the US is ineffective, and then simultaneously claim the US has successfully destabilized much of the world with its policy of preemption and democratization.

To the outside observer, it appears that the US is incredibly effective; just not necessarily as a force for peace and stability.

Effective meaning: Having an intended or expected effect. Ineffective when it does not. I don't believe the intent was to destablilize but to control.

[rwwff]

I don't believe the intent was to destablilize but to control.

Ah, ok. Then it is simply a matter of what we believe the intent of the primary actors was. Thats reasonable.

[Lore]

I don't believe the intent was to destablilize but to control.

Ah, ok. Then it is simply a matter of what we believe the intent of the primary actors was. Thats reasonable.

Correct