[lutherquick]

Imagine if most of the world found peace. Imagine if Europe would sit down and negotiate with Russia and settle on paying for energy at fair market value. Imagine if America all of a sudden stopped with it's NGO activity and let the Caspian countries manage their own oil reserves. And imagine if energy went sky high and countries like Venezuela could eradicate poverty by rising the standard of living, all because energy would be considered valuable. Shutting down Nato, reversing globalization because 1000 mile Caesar salad is stupid.

You know what?
America would then disintegrate into a garbage heap.

All most every place on Earth you can survive with out a car, but not in America.

To that end, it's in America's best interest to keep the likes of Ukraine, Bulgaria, Georgia and so forth at odds with Russia. Turmoil in Nigeria, Bolivia and Ecuador is good for America. If peace and prosperity flourished all over the world, countries would ratchet up energy and commodity demand, places with public transport would out perform US productivity, the poor in the likes of Ecuador would upgrade from grass huts with dirt floors to modern living arrangements. This would be bad news for America.

My point with this post is that America needs panic and misery outside of the country. The Bush concept of the war on terror is probably expanded to this in the Whitehouse. Where as Bush says, "we must fight them over seas to avoid fighting them at home", I think what he is really eluding to is that we must keep the world miserable, we must destroy alliances, we must eradicate peace, because stability and structure outside America raises prices of commodities (and energy and labor), if there was world peace - the dollar would not be coveted, and peace all over the world would lower US hegemonic leverage.

Who is Bush kidding? This isn't about democracy, this is about American democracy. Be it Clinton or Bush or back to Carter or Nixon, energy throughout the world belongs to America. And we gain access by direct war, bribing the Saudi family, or by keeping others miserable so that they do not consume what belongs to America.

One of the strongest decades of American growth and prosperity was right after the collapse of the USSR. The peace dividend allowed another massive step in dollar hegemony and a crash in commodity and energy prices. Eastern Europe, South America, former Soviet countries, even Asia couldn't attract and consume that peace dividend. That world wide suffering was great for America.

America was able to con and sucker almost any idiot and moron to buy US debt and use dollars for commerce.
America grew like cancer, and in effect making peak oil today's topic.

So I ask, would peace and prosperity throughout the world disintegrate America? I ask in the contaxt of Peak oil... don't tell me if everyone was producing (peacefully) that it would be better for america... I ask this question in relation to the fact that America's economy is highly subsidized.

And to back my reasoning, here is some George Carlin comedy:
http://www.therussiansarehere.com/videos/georgeCarlin/

[Kingcoal]

The late nineties were relatively peaceful and America was booming. Before WW2, America was relatively uninvolved in foreign affairs and was doing extremely well economically. In fact, America has pretty much boomed from the time it was a British colony to today.

The American way is to profit going up, going down, going sideways, etc.

[lutherquick]

Kingcoal,

You said: "The American way is to profit going up, going down, going sideways, etc."

Well, profit is fine, but America doesn't profit... Profit is a mark up on something you do in trade... America out right TAKES...

If America was subjected to competition, where our American workers needed to compete with a Chinese worker that gets paid $100 / month and lives next to their factory job in company housing, that would devistate American productivity, but it doesn't, and it's because of dollar hegemony...

America perfected competition and productivity during and after WW2, but some how gave up on that work ethic over the last 30 years...

I just don't think this delusion will go on much longer... They say there are resource wars comming and that Iraq is part of the begining, but I think it will not be that bad...

If Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, China, EU, Iran, and all other of the major contributors (American takes, does not add much) to the world economy, they can tune their economies with with each other, American can decouple, and nobody would miss the debt.

Peace would be had, as America would NOT have the energy to wage war. America would spend too much dealing with it's own colored revolution. I just don't think America can keep the world in misery much longer.

[rwwff]

All most every place on Earth you can survive with out a car, but not in America.

Disagree. We, as a general principal, choose to not do without a car, but reality is that there are quite a few carless people that do it for other purposes, and they get along fine. And they aren't all bunched up in some hell hole central city core. Its just a matter of structuring your work, school, and church life to be walkable and bikeable. You need to treat a bicycle like a vehicle, not a toy you buy at walmart. Any well made bike can carry a 220 pound rider and another 60 pounds of groceries and gear with no problem at all; and thats not even getting fancy with a bike trailer. Just racks and panniers or baskets as one might prefer.

