Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[dilloduck]

*poof*--our energy needs are resolved. Now the terrorists have now reason to attack America or American interests ? :huh:

 

[wade]

*poof*--our energy needs are resolved. Now the terrorists have now reason to attack America or American interests ? :huh:

What gives them power is that we have interests in the region and meddle in their affairs. With this power removed, we could just isolate them and let them live in the 17th century as is their want.

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

What gives them power is that we have interests in the region and meddle in their affairs. With this power removed, we could just isolate them and let them live in the 17th century as is their want.

Wade.

If they have the desire and the means to destroy things or people, they have all the power they need. You really buy this blood for oil stuff?

 

[wade]

It is our involvment in their countries and their culture that motivates them to attack us. Because we are dependant on Mid-East oil, we cannot simply withdraw from the region and leave them to themselves. If we were not there for the oil, their anger would soon internalize. Israel would be the only bone of contention remaining.

At it's core, the Arabs hate us for polluting their wonderful culture with our depraved culture. The truth is they fear their own people will abandon Islam for the free thinking of the West, and this is intolerable to them.

Oh, and yes, I think this war in Iraq is largely about oil. Study President Bushes history, he is all about oil. He got burned in 1990-91 when Saddam went nuts, and barely saved his ass by selling off his Iraq based oil stocks after his dad leaked him the warning that it was about to become worthless.

You don't think there are pleanty of people in the US oil industry who would gladly trade a few american lives for tens of billions of $ of oil?

Wade.

 

[Annie]

It is our involvment in their countries and their culture that motivates them to attack us. Because we are dependant on Mid-East oil, we cannot simply withdraw from the region and leave them to themselves. If we were not there for the oil, their anger would soon internalize. Israel would be the only bone of contention remaining.

At it's core, the Arabs hate us for polluting their wonderful culture with our depraved culture. The truth is they fear their own people will abandon Islam for the free thinking of the West, and this is intolerable to them.

Wade.

Wrong. The 'Muslims' that hate us, do so for the preaching of extremism in the mosques. We should have answered their questions long ago.

 

[wade]

Wrong. The 'Muslims' that hate us, do so for the preaching of extremism in the mosques. We should have answered their questions long ago.

Umm, that's what I said. You are just saying it a different way.

And what perchance would that answer be?

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Umm, that's what I said. You are just saying it a different way.

And what perchance would that answer be?

Wade.

I am not the person to ask. From what I can see, the Imams that are 'radicals' are preaching 'orthodoxy' meaning the 'real' Islam. Thus it is a religion of violence, not peace.

However, I'm not a theologian.

 

[wade]

I am not the person to ask. From what I can see, the Imams that are 'radicals' are preaching 'orthodoxy' meaning the 'real' Islam. Thus it is a religion of violence, not peace.

However, I'm not a theologian.

It depends what part of the Koran you wish to quote. I suggest you find the Koran and read starting at about passage 40 (The Believer). The next 30 passages or so should make things clear enough. Be careful to get a literal translation, as some of the westernized translations hide the violence inherant in the text.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

With some kind of relief for basic needs use (ie: heating a basic home), the fact is that people do consume energy in proportion to their incomes, usually more than in proportion. With such a caveat, I agree the tax is not particularly progressive, but it is not regressive. Some tweaking of the system however, could make it progressive. For instance, give everyone $X in energy credits each year, which they (and only they) can spend at the gas pump or for heating thier homes or whatever... or something along those lines.

----

As for alternative power sources, so far there really is not a good technology available. Ion fuel cell tech is still years away (if it ever actually works), hydrogen fuel cell tech relies on natural gas to get the hydrogen. Solar - well it's a mature tech in terms of heating water in appropriate areas, but the cost of making a solar electric panel largely defeats purpose, and even if we could make them w/o expending huge energy up front placing enough panals to convert sunlight to electricity on any signifcant scale has a huge negative impact on the environment. The same is true for wind, tidal, and even hydro-electric power, you can only tap so much before you impact the environment in a significant way.

OTEP's (ocean thermal conversion units) would likewise have an impact, but it would admittedly be delayed several hundred years - but getting the power from the approprate locations out over the deep ocean to the mainland is a problem still to be solved. Geo-thermal power is a good alternative, but we don't have the tech to do this in any but a very few locations yet, nor do we know the consequences of trying to drill geo-thermal taps in general locations. Finally, we could build a couple of huge rotational taps (which draw energy from the Earths rotation), however only certain regions of the world are approprtiate for these - Alaska/Canada, Chile/Argentina, North-eastern Europe - and of course this would slow down the Earths rotation but probably this impact is acceptable for at least 100,000 years. Or we could put space stations up to run a cyclic solar powered turbine - but the cost of getting them up (in terms of energy) might take decades or even longer to recover, and the issue of how to get the energy to earth (microwaves) has environmental impacts that are probably not acceptable.

In the end, of the known technologies (I have a theory of gravity which might allow power production - but this is of course an unknown), what we need is fusion power. Rather than spending $200+ BIL on a war with Iraq, we should be spending on developing fusion power. The only negative to fusion power would be heat production, and that is a negative I think we can deal with (I hope).

One thing is for certain, if we can get off the oil-drug, the terrorists are beat.

Wade.

In order for Middle East regimes to be deprived of the economic means to continue their International Jihad, one which opposes not simply America's intervention in their affairs, but the entire basis of non-Islamic society, not just America, but the entire world market would also be required to oil with alternative sources of energy.

Otherwise, if America increases taxation on oil, the reduced demand on the market will simply be made up by increased demand from other rapidly growing oil consumers, like China, who will find the international market for oil even more affordable, and as a result, be able to rapidly increase their own consumption and subsequent development of an advanced economy.

America effectively subsidizes China's prosperity under that scenario.

And if and when alternative technology to oil emerges from such a policy, we will live under an economy already devestated by our enforced penalty to energy consumption, and face competitors not only well advanced at our own expense, but now readily able to adopt what we sacrificed as a nation to produce.

In the political and economic world of competition, and knowing the nature of those who we expect to prosper without regard for our own sacrifice and opposed to Liberal Democratic values, we'll face a threat far more serious than trying to stabilize the middle east. And we'll face it far weaker as a nation than we could have otherwise been.

We shoudn't hinge our entire national survival on a miraculous breakthough in fusion technology, however many decades away that may be, under a forced tax policy.

Instead, I put far more hope in utilizing all available sources of cheap energy to advance and develop our society until the free market begins to develop alternatives. And we'll be doing so from a position well advanced than we could ever be by starting now. We may never even find a breakthrough if we enforce our reseach at the cost of natural advancement now, even if we have decades to find an answer. But I guarantee you, if we take full advantage of cheap energy now, we'll certainly be in a better position to find a solution when the free market, one obviously far more advanced in the same period, finally makes a real effort to do so.

If we maintain our economy with cheap oil, the same solution may be a matter of years or even months, and not based on decades.

And not only that, we'll be far more economically advanced and in a position to wield that technology for the benefit of all mankind, instead of simply being robbed of it by more insidious powers we know well enough to consider with a jaundiced eye.

 

[Comrade]

It is our involvment in their countries and their culture that motivates them to attack us. Because we are dependant on Mid-East oil, we cannot simply withdraw from the region and leave them to themselves. If we were not there for the oil, their anger would soon internalize. Israel would be the only bone of contention remaining.

I don't think you mean that if Israel was then destroyed and the Jews cast out from their 'holy land', that peace between Islam and the secular West would finally flourish, especially when you say this...

At it's core, the Arabs hate us for polluting their wonderful culture with our depraved culture. The truth is they fear their own people will abandon Islam for the free thinking of the West, and this is intolerable to them.

It's really a matter of establishing authority for those in power on the basis of Islam, much like Fuedal Europe established authority by utilizing religion as a tool of the state. Such regimes may have been able to isolate themselves in the past from competitors, something now impossible in our global community. The only alternative for these regimes to continue their rule, is to seek the destruction of liberal secularism. Oil and our military invention to stabilize it's supply, only heightens their desperation, while also supplying more means to attack it.

Oh, and yes, I think this war in Iraq is largely about oil. Study President Bushes history, he is all about oil. He got burned in 1990-91 when Saddam went nuts, and barely saved his ass by selling off his Iraq based oil stocks after his dad leaked him the warning that it was about to become worthless.

Hmm... ALL ADVANCED ECONOMIES are quite concerned with stablity of the oil supply. Limiting the reasons for preventing Saddam from taking control of almost 30% of the worlds oil reserves, and being in a position to dominate almost 70% with little opposition, vastly underestimates the motives behind the Gulf War.

Again, I don't have any problem in letting America use cheap oil to prosper, and this in fact is a resource extremely valued in all developed economies, each who has ties intricately woven into oil interests as a matter of necessity, driven by the demands of their constituency. Demonizing this as an unnecessary evil is a gross denial of political reality, and a rejection of the means which establish ones own personal well being and survivial in an advanced economy.

You don't think there are pleanty of people in the US oil industry who would gladly trade a few american lives for tens of billions of $ of oil?

No, this is a claim right out of Socialist and Communist handbook.

I think you'd understand that people trade lives for far less... a few dollars maybe, personal revenge, religious salvation, all people have capacity for evil.

But to imagine the people in the oil are murderous beyond anyone else in normal society, or even willing parties to a conspiracy of muder among politicians who work with them, is only reflective of the vehement propaganda of our times, the far left propaganda.

And like communists who scream "No blood for oil" in the streets, they have no idea of the economic realities of capitalism. Increased supplies of oil, and especially stable supplies, which was the primacy of the Gulf War motive, leads to reduced prices and therefore lower profits for all those oil companies concerned.

These problems with oil are based upon the regimes which try take advantage of our need as consumers, and each of us in the entire developed world are personally reliant upon the this resource to ensure our well being and security, maintaining life as we know it. And we demand that our political representatives be intimately involved in these affairs. Those politicians who fail to heed the call of the public will soon find themselves voted out and replaced by those who address the issue seriously and with results.

I think there are far too many people in America today who are claiming higher principles when they are unwilling or unable to face what kind of sacrifice they or their loved ones would make upon advancing the propaganda of the World Socialist Party, which is exactly what you state verbatim.

The motivation to advance their own political agenda outweighs what any rational person should understand as a flawed and intentional denial of the realities of modern society.

Those who mastermind the logical inconsitency that it is not our society, but evil oil barons, and the evil politicians driving our oil-based economy, know full well of this inherent logical inconsistency and the catastrophic reality their promised agenda would have on our modern economy. In fact, that is exactly what they want to effect, the destruction of capitalism and Western society. This is the true agenda. This why they specifically go after the corporations. This is the exact same as what we've heard for decades from the USSR.

They do so simply out of political expediency, and sadly, there are multitudes of Americans who are willing to adopt what has been sold as 'higher principles', and who can convienietly feel morally absolved of what are realities they continue to live and contribute to as a member of Western society.

The misguided ones who repeat this sadden me. But the at the heart of this proganda, and among those who understand from whence the motivation derives for this claim, anger me.

 

[wade]

Hmmm.. I'm not saying that the oil barons want people to die so they can secure more oil rights, I'm saying that it's a cost they are willing to pay.

LOL - you have fallen for the Capitalism = Demcracy myth. They are not the same thing - in fact, capitalism inevitably destroys democracy.

Unrestricted capitalism must lead to totalitarianism, it is inevitable.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

Hmmm.. I'm not saying that the oil barons want people to die so they can secure more oil rights, I'm saying that it's a cost they are willing to pay.

LOL - you have fallen for the Capitalism = Demcracy myth. They are not the same thing - in fact, capitalism inevitably destroys democracy.

Unrestricted capitalism must lead to totalitarianism, it is inevitable.

Wade.

Who says that unrestricted capitalism must lead to totalitarianism? Why is it inevitable? Is there any historical precedence for this statement?

 

[Comrade]

Hmmm.. I'm not saying that the oil barons want people to die so they can secure more oil rights, I'm saying that it's a cost they are willing to pay.

Yet they have no say in the matter, so what role do they play in the decision making process?

And oil companies don't get 'rights' to ownership or sales revenue from what is consistently a nationalized resource in all Middle East countries. What they will end up with is cheaper oil, and fewer profit margins as a distributor.

So what you claim doesn't make a bit of sense yet.

LOL - you have fallen for the Capitalism = Demcracy myth. They are not the same thing - in fact, capitalism inevitably destroys democracy.

How could you possibly believe that?

The protection of personal property and the freedom of enterprise is a trait every Democratic regime in history guarantees. The lack of the same rights is a trait shared by only single party states, theocratic tyranny, or despotic rule.

I don't know how you can dispute this, but I'll be interested in seeing you try.

 

[wade]

Yet they have no say in the matter, so what role do they play in the decision making process?

And oil companies don't get 'rights' to ownership or sales revenue from what is consistently a nationalized resource in all Middle East countries. What they will end up with is cheaper oil, and fewer profit margins as a distributor.

So what you claim doesn't make a bit of sense yet.

No, they also are involved in the oil well business, and get preferencial treatment in oil contracts. But mostly, they profit from an increased supply of oil.

How could you possibly believe that?

The protection of personal property and the freedom of enterprise is a trait every Democratic regime in history guarantees. The lack of the same rights is a trait shared by only single party states, theocratic tyranny, or despotic rule.

I don't know how you can dispute this, but I'll be interested in seeing you try.

The inevitable outcome of unrestricted capitalism is all assets being owned by a single entity/individual. This is of course not compatible with democracy.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

...



The inevitable outcome of unrestricted capitalism is all assets being owned by a single entity/individual. This is of course not compatible with democracy.

Wade.

I dont necessarily agree with that. While development of a monopoly is certainly a possibility under capitalism, I dont see ALL assets being owned by a single entity as possible. There are just too many dependencies on other things like labor, transportation, resources and so forth.

 

[freeandfun1]

But mostly, they profit from an increased supply of oil.

Once I again, I MUST question where you get your information and/or education.

Since when does an increase SUPPLY of ANYTHING help somebody make MORE profits?

Go back and study MACROECONOMICS 101 please.

 

[Comrade]

No, they also are involved in the oil well business, and get preferencial treatment in oil contracts. But mostly, they profit from an increased supply of oil.

Absolutely not.

International oil firms are not maximizing profits by increasing supply... in fact, the optimal level of profits is actually found at a point in the supply/demand curve far above traditional oil market prices. This is because oil demand is extremely inelastic, while profit margins grow with rising prices.

Anyone who took Economy 101 knows what I am talking about. There is no motive to increase supply by the oil companies, because it would have little affect on increasing demand and yet cut drastically into profit margins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1167805.stm

Unpredictable earnings

Most of the oil companies' profit derives from crude oil exploration and production.

But the level of their earnings is highly unpredictable, determined by the volatile movements of a single commodity on world markets.

In 2000, with crude prices at record levels, profits were huge, with for example Shell reporting bumper profits of $9bn, a massive 85% rise on the previous year.
Exxon and Mobil led the rush to merge

But in 1998, when crude slumped to less than $10 a barrel, Shell's profits slid by 36% and Exxon's by 25%.

Another one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2992775.stm

Exxon profits triple

Supply uncertainty

The company's strong performance reflected a recent rally in crude oil prices amid fears that the war in Iraq, an oil workers' strike in Venezuela, and civil unrest in Nigeria would disrupt global supplies.

Exxon's bottom line received a further boost from the sale of its stake in German natural gas distributor Ruhrgas AG.

Exxon's revenues for the first three months of the year also rose sharply, climbing to $63.8bn from $43.4bn one year ago.

Other oil companies have also benefited from the rally in world oil prices, with the UK's BP unveiling a record first-quarter profit of $3.7bn earlier this week.

However, world oil prices are expected to fall in the months ahead as Iraqi output returns to normal, taking some of the shine off the oil sector's financial results.

http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art78.html

Big Oil: Slowing Supply

Since the mid-1990s, oil companies may have acted to suppress refinery capacity and control gasoline supply in an effort to drive up gasoline prices and boost profit margins, according to a report released in June by Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.

Plenty of stuff there to make you rethink what you say.

The inevitable outcome of unrestricted capitalism is all assets being owned by a single entity/individual. This is of course not compatible with democracy.

Never once has this happened in any Democracy in all of human history.

Communist and/or tyranical states create this effect, not Democracies.

Being so fatalistic about capitalism as the destruction of Democracy is some remnant of Communist propaganda I thought we'd learned by now. Their solution to this as to assign all assets to a single entity ruled from the top by an appointed party member, so that you would protect Democracy, which is kind of the big joke. I think you have to explain something here.

 

[wade]

Once I again, I MUST question where you get your information and/or education.

Since when does an increase SUPPLY of ANYTHING help somebody make MORE profits?[/QUOTE[

Every good has a price elasticity curve, and therefore usually a point at which increasing production reduces profits. Prior to this point, increasing production increases profits. The point at which increasing production by one unit increases profits by 1 proprotional unit is called the unit elastic price point, but even beyond this point total profits are often increasing. Just because by producing one more unit of production you must lower the price slightly to sell it does not mean it is not profitable to do so. And in many markets it is possible to divide the market and sell at different prices to different segments.

With oil this point is very far down the curve. When oil is $10 a barrel, gas sells for 60% or more of what it does when oil is at $40 a barrel. Surely you can see the profits are higher at $10/barrel than at $40/barrel, even at the same consumption levels - and of course consumption increases at the lower price.

Go back and study MACROECONOMICS 101 please.

Umm.. this is more a microeconomics problem than a macro economics problem.

I got my Macro from Prof. D. Bear and Micro from Prof. Ramu Ramanathan. Where'd you get yours?

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Umm.. this is more a microeconomics problem than a macro economics problem.

I got my Macro from Prof. D. Bear and Micro from Prof. Ramu Ramanathan. Where'd you get yours?

Wade.

What does an inelastic demand curve look like?

(Just testing, hehe)

 

[wade]

Comrade,

Profit margins are not profits. Margins may be lower, but total profits are higher.

I admit my statement about capitalism is rather unilateral. The fact is we do not have unrestricted capitalism.

But the point is, the realtively unrestricted capitalism we do have is leading to a rather small number of corporate entities becomming more and more powerful. And, as these entities become more and more international rather than national, they become less and less restricted.

Look at the total wealth created in the last 50 years, and look at the distribution of that wealth as it changes each year, and you can see that more and more of it is held by fewer and fewer people.

Keep in mind also that never in history has any society survived two full generations with the top 1/2% of the population holding more than 34% of the wealth (not counting slaves). We passed that level over a decade ago. While this forumula for societal collapse has not yet been tested in the post-industrial world, it is something to think about as we continue to allow a higher and higher % of the wealth to be held by the top 1/2%.

Wade.