Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Resource wars: Oil

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby willjones4 » Fri 05 May 2006, 02:14:04

Image
User avatar
willjones4
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue 16 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 05 May 2006, 02:25:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he idea, basically, is a Darwinian struggle for survival, where the strong overpower the weak and seize their booty. It's all about theft.


The Darwinian struggle for survival or survival of the fittest has absolutely nothing to do with the strong overpowering the weak. It is all about random genetic mutation giving qualities that enhance the survival of the species to reproduce and survive in a changing environment.

Social Darwinism never had any roots in fact.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby MyOtherID » Fri 05 May 2006, 02:33:46

Monte's right on this one.

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

I think JD means "Social Spencerism". Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 05 May 2006, 02:44:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'M')onte's right on this one.

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

I think JD means "Social Spencerism". Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"

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


Sorry, "survival of the fittest" refers to Darwin's "natural selection" which is by random mutation as I stated previously.

His statement is just flat out wrong.

More aptly phrased might be the "struggle for survival." Leave Darwin and Spencer out of it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Newsweek: The Energy Wars

Unread postby gg3 » Fri 05 May 2006, 05:43:23

Five years of zero taxes on any automobile company that agrees to have a 100-mpg car as its standard model by the end of that time. This is a no-brainer because VW has already done it with the Lupo, which is quite popular in Europe.

Five years of zero taxes on any energy utility wind or solar project of 100 MW or greater, or a nuclear project of 800 MW or greater.

During this time, progressively jack up taxes on gasoline and provide an income tax offset to persons at middle class or lower income levels.

Zero the asset tax on telecommuter infrastructure (full disclosure: this would benefit me, I design & build that stuff for a living).

Absolute nationwide ban on building sprawl. We're at war, use emergency powers for something worthwhile for a change.

Emergency measure to override the CC&Rs in the 35,000 "planned communities" in California that ban outdoor clothes lines (clothes dryers are the third largest user of electricity in the home after climate control and refrigerators). Neighborhoods that wish to retain their bans on clotheslines can only do so if they demonstrate twice the national average rate of enlistment in the armed forces.

Emergency override on any zoning code anywhere that prohibits home offices or home-based businesses whose only impacts are the need for additional telecom capacity and shipping/receiving of goods via regular carriers.

Emergency measure to override NIMBYs on the Massachusetts wind project, and fast-track any other new wind, solar, or nuclear project.

Redirect highway funding to urban rail projects.

I could go on, but you get the idea.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby CARVER » Fri 05 May 2006, 06:19:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he U.S. spent $1 trillion and got zero free oil out of the deal


Follow the money...
User avatar
CARVER
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Holland

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby gigacannon » Fri 05 May 2006, 07:00:22

Countries are just puppets of the corporations these days. The war in Iraq might have put the USA in debt, but what about the oil companies? Profit all the way.

What people perceive as the dubious actions of nations is really the perfectly natural operations of corporations.
User avatar
gigacannon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 02 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK (Unless I'm at sea)

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby Doly » Fri 05 May 2006, 07:22:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gigacannon', '
')What people perceive as the dubious actions of nations is really the perfectly natural operations of corporations.


You are assuming here that corporations generally know what they're doing. All the evidence points to the contrary.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Newsweek: The Energy Wars

Unread postby whereagles » Fri 05 May 2006, 08:25:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'G')od, this is going to get ugly. I dread the future. No wonder we're all a bunch of doom-and-gloom pessimists.


Relax, Zardoz. History shows that worst-case-scenarios don't usually materialize. Besides, there's a lot of things we don't know. Maybe the situation isn't that bad after all.
User avatar
whereagles
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed 17 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portugal
Top

Re: Newsweek: The Energy Wars

Unread postby SoothSayer » Fri 05 May 2006, 09:08:37

>> Relax, Zardoz. History shows that worst-case-scenarios don't usually materialize. Besides, there's a lot of things we don't know. Maybe the situation isn't that bad after all.

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you have misunderstood the situation." - Graffito (circa 1968)
User avatar
SoothSayer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: England

Re: Newsweek: The Energy Wars

Unread postby dbarberic » Fri 05 May 2006, 09:40:46

Shhhhhhh......

Keep Peak Oil on the down low for awhile. I need more time to acquire more shares in natural resource, energy, and gold mining companies.
User avatar
dbarberic
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue 27 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby seahorse2 » Sat 06 May 2006, 10:56:42

Cheney's "Russian black-mail" comments went over like a fart in a space suit in Russia. Although the Russian gov't is being more political in its response, but not happy, the Russian public is saying this is the start of the new cold war - or continuation of the energy wars (cheap oil crashed Soviets in round one, expensive oil will crash the US in round 2?).

