[rogerhb]

After the retreat at Dunkirk and before the Blitz, Americans termed WWII "the phoney war".

A number of Americans, for some reason, think that the US is at war now.

I postulate that it is not for the following reasons:

1. It has not declare war on anybody (only on an idea),

2. It has not introduced conscription,

3. It has not introduced rationing,

4. It has not introduced marshal law.,

5. It would not know when it has won.

So we have the Second Phoney War.

[Petrodollar]

The Long War should really be called the "Great Peak Oil Resource Wars," but that would be hard to sell to the citizenry given that most folks either 1) don't understand Peak Oil or 2) don't want to understand Peak Oil because it implies a fundamental shift in our way of life and creates some cognitive dissonance.

I honestly believe that most folks are rationale, and if educated about Peak Oil and the challenges, they would agree on the need to heavily invest in alternative energy technologies and see their tax dollars being spent on infastructure changes to adapt to a less energy-intensive lifestyle....rather than watch their friends or loved one's sent off to a far away land to fight against a nebulous war for a nebulous idea...

However, the banking system and the elites who run the gov't know that the global capitalism itself is at risk due to hydrocarbon depletion, and thus rather than have a complicated debate on Peak Oil, EROEI, etc, we are witnessing the more traditional strategy espoused by Leo Strauss and his contemporary followers: create an onimous external enemy - even if it has to be fabricated to a large degree.

Why? Simple, if the leaders are willing to set aside ethics and morality - it is always easier to unite the "vulgar many" with fear thereby creating generelized hatred that will allow the prosecution of the "War against them" ("them" is often defined as those holding the desired natural resources). I studied this issue somewhat, and the neocons governing philosophy and how they created the "Long War" to hide their geopolitical manuvering is exposed with the writings of Dr. Leo Strauss (1899–1973): The Philosophical Father of the Neoconservatives. A couple of quotes:

Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed .… Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united — and they can only be united against other people.

Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right — the right of the superior to rule over the inferior .… The people are told what they need to know and no more.

— Leo Strauss, thoughts on government and the wise elites’ need for secrecy, Natural Right and History and Persecution and the Art of Writing

....but this is nothing new. This "ends-justify-the-means" governing philosophy can be traced at least back to Machiavelli and its modern day worshipers (i.e. Rove, Ledeen, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.)...

"Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them .… Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances."

— Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513


"In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still."

— Michael A. Ledeen, leading neoconservative at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), advisor to President Bush’s political strategist Karl Rove, as quoted in his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago, 1999

So, the attention of the "vulgar many" is carefully being directed towards the "evil-doing" terrorist/Islamic countries who hold the last great oil & gas reserves on this planet. While the elite are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses can not be exposed to the truth or they will fall into nihilism or anarchy. His ideology of governing via secrecy, deception, and the imperative of a broad external threat to “inspire the vulgar many” provides a tragic parallel to neoconservative strategy regarding Iraq.

Indeed, sometimes, the propaganda has to shift slightly to attacks on "strong men" and "dictators" who happen to rule over a an oil-rich but 98% Catholic population (i.e. Venezuela). A study of the recent US military deployments share a commonality - proximity to either 1) hydrocarbon reserves or 2) pipelines and transit routes of said hydrocarbon reserves.

Speaking of "Long War" advocates, last week I attended an Energy conference in which the former director of the CIA (Woolsley - who is a staunch neoconservative thinker) gave a one-hour lecture. The first half of the lecture was all about Islamic "facsists" who we are led to believe want to somehow take over the world (i.e the "Long war") - and the 2nd half of the lecture transitioned to a discussion about US energy consumption and a discussion of methods/technology to reduce US oil consumption.

Of course these two subjents were presented as being inextricably intertwined. Sadly, their are plenty of Struassians within the US gov't and intel branches. Here's the details (please note the next two speakers)

Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction

An Inter Agency Learning Opportunity

R. James Woolsey

Energy, Security and the Long War of the 21st Century

Monday, March 27, 2006 6:00 to 8:30 pm

The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Office of Force Transformation are pleased to invite you to attend the first of a monthly series on "Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction."

Energy is now seen as a national issue. As President Bush said in his State of the Union address, only by applying "the talent and technology of America," can the nation really begin to grapple with the fundamental issues that underlay our national addiction to oil. The Department of Defense is the single largest buyer of fuel in the US (1.7%) and therefore has an opportunity to help direct an effort towards energy efficiency, conservation and cost reduction.

