 | 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.
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
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
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).