Trust me, you can survive without a car. There would be changes, certainly, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or even the economy.

[Kingcoal]

Profit is profit. If you cash out at the right time, you profit. If you chose the wrong time, you lose. It's a game, always has been, always will be.

[lutherquick]

rwwff,

I was born in Germany, lived in Spain, travel to Belarus, and lived all over the US...

So I can compare....

Technicaly, yes, you can survive without a car in the US. But you will spend 10 hours walking to work.

The US is too spread out...

It's not going to happen, not even with telecommuting...
Even CHP (co-generation) can work in Europe but can never work in a mass efort in America... America is not designed for expensive energy. And it's not just the energy America uses to GROW, it's also the energy for it's over head...

You can sit there and name exceptions, you can give me examples of SOME small part of the population that might be lucky enough to live, shop, and work without a car. But it onloy makes great FoxNews articles.... The majority of Americans will not make it.

Suburbia is doomed forever. And with thre point of my original post, if the rest of the world has peace, then America is realy screwed as this would realy sky rocket prices of energy and commodities.

[lutherquick]

Kingcoal,

I guess, then technicaly a bank robber is running a business and has profit and loss... heck even risk...

[rwwff]

Technicaly, yes, you can survive without a car in the US. But you will spend 10 hours walking to work.

Why would anyone walk when they can ride a bike??? Long ago, in a land far away, I lived, in Houston, about 20 miles from work. I took a car, gas was a buck and a little, car cost next to nothing, so why not. There were absolutely no barriers to me biking that distance, and total time would have been only about half an hour more. It just didn't occur to me at the time. Since then, the biking conditions have improved, the cost of gas has risen a little..

rwwff steps back to the 21st century....

I think people will run this gas thing quite far, but I have seen signs now, on the lower income end of things, of folks trying to make a wal-mart bike act as a commuter, unsuccessfully in general; chainrings on the stupid things fold like wet bread when pushed by anyone stronger than a 10 year old. I make the regular around town appearance with my Jamis hybrid with front and rear racks loaded with awesome consumer items like sodas and kelloggs cereal, hoping that the visual will help these guys figure out that, while $100 will not get you a useable commuting bike, $500 will get you rollin in spades.

The US is too spread out...

20 miles is an easy ride for even pretty out of shape folks, and even in the worst offending master planned communities (as we call them) groceries and shops are not more than five miles distant. They can start by riding the bike to get fresh meat and vegies for bbq's and such; then maybe ride a little further to the hardware store to grab a bucket of roof tar to go patch their own roof instead of hiring a contractor to do it; or heaven forbid, replace or underlay a shingle. Maybe then something a little more adventurous, they can strap a little cooler on back (or front like mine), dig some worms from their own worm bin, and go fishing without having paid any money to any big companies; just some bucks for the license that keeps the hatcheries open.

Really, go pick any generic residential area thats been around for more than ten years, and use a map to look at whats around. You'll be amazed. I've done this to lots of random places and all kinds of things pop up; things no one else does cause theres no parking, or its inconveniently placed where you have to make a u-turn; to just realizing how many grocery stores are within a few miles of a typical residential area.

Oh and because I've turned this into a bike message...
1.) bikes are vehicles
2.) obey the traffic laws.
3.) in most states, traffic law says bikes belong on the road, on the right hand side, going with the flow of traffic.

I've ridden thousands of miles according to those three. No injuries, no scratches. A few impolite motorists, hundreds of thousands of polite motorists.

[Zardoz]

If you get a chance, see this movie:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

[Kingcoal]

Kingcoal,

I guess, then technicaly a bank robber is running a business and has profit and loss... heck even risk...

I guess your point is that the US is a world bank robber? I've heard that the US is guilty of everything else, but this is a new one one me.