It is fair to say, that we, as a nation, are energy illiterate. Probably less than 5 percent of the public understands that it "takes energy to get energy." The Energy Conversation series will bring high-level attention to this overarching national energy issue by providing a forum to engage senior leaders, academics and researchers, both inside and outside of government. The intent is to learn about all the good things that are already going on in both government and industry that might address these issues and to provoke new thinking.

Why is the DoD hosting this series? Just as the Defense Department played a critical role in forging the information revolution in past decades, so can the Department play a similar critical role in fueling the energy revolution in coming decades. Remember we are all players in addressing the efficiency, conservation and cost reduction of energy. And there are NO SILVER BULLETS. Come learn with us.

Future sessions: April 24, 2006
Peak Oil: Cong Roscoe Bartlett, Dr. Robert Hirsch, SAIC

... I was dissappointed that Woolsley prefaced his presentation on US energy challenges with an unnecessary, fear-mongering diatribe on the "Long War." Terrorism could disappear tomorrow and the challenges of Peak Oil & Gas would remain just an ominously - and I hope the audience discounted his opening remarks which came across to me as somewhat paranoid (esp. Iran - which sounded just like Woolsley's comments on Iraq circa 2002).

However, in Woolsley defense, I did find the four strategies he suggested regarding the liquid fuels issue to be overall praiseworthy.

1) Plug-in Hybrids (increase battery capacity from 1.KW to 9KW)
2) R&D on cellulosic alcohol
3) More diesal engines and production of diesal fuel via thermal depolyimerization
4) Light-weight carbon-composites to dramatically reduce automoble weight and thus improve fuel efficiency

I just don't see how the US can possibly implement his suggestions with the $2 trillion dollar tax cuts and $450 billion going towards the Defense budget - but with very little money going towards alternatives and infastructure changes.

Anyhow, I suspect future historians will call today's events for what they really are: The "Great Peak Oil Resource Wars."

[Dreamtwister]

Petrodollar: I think you stole my bookshelf!

You might also enjoy reading the following authors:

Friedrich Nietzsche
Titus Livy
Charles Darwin

[Free]

To get an idea about Strauss and the ideological history of the neocons, as well as their amazing parallels to forethinkers of Islamic extremists (like Quds), I can recommend the BBC-docu series "The Power of Nightmares". That Strauss certainly was an, uhmm, interesting guy.

In relation to the question "what makes them tick?" and "where will we go from here?" don't miss this interview with a retired officer who worked in the Pentagon at the time of the build-up to the Iraq war, the whole mood and mechanisms are pictured very detailed, and IMHO, accurate:

...

KWIATKOSKI: Oh, there’s a couple different levels, but I think, for guys like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, a lot of the neo-conservatives, even George W. Bush and certainly Cheney, the vision is that we are not really a republic anymore. We’re certainly not a limited state. We are the world’s most important and all-powerful state, and that we have certain rights. Yes, we have certain responsibilities, but I think the rights are what drive them. And those rights include the right to do what we want, to get what we need, to have what we want to have. I think that’s what it is and, you know, we’ve built very massive mega-bases, permanent. These are permanent military bases in Iraq. We’ve done that in other places, as well, in the Middle East, but certainly these - this construction project in Iraq, in fact most of the money has been for military construction of - for our use. I think that’s a big part of it, shifting our footprint.

...

KWIATKOSKI: I’m actually - well, yes, I’m angry, as a normal citizen would be. I’m frustrated because the worst things that I thought might happen did happen, in terms of Iraq and the conduct of our foreign policy. In fact, right now we’re talking about doing something similar, I guess in some way, to Iran from our bases in Iraq, using that forward capability. so, it’s very concerning to me that I couldn’t stop anything, that whatever I did, the small amount that I did meant nothing. It really - truly I think that it did. It stopped nothing. I think the juggernaut is in full sail, and I’m not sure how it can be controlled, and that bothers me a great deal.

...

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

[HonestPessimist]

However, the banking system and the elites who run the gov't know that the global capitalism itself is at risk due to hydrocarbon depletion, and thus rather than have a complicated debate on Peak Oil, EROEI, etc, we are witnessing the more traditional strategy espoused by Leo Strauss and his contemporary followers: create an onimous external enemy - even if it has to be fabricated to a large degree.

If you're suggesting that al Qaeda was created by the CIA as some conspiracy theorists consistently pointed out? I disagree with that assessment.

Why? Simple, if the leaders are willing to set aside ethics and morality - it is always easier to unite the "vulgar many" with fear thereby creating generelized hatred that will allow the prosecution of the "War against them" ("them" is often defined as those holding the desired natural resources). I studied this issue somewhat, and the neocons governing philosophy and how they created the "Long War" to hide their geopolitical manuvering is exposed with the writings of Dr. Leo Strauss (1899–1973): The Philosophical Father of the Neoconservatives. A couple of quotes:

Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed .… Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united — and they can only be united against other people.

Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right — the right of the superior to rule over the inferior .… The people are told what they need to know and no more.

Well, to fully understand Strauss' thinking, you would have to look at from Strauss' perspective, particularly on the subjects from history and political philosophy, which were his specialties. What you see and understand from world history and political philosophy across the centuries, you understand the issues, meanings, events and conditions behind them across the centuries. He also understands that Man is always inherently evil as long as he is always inherently good. As long as there is malice among mankind, Man would always find coercive restraint against the darker aspects of mankind for the sake of the greater good.

I just don't see how the US can possibly implement his suggestions with the $2 trillion dollar tax cuts and $450 billion going towards the Defense budget - but with very little money going towards alternatives and infastructure changes.

I just don't see how should we stop at being innovative, you know? I mean why should we count on the government to do everything with money than to rely the innovation and ingenuity of some citizens who are not going to wait for the government to pull a convenient dog-n-pony show for the masses?

Anyhow, I suspect future historians will call today's events for what they really are: The "Great Peak Oil Resource Wars."

Resources Wars would be an apt choice. It is easier to say it faster than to type it out.

[rogerhb]

I just don't see how should we stop at being innovative, you know?

Peak inventions per capita was around 1870.

[Doly]

Peak inventions per capita was around 1870.

Where do you get that figure from?

[rogerhb]

Peak inventions per capita was around 1870.

Where do you get that figure from?

Measuring Innovation in an Accelerating World

A brief review of an article proposing that rates of global innovation have been declining in recent decades, since 1914 by an analysis of U.S. patents, which seems contradicted by independent data, and since 1873 by a subjective analysis of "important innovations," which may have greater general merit.

[HonestPessimist]

I just don't see how should we stop at being innovative, you know?

Peak inventions per capita was around 1870.

You're suggesting human-initiated innovation stopping around that time and technological-initiated innovation is DUE to human-initiated ingenuity which motivate or encourage people to innovate and create something to benefit few, some or all of mankind!

Peak inventions.... nonsense! I've seen people invented something that aren't always technological-initiated and still managed to be humanely useful for some or all people.

[rogerhb]

Peak inventions.... nonsense!

Ok, so you are late for school and the teacher wants to hear your excuse. It's got to be plausible and unique, after all you only had two grandmothers and there is a limit to the number of pets you could cope with.

So, over time will it be progressively harder to think up new, unique, plausible excuses, or will they just pop into your head when you need them?

[HonestPessimist]

Peak inventions.... nonsense!

Ok, so you are late for school and the teacher wants to hear your excuse. It's got to be plausible and unique, after all you only had two grandmothers and there is a limit to the number of pets you could cope with.

So, over time will it be progressively harder to think up new, unique, plausible excuses, or will they just pop into your head when you need them?

Yeah, like I had to invent rogerhb myself? That's a plausible excuse you cannot deny.

[rogerhb]

You're suggesting human-initiated innovation stopping around that time

Not stopping, just like Peak Oil is not about being "no oil" it's about "less than before".

Of course "stopping" and "running out" are all that people who can only think in black and white can deal with.

[greenworm]

HonestPessimist,


"If you're suggesting that al Qaeda was created by the CIA as some conspiracy theorists consistently pointed out? I disagree with that assessment. "

What makes you say that? Just curious. I only ask because when I step away from the US media, it appears a nationalistic arab front is fighting the US military and these sources actually show video (proof). However, when I occasionally entertain myself with the US media, boogeymen like Osama and Zarqawi are constantly thrown at me with literally no proof of their existence.

[Petrodollar]

Honest Pessimist said:

"If you're suggesting that al Qaeda was created by the CIA as some conspiracy theorists consistently pointed out? I disagree with that assessment. "

huh? That is some rather flawed logic. No one here is stating that the CIA created al Qaeda, but here is what the Agency and the Bureau knew about these rogues before the Iraq War was launched...(prepare for some cognitive dissonance...)

Al-Qaida’s numbers were grossly exaggerated by the Bush administration and US media. Hardcore al-Qaida members never numbered more than 200-300. Claims that there were 5,000-20,000 al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan were nonsense. These wild exaggerations came from lumping Taliban tribal warriors with some 5,000 Islamic resistance fighters from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the Philippines and Chinese-ruled Eastern Turkistan, none of whom were part of al-Qaida.

— Eric Magnolis, “Anti-US militants showing up all over,” Toronto Star, June 2002

....and here's another interesting quote from the FBI based on FBI/CIA documents...

