 | Energy: the fundamental unseriousness of Gordon Brown | The Oil Drum | Our World Is Finite: The Implications of Resource Limitations |  |
228 comments on DrumBeat: October 24, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
228 comments on DrumBeat: October 24, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Don't remember seeing this here yet:
Stan Goff's Energy and War book
speaking of which it looks l;ike turky has started shelling kurds in iraq.
i caught some talk about it last night and the turk's excuses is that the U.S. can do so called 'protective mesures' why can't we?
here is the bbc article on the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7059721.stm
msnbc
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21448618/
IMHO, the Turks bombing the Kurds and the Kurds attacking the Turkish Army show how little control the US has in Mesopotamia in spite of over 300K troops and mercenaries in the region.
If the US defends the Kurdish guerillas against Turkey, we alienate even further the only Islamic country that is making efforts to be a part of the modern world. Yet we have no justification for any occupation in Iraq if we don't even defend the borders. Its hard for the puppet government in Bagdadh to claim any legitamacy if they can't control guerilla's operating from its provinces and attacking a foreign government.
To complicate it all, the Kurdish area of Iraq has at least 1/3rd of the oil production, and that was being exported through Turkey, so the Iraqii oil exports are going to take a nose dive.
As the old American folk saying goes, oh shit.
Bob Ebersole
There is constant trouble between the Kurds and the Turks. This has been the case for a while now. I agree that the troop massing is a problem, but it could be that the reported shelling is the normal order of the day, only now its getting media attention.
Many players, many undercurrents ... sooner or later one will suck us in even deeper than we already are :-(
There are three aspects of power: economic, political/diplomatic and military. (Morgenthau) Neglect of any of the three aspects will eventually result in a loss of power and influence and eventual ineffectiveness. We are seeing that in the Middle East as Bush has overemphasized the military part of the power triangle and has failed to use the power of diplomacy to complement US military power. The US failure at diplomacy reduces the US to nothing more than bulls in a china shop. The other players in the Middle East are simply picking up the pieces and running with it.
How does this claim:
Bush offers to bomb Kurds fit into the political/diplomatic leg?
very generous offer, if I do say so.
Considering the fact that they have been ammasing troops at the border for some time, i think it's reasonable to assume they will go ahead anyway since they don't really trust the bush admin to keep their interests in mind when it comes to iraq.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the US policy in Iraq is to make the place such a God-awful mess that the population either flees (as at least 2 million have already) or dies. In other words, depopulate the country, leaving the oil infrastructure for the USA to take over. Provoking a war with Iran (which could provide cover for killing many Iraqis in the process) may be part of the plan.
Some have suggested that the Bush administration will resort to genocide in order to win the war in Iraq. While I doubt that genocide would cause Bush to lose any sleep, outright murder of the entire civilian population (by US soldiers) would look too obvious. And there might be problems getting US soldiers to obey such orders. So we have to maintain the myth that the war is all about bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Iraqi people. Encourage the Iraqis to kill each other through civil war, or get the Iranians and Iraqis to kill each other, or get the Turks to help eliminate the Kurds, and so on. Add energy shortages and famine to the mix to kill even more people, or cause them to flee the country.
Am I just being too paranoid?
Ozone: Hard to say, others feel that the neocon agenda is to destroy the USA and Iraq is just a sideshow. A strong USA government and economy is far more of a threat to the neocon agenda than Iraq could ever be.
Hi BrianT,
I also wonder if the neocons don't want to destroy the USA, or more likely, the whole world. Some of them are religious nutcases of the first order, intent on bringing about Armageddon and The Rapture as soon as possible.
They might get their wish about the former, though not the latter.
best regards,
Oz
Hello Ozonehole,
Nope, you are not paranoid. I long ago called this strategy [as explained in your posting] as the Porridge Principle of Metered Decline.
Too Hot--too much global political blowback, plus events could spiral out of control. We just couldn't carpet-bomb everything and everybody when we invaded.
Too Cold--timing too slow, too expensive in blood & treasure, ERoEI insufficient. Risk of losing.
Just Right--ideal planning, implementation, then execution to create and continuously time-tweak for [all conditions + blowbacks] for optimal decline, ala Asimov's Foundation concepts of predictive collapse and directed decline, plus 'flying under the radar' to help prevent huge, 'critical-mass' of global outrage.
Of course, that doesn't mean the poor Iraqis and other MiddleEasterners are enjoying what is happening in their region. =(
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Howdy Bob,
Your above analysis makes perfect sense, but there's one flaw with the whole master plan. In order for it to succeed, there has to be a certain level of competence by the Bush administration. I'm not sure GWB has even a hint of common sense, much less competence. Of course, if he screws the whole thing up and unleashes nuclear war in the Middle East, causing oil imports to dry up (along with the US economy), he can always just retire to his ranch in Paraguay. There, he and his new neighbor Sun Myung-moon can spend their retirement days clearing brush and listening to their Apple iPods. I think Paraguay is high enough above sea level that it probably won't be submerged during GWB's lifetime, and why should he care about anything else?
