[stu]

Good to see the creators of U.S foreign policy banging the drums for WWIII. link

Who do PO.com readers think will be targeted next for their oil. Iran seems like the obvious choice but in Crossing the Rubicon Ruppert says that Saudi Arabia will be the next to go because of the fragility of the regime and of course they are the number 1 oil producing country on the planet. He believes that Iran has a stable government and is unlikely to be targeted.

Anyone heard about the Carter doctrine? "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. And such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." ~President Carter, January 23rd 1980

Surely just a matter of time before Al-qaeda strikes at Saudi oil refineries. Who do you think is next on the list.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stu', 'I')ran seems like the obvious choice

[Guest]

They are going to come at it from many flanks. Total seizure of the ME as well as Russia/Central Asia. Keep you eye on Ukraine as the EU (US satellite state across the Atlantic) spreads further east to the Urals. 1984 time is here.

China is buggered.

[Tyler_JC]

Let's see, who is sitting on a lake of oil and is regarded by many as any enemy of the USA?

1-Saudi Arabia
2-Iran
3-Iraq (oops, we already got that one)
4-Russia
5-Libya

1-By 2010, yes. They are the biggest producer and are a terror supporting country. But would an invasion destroy the oil wells? Yes. Could we still produce 8 million barrels a day? No. We would like it, but we can't take out SA unless they stop giving us their oil. If they refuse to supply us, we may "have to" take them out. (It would seriously damage the US economy; SA oil would be off the market for too long)

2- Yes. Iran is on the terror bad guys list (public support for war against them). They have as much oil as Iraq and maybe more. It would make our ME territory one big piece. Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq are connected. Here's the issue, they have too many people. We would have to kill lots of innocent people in order to "stabilize" that country. It would look like downtown Fallujah for years.

3-Been there, done that. We might start to kill off more civilians at random to cut down on terror attacks there.

4-Never fight a land war in Russia. They have too many nukes. Bad idea.

5-Maybe. Libya is also on the "terror bad guys list" (official Pentagon memo, written by GWB). Libya doesn't have enough oil for it to be worth it. We might try. They are a weaker country than the rest of the ones on this list, so that might make them a better target.

[Guest]

Let's see, who is sitting on a lake of oil and is regarded by many as any enemy of the USA?

1-Saudi Arabia
2-Iran
3-Iraq (oops, we already got that one)
4-Russia
5-Libya

1-By 2010, yes. They are the biggest producer and are a terror supporting country. But would an invasion destroy the oil wells? Yes. Could we still produce 8 million barrels a day? No. We would like it, but we can't take out SA unless they stop giving us their oil. If they refuse to supply us, we may "have to" take them out. (It would seriously damage the US economy; SA oil would be off the market for too long)

YUP

2- Yes. Iran is on the terror bad guys list (public support for war against them). They have as much oil as Iraq and maybe more. It would make our ME territory one big piece. Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq are connected. Here's the issue, they have too many people. We would have to kill lots of innocent people in order to "stabilize" that country. It would look like downtown Fallujah for years.

SQUEEZE, SQUEEZE, SQUEEZE

3-Been there, done that. We might start to kill off more civilians at random to cut down on terror attacks there.

YUP

4-Never fight a land war in Russia. They have too many nukes. Bad idea.

VELVET (PEOPLES) REVOLUTION

5-Maybe. Libya is also on the "terror bad guys list" (official Pentagon memo, written by GWB). Libya doesn't have enough oil for it to be worth it. We might try. They are a weaker country than the rest of the ones on this list, so that might make them a better target.

THEY'RE SUCKING AT THE MOMENT SO NO PROBS THERE

[Sencha]

I'm going to risk submitting an unusual answer to this question, that may be a bit seditious, but I think it needs to be said.

The next target should be: The U.S.A.

I know that sounds stupid, why would we attack ourselves? I'm saying we need to stop the Administration before it does any more damage. We know that the "war on terror" is a lost cause that cannot be won, and is simply a vehicle for the Administration's facist and energy mongering policies.

The war on terror is not planned to be won, it is planned to be permanent. War isn't going to reverse peak oil, if anything, its going to accelerate it and maximize the effects of it. I'm sure anyone that thinks critically about our current situation as a country, and the world's situation as a whole, can agree.

If there is any positive outcome to this war at all, it is to the richest, most elistist people on the planet. They are the farthest removed, farthest isolated from the rest of humanity. They don't care what happens to us. I'm not necessarily advocating violence, nor do I mean to incite rebellion. There are peaceful ways to remove a despot from power.

I end with this quote:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson

[0mar]

Unfortunately, America has too many "Tories" and too few "Revolutionaries/Rebels."

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', 'U')nfortunately, America has too many "Tories" and too few "Revolutionaries/Rebels."

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'L')et's see, who is sitting on a lake of oil and is regarded by many as any enemy of the USA?

1-Saudi Arabia
2-Iran
3-Iraq (oops, we already got that one)
4-Russia
5-Libya

[SilverHair]

Perhaps today the USA has too many Torries and not enough Revolutionaries, but that is in the context of the present comfortable lifestyle.

It will be the extreme economic suffering brought about by fiat currency financial collapse (remember Germany in the 1920's hyperinflation) and production declines brought about by lack of energy, that will fuel social unrest. Torries are only loyal to their rulers when their rulers make their lives pleasant.

There is something called the "revolution point". This is the point where even the small economic improvement allowed to the masses by the rulers is no longer received and the living standard of the majority begins to decline to the point that real pain is inflicted.