Senior FBI officials believe there are now no more than 200 hard-core Al-Qaeda members worldwide. “Al-Qaeda itself, we know, is less than 200,” said an FBI official, referring to those who have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks …. That figure — far fewer than recent press reports have suggested are in the US alone — is based on evidence gathered by the FBI and CIA. It includes Al-Qaeda members who are now in custody at Guantanamo Bay. [The FBI official stated,] “There was a recent report suggesting that Al-Qaeda is about 5,000 strong. It is nowhere near 5,000 strong.”

— Rebecca Carr, “Only 200 Hard-core Qaeda Members,” Palm Beach Post, July 2002

Of course the five US coporate media conglomerates have no obligation to inform the US citizens of these important facts, so it gets buried and overwhelmed by the propaganda. Afterall, in the Straussian view, the "vulgar many" must be manipulated and kept secret from the Great Peak Oil Resource Wars...

Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other nations.

— George Monbiot, “Bottom of the Barrel,” the Guardian (UK)

...and here is an interesting observation by an analyst of the RAND corporation and the former head of Soviet intell...

‘The US has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat … [We have concluded that al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion … The fight against that all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam is of great advantage for the Americans as it targets the oil-rich Muslim regions.’

— Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief, Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, and head of the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company

...my parting thoughts for this thread re the "Long War"...

It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

— Joseph Goebbels, German Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, 1933–1945

...and from one of my heros...

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes ... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

— James Madison, US President, 1809–1817

[Dreamtwister]

If you're suggesting that al Qaeda was created by the CIA as some conspiracy theorists consistently pointed out? I disagree with that assessment.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/stor ... 37,00.html

No less shocking were the details of America's deep and insidious connection with this man, whose status as an alleged former "client" of the CIA became an issue for the defence.

As Jeremy Schneider, attorney for one defendant, put it in his opening: "And you know what? You know who backed the Arab freedom fighters? United States. United States. We supported the Arab resistance in 1984 in Afghanistan. We, the United States, supported the training in Afghanistan. We gave them guns."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan.

Maybe "created" is a slightly misleading way to describe what the CIA did, but they certainly had a hand in creating Osama bin Laden, and a thousand others like him.

[HonestPessimist]

huh? That is some rather flawed logic. No one here is stating that the CIA created al Qaeda, but here is what the Agency and the Bureau knew about these rogues before the Iraq War was launched...(prepare for some cognitive dissonance...)

Al-Qaida’s numbers were grossly exaggerated by the Bush administration and US media. Hardcore al-Qaida members never numbered more than 200-300. Claims that there were 5,000-20,000 al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan were nonsense. These wild exaggerations came from lumping Taliban tribal warriors with some 5,000 Islamic resistance fighters from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the Philippines and Chinese-ruled Eastern Turkistan, none of whom were part of al-Qaida.

— Eric Magnolis, “Anti-US militants showing up all over,” Toronto Star, June 2002

Senior FBI officials believe there are now no more than 200 hard-core Al-Qaeda members worldwide. “Al-Qaeda itself, we know, is less than 200,” said an FBI official, referring to those who have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks …. That figure — far fewer than recent press reports have suggested are in the US alone — is based on evidence gathered by the FBI and CIA. It includes Al-Qaeda members who are now in custody at Guantanamo Bay. [The FBI official stated,] “There was a recent report suggesting that Al-Qaeda is about 5,000 strong. It is nowhere near 5,000 strong.”

— Rebecca Carr, “Only 200 Hard-core Qaeda Members,” Palm Beach Post, July 2002

Huh, you're talking about how many Johnny Jihads joined the club and multiplied themselves to make the club looked bigger to everyone? C'mon! Anybody can join a terrorist group as easily as a kid wanting to join a secret tree-house club so badly.

I say, IF you're suggesting..... I'm not asking for proof. The proof is in the history of what we've already know about al Qaeda since 1992. Richard Clarke and Michael Scheuer pretty much proved it.

Of course the five US coporate media conglomerates have no obligation to inform the US citizens of these important facts, so it gets buried and overwhelmed by the propaganda. Afterall, in the Straussian view, the "vulgar many" must be manipulated and kept secret from the Great Peak Oil Resource Wars...

Sorry but your premise is a little weak. Five US corporate media groups do not really control the Internet and worldwide flow of news reports, just the flow of the information that come to them, then filter and distribute them to the public. Eventually other non-filtered information will always come out from nowhere and contradict a filtered information. I get filtered and non-filtered information DAILY.