[kam30en]

Luther, you are totally devoid of any common sense or logic. Peace will never happen. The strong dominate and exploit the weak. When resources are plentiful, the strong can allow the weak there bread and butter, but when they are scarce, the weak will be the fertilizer. This is just how it is. Just like it is in nature. Not only do I not expect peace in the future, I expect and I can almost guarantee horrible war on a scale never before seen on this planet. And Bush is not the problem. Bush is just another puppet being controlled by various lobbys and interests, each of which has a dollar sign and self-interest behind it. And Russia, China, Japan, etc, would be just as bad, if not worse for the world if they helf the reigns of power. Just imagine if Japan and Germany had won WWII. Forget about third world poverty, they probably would've gone up the smoke-stack.

[lutherquick]

kam30en,

Grow up... WW2 is not relavent...
Strong domainate the week, bla, bla, bla...

Energy = strong, you ain't got it? then you ARE week.

Today's events are a transiant only becuase America is leveaged with energy that she doens't sit on.

I'm voting for another just like Bush, I want another one to fvck up this much, bring it on.

[basil_hayden]

Today's events are a transiant only becuase America is leveaged with energy that she doens't sit on.

Man, we rock. The rest of you need to learn how to negotiate.

[rwwff]

Energy = strong, you ain't got it? then you ARE week.

Today's events are a transiant only becuase America is leveaged with energy that she doens't sit on.

Burn everyone elses oil so that we all run out together?

How many countries out there produce as much oil, in absolute mbbl/day as the US. I think the list is actually kinda short.

Granted, we're going to town on it like an out of control chocolate festival at the moment.... Burn all of ours, and all of yours too!!!

[kam30en]

kam30en,

Grow up... WW2 is not relavent...
Strong domainate the week, bla, bla, bla...

Energy = strong, you ain't got it? then you ARE week.

Today's events are a transiant only becuase America is leveaged with energy that she doens't sit on.

I'm voting for another just like Bush, I want another one to fvck up this much, bring it on.

Yes, energy is strength. But if you can't defend your energy with hi-tech weapons, they will be taken from you. I am sure Venezuela's oil will be taken by someone, if not us, than by another superpower who has hi-tech weapons and nukes. If a country has nukes (like russia) at least they can defend there resources with MAD (mutual assured destruction). Iraq couldn't defend it's resources, and neither can alot of oil producers. These resources will most likely be taken from them. And we don't need to sit on the oil to take it. I don't think this is the best policy, but this is what will happen.

[Concerned]

Iraq couldn't defend it's resources, and neither can alot of oil producers. These resources will most likely be taken from them. And we don't need to sit on the oil to take it. I don't think this is the best policy, but this is what will happen.

Considering less oil is being pumped from Iraq today than under Saddam I'd say "taking" oil is not such a good option. Take a look at Nigera and the rebels over there.

Bottom line is it's very easy to blow up a pipeline.

[Tyler_JC]

Iraq couldn't defend it's resources, and neither can alot of oil producers. These resources will most likely be taken from them. And we don't need to sit on the oil to take it. I don't think this is the best policy, but this is what will happen.

Considering less oil is being pumped from Iraq today than under Saddam I'd say "taking" oil is not such a good option. Take a look at Nigera and the rebels over there.

Bottom line is it's very easy to blow up a pipeline.

"Nuke'em till they glow, shoot'em in the dark, and steal their oil!"

That plan just doesn't work.

The US Military uses about a million barrels of oil per day. Much of this oil is used to fuel the operations in Iraq.

However, if Iraq is producing a couple million barrels a day, the war is still a net-oil positive for the USA.

But this is a very simplisitic view of the situation. America is not interested in conquering the world and forcing them to hand over their oil.

It is FAR easier to kick some ass every couple of years and scare OPEC into sending us what we want, priced in dollars.

Then we can print more greenbacks, buy more oil, "grow" our economy, etc.

It's a beautiful system, too bad the deficit-correction is going to throw the globe into a depression...

[rogerhb]

Before WW2, America was relatively uninvolved in foreign affairs and was doing extremely well economically.

Was "The Great Depression" just a movie?

[Fergus]

We can have peace so long as all the world governments are democracies. (read: Pro-West).

[rogerhb]

We can have peace so long as all the world governments are democracies. (read: Pro-West).

We can have peace as long as no nation covet's some other nation's terroritory or resources.