Happy Halloween,
Oz
I think you misunderestimate him.
the "model" that seems to fit best is the "how to facilitate the looting of the treasury" one
the cbo estimates that the war(s) may cost $ 2.4 t over a decadehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071024/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
the last act of any government is to loot the treasury
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
Paranoid or not, you are not alone in your thinking.
Several authors have speculated that a larger failure helps to install more bases, persuade an attack on Iran and other places where US has openly stated they have 'interests' (other than claimed phantom-WMDs).
Also it has been said that, a fictional country like Iraq is easier to manage in pieces. Divide et impera.
Personally I just watch this evolve (with accompanied sadness for both Americans and Iraq people). I'm way too stupid to see into the future and my crystal ball's broken anyway.
But what Cheney said in -94 about attacking Iraq and pieces flying off, well, things like that can make one pause.
Intentional or not, an utter failure it is, regardless of how one looks at it. Even from the point of oil production (so far).
The best take on the mid east situation I have seen recently is by Juan Cole and posted at the link below...Salon.com. Mr. Cole notes that our attempt to return Bhutto to Pakistan for a power sharing arrangement is not working out so well since Bhutto was almost killed in a huge bombing upon return...and the situation between our NATO ally and the Kurds is also a shambles. I feel certain that as soon as Condi finds the right pair of designer shoes she will whisk off to the ME and set everything right. We had two 'anchors' in the ME: Turkey in the west and Pakistan in the east. Are our anchors draging?
'The Collapse Of Bush's Foreign Policy'
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/24/kurds/
These "near misses" open things up to speculation.
Can they really be that incompetent? Or is it the tail wagging the dog?
What "is" going on, each to their own,.. ehhh, and oh, all I can say is listen to this if you can, but the piece you should hear is around 3:50.
This is an interview with Sky news (Australia I believe from the sound of it) with GWB before the APEC conference 2007.
honestly what can you say.
This is what he says,
"....19 kids to get on airplanes and kill 3000 students". (guess what he was referring to, because I know of no such incident. There was that thing in NY... ).
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ2-1IcVCEw
No matter where you stand on anything, does that not make you go ...
WHOA.....,
No, not really. He is a notoriously sloppy speaker and in the context of the speech it was pretty clear what he was referring to.
Of course that is a separate matter of what I may believe re the event he is talking about.
English is not my mother tongue, so I am trying to understand why GWB said "students". Those people in the World Trade Center were businessmen, lawyers and similar. Am I wrong? Is it possible to use the word "student" in a different way? I mean, who would ever say "students"? I don't get it.
If you feel better, many native English speakers don't get a whole lotta what the man says either.
Well.. in any case, I would like to figure out what 'the man' was trying to say.. What students? Is that like a parable? A joke? A secret code ("Launch all nuclear missiles NOW") ..?
I know it's hard to believe but the man makes many mistakes when he is speaking. We've heard so many of them that we just say "oh well, that's George, this is going to get rough."
watch him here talk about global warming.(SNL - heh heh)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpEqln5EdQ
Recipient of AA, Alberta Advantage
Erm, huh?
How do you define 'Islamic Country'? Turkey is constitutionally secular, like the USA.
If you mean a country where the population is majority Muslim, then what definition of 'modern world' are you using that includes Turkey, but excludes say Indonesia, or the UAE, or Bosnia?
Wiki Muslim Countries
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
That's all right, we're alienating Indonesia (and Malaysia), the UAE and Bosnia too.
But Turkey is the one that can consider a deal from Russia that would turn the tables on the US overnight:
Leave NATO
Allow Russian Navy access via the Bosporus to its new base in Syria
Switch its oil pipelines to Russian-controlled sources to monopolize Europe
No signs that Putin is putting together this blockbuster trade yet, but maybe China should consider kicking a few hundred billion $ his way, since this would squeeze the US navy so badly and reduce the threat it poses in SE Asia.
A Russian-Turkish alliance would mean that Putin had accomplished what all the czars and commissars could not, what the British Empire and American empire waged cold wars to prevent: a Russian finger in the Mediterranean.
Maybe the Turkish Army will conclude that these days Putin has a more secular regime than Bush.
Huh?
Turkey is a constitutionally secular country that is Islamic in the only sense that counts - a majority of its people follow Islam.
The US is a constitutionally secular country that is Christian in the only sense that counts - a majority if its people follow Christianity.
Turkey is a model for nations with Islamic majorities that one should wish to see replicated given the alternatives around in Muslim nations today.
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
Turkey is, as you say, A model... it is not the ONLY model to which some of the more extreme islamic nations could improve by replicating.
Turkey is also not exactly a truly desirable model.
The point I was trying to make, is that with all that's going on in the world, it's too easy to get the incorrect impression that virtually all islamiC nations equate somehow to an islamiST model which reflects something like Saudi Arabia or Talibani Afghanistan, and that somehow Turkey is some sort of unique exception to that.
Wiki lists 50 predominantly Muslim countries, and they're a very mixed bunch of places.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Mulslim 99.8% Regardless of what they call themselves, 99.8% Muslim is definitely a Muslim country. Sometimes you guys get so technical that you overlook the obvious. Turkey is a Muslim country, end of story!
Ron Patterson
Frequently I get so, umm, wordy in approach or something, that the point I think I'm making somehow gets lost in the midst of my argument.
Apologies, see reply above.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)