[Madpaddy]

My 2 cents on some of the above.

The US did not deploy enough troops to Iraq to occupy the country. They banked on a lot more local support than they are actually getting.

1200 troops killed in 18 months while tragic is insignificant when compared to Vietnam where the US lost that number every 5-6 weeks.

If unrest continues after Iraqi elections which I expect, I think US troop levels will be ramped up significantly and this probably means draft.

Don't make the mistake of underestimating the US war machine. Media makes it look worse for the military than it actually is.

The US spend twice as much on its military than the next 6 countries combined and it gets better values of scale for this money also.

It is true that the US army with it's current troops strengths can't occupy another country but don't confuse that with the ability to absolutely crush another countries military without breaking a sweat. (conventional forces)

[ailrickson73]

Interesting thread. Its nice to see some honest (and some idiot, almost comical) opinions about the US stance in the world and military force.

What I think is missing in this thread, though some have touched on it breifly, is which is the next country (or countries) to step officially into the game?

I know that China is sending 500 troops to Iraq to <help keep the peace> and other B.S. like that, but I see it as a start of convergance of millitary forces.

The US going to Iraq (and the Brits) is just them getting a foothold for the real battle.

So China sending 500 troops (not enough to really sleak of, but it is a start). My question; Which country will be the next to step up and sya <I want my share of the action!> and back it up with force? China, Russia (the russian millitary machine, industry and economy has recovered greatly in the last few years). Will India enter in partnership with anyone? I dont know,.. but I would appreciate the input of some who mihgt speculate based on bit more knowledge than I possess.

I know Japan has critical energy needs and the technology (though thier millitary is somewhat small, but as seen in WWII, that can quickly change). Is germany (who is almost void of ressources) planning to make a move of its own?

Oh, and if the US attacks Canada, that just means the Canadiens will burn down the white like their ancestors did in the war of 1812, not a good idea for the US.

[ailrickson73]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ailrickson73', '
')Oh, and if the US attacks Canada, that just means the Canadiens will burn down the WHITE HOUSE like their ancestors did in the war of 1812, not a good idea for the US.

[Josephus]

My guess would have to be either Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. Venezuela would qualify of course because they want to deal with Euro-Blasphemy, so say the Bushies. The House of Saud would have to come down before Shrub would admit to thinking of attacking his bestest buds. But that's only a revolution away, and that could start any day now.
Perhaps maybe Mexico? Hmmm.........

[Guest]

I would also go for Venezuela. The US imports a significant amount of its oil from there (1/3?) and doesnt like Chavez, who made friends with Castro and uses the oil-money to help the poor people in his country.

Also Bushs visit to Colombia points in that direction (Venezuela has conflict with Colombia because of FARC, which is supposedly tolerated by Venezuela in the border region).

But it will be likely a Chilean style coup d'etat, because there is strong opposition within Venezuela (upper class and middle class). Could happen anytime...

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut it will be likely a Chilean style coup d'etat, because there is strong opposition within Venezuela (upper class and middle class). Could happen anytime...

[Free]

Good point, but my strong guess is that at least they would give it a try, even if the chances of success are low....after all its their backyard.

[bart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MadPaddy', '
')Don't make the mistake of underestimating the US war machine. Media makes it look worse for the military than it actually is. .... It is true that the US army with it's current troops strengths can't occupy another country but don't confuse that with the ability to absolutely crush another countries military without breaking a sweat. (conventional forces)

[Permanently_Baffled]

OK , ok, I admit I am the thickest guy on this forum , so please bare with me...

Here is the scenario I have trouble making sense of.

One of the suggested biggest contributors to world wide die off post peak is that of war over ever shrinking oil/gas etc resources. But I was thinking about this and thought this may actually be a paradoxical situation. Here is why:

The price of oil starts to average over $50 a barrel of oil leading to a economic slowdown and eventually recession. The US (and maybe her sidekick the UK), say "right thats it time to secure some supplies !" So the US initiates the draft, and invades oil producing countries x,y and z. Now from the Iraqi experience this leads to almost zero production during the conflict, half the production amount post conflict and certainly no production growth! The result would be unbelievable world wide prices for oil making the economic situation EVEN WORSE!!

Now the answer to this maybe that, ok the US will just ensure that all the production of the newly occupied nations goes to the US. Well even this doesnt really work, as apart from the fact the US would have to occupy all of the OPEC nations to secure her 21 mpd (and this assumes that the invasions only drop production 30%!), the US is dependant on the world economy like everone else so if this suffers(because oil is at $1000 a barrel) then the result is the same. ie the situation is EVEN WORSE!

Finally ( I could go on all night !), if the US adopted such extreme policies, surely the Asian economies could retaliate economically without firing a shot, what I mean is flushing out those trillions of US dollars out of there central banks making the dollar worthless. Without a means to purchase imports(of anything let alone oil/gas), the US is looking at a situation that is EVEN WORSE!

My point is , if a jelly brain like me can see this , surely that god of intellect G W Bush can?

Anyone else want to have a go at describing a war like scenario , which actually help the aggressors? Looks like a lose-lose scenario to me. A less painful scenario would be to reduce imports of oil in line with the depletion rate. Sounds nieve and hopeful, but compared to NUclear war its a picnic !

PB

[marek]

This sounds plausible, but remember that politics is subject to chaos theory - the outcome varies greatly depending on initial conditions In other words, this is one scenario among many. Besides, if one subscribes to conspiracy theories, the U.S. might drop "electromagnetic bombs" on an enemy country and thus make it go back to the eighteenth century without the loss of infantry or destroying physical infrastructure (except, of course, electrical and electronic equipment). This would be an example of "accelerated demand destruction."

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marek', 'T')his sounds plausible, but remember that politics is subject to chaos theory - the outcome varies greatly depending on initial conditions In other words, this is one scenario among many. Besides, if one subscribes to conspiracy theories, the U.S. might drop "electromagnetic bombs" on an enemy country and thus make it go back to the eighteenth century without the loss of infantry or destroying physical infrastructure (except, of course, electrical and electronic equipment). This would be an example of "accelerated demand destruction."

[big_rc]

Thank you PB for making some sense in this sometimes overheated conspiratorial environment. I think the US is learning some painful but useful lessons right now in Iraq and I think (hope) that resource wars are going to be a thing of the past as we enter the post-peak era. Life is all about self-preservation and starting resource wars would not be conducive to that cause.

[marek]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', '
')
I take your point reference the electromagnetic bomb tactic. However, it is still hard to see how this will improve the resource problems of the US. If for example the US thought " those damn chinese are gobbling too much oil lets electromagnetic bomb them!", then the Chinese stop funding the US deficits and the economy implodes. Even if such a policy was successful it would only buy a little time and the likely targets (the other big oil consumers) Japan, China and India all hold big reserves of the dollar.

Going to war, at huge expense in money and human lives to make things worse, bizarre !!

PB

[marek]

My other thought is related to the the Prisoner's Dilemma hypothesis. It is optimal for all sides to cooperate, but the dominant strategy for every player is to defect. So in the end all players end up defecting and everyone is worse off. Example: the Cold War arms race. So it is not necessarily unlikely that countries may go to war even if in the end they are worse off. Given a certain payoff combination, it might be rational for countries to do this.

[clv101]

PB, I think you've just explained why resource wars aren't the answer. How many time in the last century has attacking another country ever been a good thing for the aggressor? You'd think people would get the message but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

We all know the terrorist/WMD reasons for going to war with Iraq were a pack of lies... but it still happened. Why?

The only option when faced with peak oil is to reduce ones energy consumption - however this is equivalent to giving up everything if you are currently one of the worlds "elite".

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hank you PB for making some sense in this sometimes overheated conspiratorial environment. I think the US is learning some painful but useful lessons right now in Iraq and I think (hope) that resource wars are going to be a thing of the past as we enter the post-peak era. Life is all about self-preservation and starting resource wars would not be conducive to that cause.

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101', 'P')B, I think you've just explained why resource wars aren't the answer. How many time in the last century has attacking another country ever been a good thing for the aggressor? You'd think people would get the message but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

We all know the terrorist/WMD reasons for going to war with Iraq were a pack of lies... but it still happened. Why?

The only option when faced with peak oil is to reduce ones energy consumption - however this is equivalent to giving up everything if you are currently one of the worlds "elite".

[clv101]

I expect this is the reason why we'll never see an attack on Iran. The US can't afford for the world to lose... what 3-4 million barrels per day. Iran can forget trying to developed a nuclear deterrent, their economic deterrent should be enough to protect them from attack.

I have a lot of respect for Colin Powell... it's all relative but he seems to speak an awful lot more sense than anyone else in the White House at the moment. When does he step down? Has it been announced who's to replace him?

[marek]

Of course we won't see an invasion of Iran. In my opinion, however, the main reason for that would be the enormous amount of contracts that the EU, China and Japan have signed for Iranian oil. The US can't alienate everyone at once, especially its long-time allies. Of course the US wouldn't allow for 3-4 mb/d to be taken off the market. The problem is that Iran will try to launch a euro-based oil bourse this year, and (in the minds of the neocons) the US invasion would stop it, just as it stopped Saddam from trading oil in euros. Obviously, European, Chinese and Japanese interests in Iran preclude another military adventure. Thank God the rest of the world is finally putting constraints on this country.

[americandream]

There is also the possibility that the US is doing the dirty work for all the rest in ensuring that boneheads do not take over the oil asset nations worldwide. That would explain the underlying ambivalence (duplicitiousness) to what is taking place. The US would see its expense commitment as a worthy price to pay to lead up the consumption table. The others would see it (their duplicitiousness) as a worthy price to pay to have the US in the global shopping mall.