It's nice for you to point out quotes and statements from somebody else, even James Madison (I really dig his opinionated commentaries). Unfortunately, it doesn't change a thing with me. I prefers a more direct and original opinion instead of a copy-n-pasting hack pulling too many quotes, statements, URLs or charts from somewhere just to prove a point.

C'mon, Petrodollar, you can do a lot better than pulling some quotes (maybe one or two with an URL is okay but not taking up the entire thread and a very long posting of quotes, URLs or whatever). Offer your own direct opinions. It makes the debate more interesting. I'm not interesting in winning or losing a debate, just keeping up with fresh and refreshing discussions, going back-n-forth insight sharing and perspectives, you know?

Al Qaeda mean many things to different peoples and different peoples have different takes on al Qaeda. To me, it's still an evolving global terrorist network that might not stop with the arrest or death of Osama bin Laden. Its role in this "Great Peak Oil Resources War" was already established a long time ago: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a bloody opportunity for the USA to return the favor to the Soviet bear for its role in the Vietnam War.

And yes, it is always about oil.

[rogerhb]

And yes, it is always about oil.

Including JI?

[Petrodollar]

Honest Pessimist:

Sorry but your premise is a little weak. Five US corporate media groups do not really control the Internet and worldwide flow of news reports, just the flow of the information that come to them, then filter and distribute them to the public.

While you are corrrect that the Internet is not yet filtered, but the airwaves (both radio and print media) and most of the news print is are most definitely heavily filtered, and unfortuately that is where the masses get their news. Don't take my word for it, just listen to the experts who know how the media works in the US:

There’s really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see, and hear. It’s not healthy.

— Ted Turner, vice chairman of AOL Time Warner and founder of CNN, April 24, 2003


If media moguls control media content and media distribution, then they have a lock on the extent and range of diverse views and information. That kind of grip on commercial and political power is potentially dangerous for any democracy.

— Chuck Lewis, executive director, Centre for Public Integrity, March 20, 2004


Most of the media was on the bandwagon or intimidated. Cheney himself called the president of the corporation that owned one of the networks to complain about an errant commentator. Political aides directed by Karl Rove ceaselessly called the editors and producers with veiled threats about the access that was not granted in any case. The press would not bite the hand that would not feed it.

— Sidney Blumenthal, Guardian (UK), June 24, 2004


This government lies …. I think we have a government that absolutely is ignoring the truth and a press that is ignoring the truth.

— Helen Thomas, 57-year-veteran correspondent for United Press International, during speech on the George W. Bush administration, July 8, 2004


All journalists make mistakes .… But the falsehoods reproduced by the media before the invasion of Iraq were massive and consequential: it is hard to see how Britain could have gone to war if the press had done its job.

— George Monbiot, Guardian (UK), July 20, 2004

...and let's not forget the US intell agency influences on media censorship...

The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.

– William Casey, Director CIA (Quote from internal staff meeting notes in 1981)

....and just a quick fyi...

C'mon, Petrodollar, you can do a lot better than pulling some quotes (maybe one or two with an URL is okay but not taking up the entire thread and a very long posting of quotes, URLs or whatever). Offer your own direct opinions.

...no problem, how about 90k words and 642 footnotes to support my very 'direct opinions' about the current state of domestic and global affiars?...

PETRODOLLAR WARFARE:
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar

http://www.ens-books.com/reviews/petrodollarreview.html

http://www.hopedance.org/new/book_reviews/r160.html

[MrBill]

...no problem, how about 90k words and 642 footnotes to support my very 'direct opinions' about the current state of domestic and global affiars?...

PETRODOLLAR WARFARE:
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar

I should imagine it is on sale now since March 20th? ; - )

I think you have overlooked some important points...

1. Singapore runs a trade surplus with the USA,
2. Singapore has its own dollar, which is in direct competition with the US dollar,
3. Singapore has announced that they will fill their own underground storage tanks with oil... from the ME as it turns out,
4. The USA is a net importer of oil... from the ME as it turns out,
5. The USA is developing bunker busting bombs,
6. Therefore, it is patently clear that adding up points 1 through 5 that the USA is planning to bomb Singapore!
7. The fact that the US Administration has not publicly admitted they plan to bomb Singapore, who is an economic competitor and uses ME oil that the USA needs, proves it is true, otherwise they would have publicly denied it by now!

Come on wake-up! Your research is not complete until you have uncovered every nebulous US plot, and not just those concerning the euro and Iran. You had better get busy and copy & paste someone else's opinions about the challenges that Singapore presents to the USA and why the USA cannot let that go as it threatens their status quo.

[seahorse2]

Now Mr. Bill,

There are some big differences between Singapore and the ME, geography, oil, and politics. Carter never threatened Singapore with the Carter Doctrine.