Yahoo News

Sounds like other media is reading this site to call it another cold war, or at least, you heard it first on peakoil.com

According to a link posted by Jato, Bush says 9-11 was the beginning of WWIII - that's scary.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '[')url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/05/060505220719.qnjzncm8.html]Bush says fight [s]for oil[/s] against terror is 'World War III'[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')S President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III"...


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group and its followers "World War III."


Here's my thought on the article linked by Jato:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think this is important, bc it shows how Bush and company view our present situation. If they believe we are in WWIII, then it makes sens e that "all options" are on the table as they keep saying, including the use of nuclear weapons. Further, it explains Cheney's recent undiplomatic speech about the Russians blackmailing the West which is going over like a turd in Russia. Once people accept that the world is "at war" like Bush says, everything that is going on, including the completely irrational statements coming out of the US and Iran, Venezuela, etc., all make sense.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby gigacannon » Sat 06 May 2006, 13:49:20

Corporations make profit, and the biggest ones are clearly very good at this. But that's all they do; they often operate through the manufacture of goods and services that we don't need.
User avatar
gigacannon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 02 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK (Unless I'm at sea)

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby MyOtherID » Sat 06 May 2006, 14:19:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gigacannon', 'C')orporations make profit, and the biggest ones are clearly very good at this. But that's all they do


No, again you are wrong. Corporations buy power and influence, and end up running government, as they do here in America.

[flash width=420 height=230]http://www.thecorporation.com/video2.swf[/flash]
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca
Top

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby JoeCoal » Sat 06 May 2006, 19:48:33

I just put this at the top of my Netflix Queue. Looks good...
Good night, and good luck...
JoeCoal
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu 02 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby coyote » Sun 07 May 2006, 03:49:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Plus', 'W')hich war was STARTED because of resources (winning is a different question)?

If you accept 'land' as a resource, then probably most of them.
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
User avatar
coyote
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: East of Eden
Top

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby gigacannon » Sun 07 May 2006, 21:39:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gigacannon', 'C')orporations make profit, and the biggest ones are clearly very good at this. But that's all they do


No, again you are wrong. Corporations buy power and influence, and end up running government, as they do here in America.



Uh... and that makes them profit. Corporations do anything to make profit, and if they don't, the decision makers are changed until the corporation starts making profit again. CEOs are cycled until a guy is found who isn't bound by ethics or low intellect.
User avatar
gigacannon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 02 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK (Unless I'm at sea)
Top

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby Peak_Plus » Mon 08 May 2006, 04:45:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Plus', 'W')hich war was STARTED because of resources (winning is a different question)?

If you accept 'land' as a resource, then probably most of them.

Ok, I admit that it is really a matter of definition.

Every war is started/fought because interests are involved: Land, trade, sea lanes, influence, power, strategic location, envy, fear, and (of course) natural resources. We all want "our way", even on an international level.

Sometimes we're really willing to do a lot to get it.

But to fight a war to get your hands on *one* resource? Pretty simplistic view of the world, isn't it???
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang but a wimper!
T.S. Eliot
User avatar
Peak_Plus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri 01 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Germany/Ohio
Top

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby Peak_Plus » Mon 08 May 2006, 05:01:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I')t seems pretty obvious to me that the US is planting a huge permanent footprint in the ME ...

You couldn't have put it better.

If this were to work, the US would then be able to change its special relationship with Israel, which has existed under EVERY president (yes, decades). Although I wouldn't bet on that either.

And it WILL work, it's just a matter of resolve. Which means the Homefront will have to be wipped into shape...
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang but a wimper!
T.S. Eliot
User avatar
Peak_Plus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri 01 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Germany/Ohio
Top

Re: Resource war: Why wait?

Unread postby Peak_Plus » Mon 08 May 2006, 05:07:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', 'Y')ou wage proxy wars (Iraq vs Iran in the 80s), isolate potential countries (Iran in 2005/2006), threaten other countries (Russia/China) and be a general dick on the block...

Which means we have some pretty lousy strategists in Washington at the moment, right, 'cuz they're trying (sorry, tried) to use the chess board to play checkers?
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang but a wimper!
T.S. Eliot
User avatar
Peak_Plus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri 01 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Germany/Ohio
Top

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron