OCinBuffalo Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 everything in the middle east is ultimately about oil. if there were no oil, we would have no more military presence there than we have in sudan or haiti or any god forsaken country brutalized by an evil dictator. before oil reserves were found and exploited, the rulers of the countries we now see falling were inconsequential and mostly ignored. and they may be again if wikileaks is correct about saudi's exagerated reserves. but it was and will always be about the oil. Another example of somebody not looking at a map, or history book, before posting. Funny, we had to deal with the Barbary Pirates in 1800-5 and again in 1810. A full 100 years BEFORE oil! How can this be? If everything in the middle east(the, uh, crossroads of the world, moron) is about oil?
GG Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Or the decision could have been not go now and use that money to build nuclear power plants, develop coal to liquid fuels technology/capability, and basic energy Independence and then if the middle east went into a downward spiral stay the F@<K out of that too. And even if we adopted the rainbow farting unicorn energy plan in 2002, what would you do in the intervening 30 years as you switch out the primary energy sources, while your GDP contracts by 20% or so?
/dev/null Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 And even if we adopted the rainbow farting unicorn energy plan in 2002, what would you do in the intervening 30 years as you switch out the primary energy sources, while your GDP contracts by 20% or so? As far as GDP is concerned, make up the difference by building Green Houses (whatever that means), issue financial derivatives to cover the new homes, start up a carbon credit ponzi scheme, and the Fed could have just "Reflated" the remainder
birdog1960 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Another example of somebody not looking at a map, or history book, before posting. Funny, we had to deal with the Barbary Pirates in 1800-5 and again in 1810. A full 100 years BEFORE oil! How can this be? If everything in the middle east(the, uh, crossroads of the world, moron) is about oil? sure. an obscure sea battle over pirating is analogous to regime change and nation building at a cost of 10's of thousands of lives and uncounted billions of $. maybe you could cite some ancient mesopotamian conflicts to further your argument. i recently saw some great carvings about them at the british museum. fascinating. but your point is salient. the geography is what it's all about in the 20th and 21st century. the importance of the geography has nothing to do with oil. Edited February 22, 2011 by birdog1960
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 And even if we adopted the rainbow farting unicorn energy plan in 2002, what would you do in the intervening 30 years as you switch out the primary energy sources, while your GDP contracts by 20% or so? See you really don't believe in the free market- because if you did you wouldn't think that we had to manage everything around the world- as of 2007 40% of our oil is domestic, of the 60% we import about 78% comes from non Middle Eastern sources with Canada, and Mexico contributing about 58% - Germany ran their whole war machine on coal South Africa also ran their country on coal and you don't have to use coal, natural gas and biomass can also be used - maybe you should look up Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 sure. an obscure sea battle over pirating is analogous to regime change and nation building at a cost of 10's of thousands of lives and uncounted billions of $. Or, to look at it another way, the commitment of the ENTIRE US Navy to protect US mercantile interests. (Oh, and there was a land invasion, too.) See you really don't believe in the free market- because if you did you wouldn't think that we had to manage everything around the world- as of 2007 40% of our oil is domestic, of the 60% we import about 78% comes from non Middle Eastern sources with Canada, and Mexico contributing about 58% - Germany ran their whole war machine on coal South Africa also ran their country on coal and you don't have to use coal, natural gas and biomass can also be used - maybe you should look up Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Maybe you should look up Fischer-Tropsch systhesis. It's very ineffecient, which is why German military strategy was so often centered around oil, because they couldn't run their war machine on coal alone.
Peace Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Maybe you should look up Fischer-Tropsch systhesis. It's very ineffecient, which is why German military strategy was so often centered around oil, because they couldn't run their war machine on coal alone. Yeah you Luddite. Look up Fischer-Tropsch systhesis.
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Another example of somebody not looking at a map, or history book, before posting. Funny, we had to deal with the Barbary Pirates in 1800-5 and again in 1810. A full 100 years BEFORE oil! How can this be? If everything in the middle east(the, uh, crossroads of the world, moron) is about oil? Libya isn't the Middle East. No one gave a **** about the Saudi Peninsula until the Brits found oil there - even to the Muslims, there was basically Mecca, Medina, and "What the !@#$ was Allah thinking when he made this shithole? !@#$ it, we're moving to Syria."
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Or, to look at it another way, the commitment of the ENTIRE US Navy to protect US mercantile interests. (Oh, and there was a land invasion, too.) Maybe you should look up Fischer-Tropsch systhesis. It's very ineffecient, which is why German military strategy was so often centered around oil, because they couldn't run their war machine on coal alone. you think the science hasn't progressed maybe you should look up- olefin metathesis
GG Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 you think the science hasn't progressed maybe you should look up- olefin metathesis Which still doesn't answer the question of what you will do in the 30 year transition period, while the rest of the world feasts on the commodity. I'm sure you also know that oil isn't just the primary component for fuel. Try making plastics out of coal. And speaking of coal, how much environmental damage are you willing to live with to replace oil's utility?
Nanker Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Actually, I think the real reason is that Bush & Cheney wanted to fight them, "over there" and not "here" in America. Their greatest allies in the fight thought the exact same thing. The Saudi royal family wanted to fight them "over there" and not in the Arabian peninsula. The bribes and building whahabi madrassas all over the world were no longer buying them the protection they needed from their own people.
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Which still doesn't answer the question of what you will do in the 30 year transition period, while the rest of the world feasts on the commodity. I'm sure you also know that oil isn't just the primary component for fuel. Try making plastics out of coal. And speaking of coal, how much environmental damage are you willing to live with to replace oil's utility? you can make plastics out of coal- you can also make plastic out of natural gas or vegetable oil and for the original argument I don't have to replace all oil use, just the percentage that comes from the middle east which is 13- 14%.
GG Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 you can make plastics out of coal- you can also make plastic out of natural gas or vegetable oil and for the original argument I don't have to replace all oil use, just the percentage that comes from the middle east which is 13- 14%. Which isn't going to prevent others from buying all that middle east oil, so there's no impact to them at all if the US kicks its "dependence" on foreign oil. If anything, you'd make a flammable situation much more volatile.
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Which still doesn't answer the question of what you will do in the 30 year transition period, while the rest of the world feasts on the commodity. I'm sure you also know that oil isn't just the primary component for fuel. Try making plastics out of coal. And speaking of coal, how much environmental damage are you willing to live with to replace oil's utility? See that's why you're building nuclear power plants and a mix of other technologies to displace coal power plants- you also move to range extended hybrids ( a 40mile all electric range allows the average drive to reduce liquid hydrocarbon fuel use by 80%) we really have the technology right now to be a net exporter of oil.
GG Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 See that's why you're building nuclear power plants and a mix of other technologies to displace coal power plants- you also move to range extended hybrids ( a 40mile all electric range allows the average drive to reduce liquid hydrocarbon fuel use by 80%) we really have the technology right now to be a net exporter of oil. You have the technological capability, but you have nowhere near the scaleability and resources to implement it in under 30 years. So what do you do in the interim?
birdog1960 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 You have the technological capability, but you have nowhere near the scaleability and resources to implement it in under 30 years. So what do you do in the interim? kill some arab despots and support some others....
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) You have the technological capability, but you have nowhere near the scaleability and resources to implement it in under 30 years. So what do you do in the interim? I think your timeline is ridiculously long - replace middle east oil 3 years, replace all imported 10 years. A great people can do what a great people are motivated to do. I am so grateful that people like you weren't around a 50-100 years ago, we wouldn't have the Hoover dam, the interstate, or rural electrification just a bunch of short sighted spineless ninnies running around shaking fingers and yelling economically unsound. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQI87lYz1Vs Edited February 22, 2011 by ....lybob
Taro T Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I think your timeline is ridiculously long - replace middle east oil 3 years, replace all imported 10 years. A great people can do what a great people are motivated to do. I am so grateful that people like you weren't around a 50-100 years ago, we wouldn't have the Hoover dam, the interstate, or rural electrification just a bunch of short sighted spineless ninnies running around shaking fingers and yelling economically unsound. youtube.com/watch?v=SQI87lYz1Vs How in the world are you going to replace ME oil in 3 years? There is no way you could even get all the right of ways issued to get all the new power lines you'd need in 3 years. Much less the rest of the infrastructure modifications. Heck, we haven't needed to provide for "rural electrification" for about 40 years, but we can't even get that program killed. It's not a matter of "economically unsound" (though it is), it's "politics, politics, politics."
GG Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I think your timeline is ridiculously long - replace middle east oil 3 years, replace all imported 10 years. A great people can do what a great people are motivated to do. I am so grateful that people like you weren't around a 50-100 years ago, we wouldn't have the Hoover dam, the interstate, or rural electrification just a bunch of short sighted spineless ninnies running around shaking fingers and yelling economically unsound. youtube.com/watch?v=SQI87lYz1Vs Ah what's a post without the irrelevant youtube link? FYI, the things that you mention were all economically driven to connect areas where goods were produced to where they were consumed or exported. That infrastructure didn't exist in the first place. You're advocating destroying perfectly capable infrastructure for something new and more expensive without knowing that it will be better than what you're replacing. And again, you don't answer how US coming clean of a global commodity will mean that US wouldn't be sucked back into the Mid East quagmire.
ieatcrayonz Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Another example of somebody not looking at a map, or history book, before posting. Funny, we had to deal with the Barbary Pirates in 1800-5 and again in 1810. A full 100 years BEFORE oil! How can this be? If everything in the middle east(the, uh, crossroads of the world, moron) is about oil? Oil is made from dead dinosaurs and dinosaurs have been dead since way before those pirates were around.
Recommended Posts