How many of you Americans would risk your lives today by armed revolution? I think the answer is none of you. However, imagine that you and most of your neighbors are out of work, out of heat (or cooling), and out of food. Sort of changes your attitude to be frantic about your and your family's survival chances for the rest of the day.

Also note that the first American Revolution had 1/3 of the pouplation loyal to King George, 1/3 who just didn't want to be involved, and 1/3 as revolutionaries. It really doesn't take all that much to start killing one another. Also if you think that you can avoid the conflict, go rent the Mel Gibson movie "Patriot" or the Civil War movie, "Cold Mountain". Or go read about Sam Hildebrand and how he was forced into a murderous role in the Civil War.

Your destiny is breathing down your throat. Twenty years is nothing from the perspective of an older person.

[Skull]

SilverHair, you are as stupid as anyone posting here. This is America and there is no way that anyone with half a brain will revolt against this wonderful country.

Up yours!

[Tyler_JC]

I can picture an invasion of Canada. I don't think the Mounties could stop a large force of American GIs. At the very least, the battle would be interesting to watch (from far, far away). By the time we start thinking about Canada we might be using a cavalry charge supported by longbowmen.

I agree with you the Venezuela is on the list and so is Nigeria. If either of those countries break down completely, it's as bad as Iran going down. I forgot how much oil those two produce.

I don't think any of these attacks will be successful. Wars cost money and oil. Two things we won't have a lot of postpeak.

I have decided to turn postpeak into one word. I suggest that others do the same. It will protect our space bars from further abuse.

[Guest]

America is the best place that ever has been and anyone who wantsto attak us will be killt.

[Sencha]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 'A')merica is the best place that ever has been and anyone who wantsto attak us will be killt.

[savethehumans]

Actually, I read (and printed out) a story on Monday about how Venezuela is the likely next target. Bushies REALLY hate Chavez--he has this crazy idea that the Venezuelan government should control the nation's oil industry, rather than some big oil corporations!

Also, Chavez paid a visit to his counterpart in Moscow, a dude named Putin. (Maybe you've heard of him?) Oil was the #1 topic of discussion. (Like, uh, DUH. ) Yep. Chavez (as well as Putin and the governments of China, the EU, SAUDI ARABIA, etc.) likes the idea of paying for oil in euros! This, of course, is the Ultimate Heresy, according to the Church of the U.S. Neocons....

The Bushies have just worked out yet another deal with Colombia regarding the latter's "insurgents"--and, incidentally, regarding the oil and oil pipelines that just HAPPEN to run through the territory that the "rebels" dominate. And Ecuador's getting a nice new pipeline, and there's this "Andean Deal" of ours, and....

You get the message. The Bushies have failed to oust Chavez via the "coup strategy," so now they're going for the "we've got you surrounded" strategy. Problem is, BRAZIL borders Venezuela, too, and they are working deals with, uh, China, Russia, the Middle East....

Maybe (hopefully?) this time the U.S. is biting off more than it can chew!

[seb]

I suspect many overestimate the military power of the US.

Look how hard it turns to secure a small country like Iraq which was under umbargo for a decade. Iran and Saoudi Arabia are far more powerful! Not even talking about China...

Now US army is used at almost full capacity. I guess we will see a strong remilitarization of the US , it will take many years, and then maybe the US will have the power to go somewhere. For now it just looks out of its ability. And I guess this makes many people angry in the White House because BEFORE Gulf war II only few suspected such weakness. Now it is clear...

[Sencha]

The fact that the U.S. is having such a difficult time, and is seemingly biting off more than it can chew, is bothering me greatly. Don't get me wrong, I hate this war, and I want it to end. But the problem is, if the military is going to keep itself in this stalemate, you know what's coming:

Draft.

All its going to take is a well executed Operation Northwoodesque event. Or even an authentic terrorist attack, but those are rare, and usually come from the country that is fighting it.

I just can't see the military pulling out and going home. That would be a gross dent in the Neocon's agenda, and would be unacceptable to them. But they probably couldn't just pick up shop, leave Iraq in ruins and go to the next target either. I'm hoping the world community would have something to say, and do about that.

[stu]

[quote="Sencha"]

I just can't see the military pulling out and going home.

I've got a friend who's cousin is in the Royal Air Force and recently came back from Basra. He told me the from what he'd seen the size of the bases the UK troops are building out there are not temporary but permanent. Combine that with the fact that North Sea oil peaked about 3 or 4 years ago and you get to see the real reason why Tony Blair is Bushs poodle.

[Aaron]

Don't be so quick to swallow the media's version of Iraq being a quagmire.

Sudan is a quagmire.

Iraq does not even compare.

Keep in mind that these "news" outlets exist for one reason... to sell you stuff.

While Iraq is certainly no party, (especially for it's people), as a military exercise it's been a cakewalk compared to real war.

Only a small percent of US and allied troops have seen combat in Iraq, despite the media spin to the contrary.

[Kingcoal]

Invade another country, are you kidding? The US is having a hard enough time keeping its head above water now. Bush is on a mission to mend fences with allies now, so he can ask for more support in the "war on terror." Watching Bush now is like watching a wife beater trying to make up with his battered wife. It's sick.

This is what will happen: encirclement. Encirclement is what happens to a country when the rest of the world has had enough. The world forces that country to stand down largely through economic forces. In this case, all the world has to do is not help the US with its military adventures. Footing the bill by itself is bankrupting the US already.