290 comments on DrumBeat: May 15, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
290 comments on DrumBeat: May 15, 2008
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.
“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
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
"Iranian nukler bombs unforgivable" Bush tells Israel
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1550673220080515
Alan
Why does Bush frighten me more than all of the worlds terrorists put together?
That is not some frivellous comment. I really do fear for the world with that guy at the helm.
Marco.
The hypocrisy! Isreal HAS them, but is NOT a signatory to the NPV.
And Iran uses 60 year old technology of which it is highly questionable that it can produce weapon grade material.
Hans Blix and M. El Baradei are probably grinding their teeth at this one.
Thee reason Iran is building a nuclear reactor may be relatively simple.
It knows more about it's true reserves than the figures publicly given out, and how soon oil will be short.
Hypocrisy is not in the Jewish dictionary. Or don't you read about AIPAC?!!
Marco.
I'm a regular visitor to whatreallyhappened. Without loosing my healthy skeptism and critical thinking.
My healthy skeptism and critical thinking also enabled me to understand PO, and why it scares the sh*t out of me.
Thought provoking website, that
Last I checked it is the prerogative of every sovereign state to sign or not a sign treaty.
The NPV came with a set of benefits and obligations. Owing to Israel's particular defense posture, the NPV's benefits were of dubious value to the nation, so it refrained from signing the treaty and taking on the obligations.
Iran signed.
So then why doesn't Israel admit that it has nuclear weapons?
If Israel admitted it had nuclear weapons, it would have to admit that these have deterrent value which far outstrips the military utility of taking more land.
Now why would you want more land? That land is taken by settlers and developers, who vote and contribute to political parties. Real estate, as we Americans and Britons have seen the last decade, can create an asset bubble that makes a fiscally irresponsible government look good while it seizes dictatorial powers. The Neocons applied this model first in Israel, then via Alan Greenspan and dual-citizen advisors who cluster around Dick Cheney, it came to the US. The British always follow us.
What kind of rule should we expect to be created by a state-enforced real estate asset bubble? Real estate and financial speculation corrupting the entire political system? Check. The use of a terrorist threat to clamp down on media reporting on the real threat of an asset collapse? Check. The perversion of standards of government on purported security needs such that a president or prime minister refuses to resign after conduct for which his predecessors would have quit, without any subsequent impeachment by the legislature? Check. Oh yeah, and that inflation and bank collapses and depression and stuff.
The Anglo-American bubbles ran aground on the sheer size of their drain on global capital and the supply of oil to fuel more consumption. The Israelis are still building settlements. Their bubble lasts as long as their army and farmers gang up to drive Palestinian farmers off their land one after the other. Or until the water runs out.
I hear the Shia Lebanese have a whole lot of water...
So then why doesn't Israel admit that it has nuclear weapons? Israel has not signed any treaty obliging her to do so.
If Israel admitted it had nuclear weapons, it would have to admit that these have deterrent value which far outstrips the military utility of taking more land. Nope. Israel would not have to admit that, partly because it isn't true.
Now why would you want more land? Why does anyone? Depends on the land and the context. But a silly question given that Israel has been retreating from land for quite some time now.
I hear the Shia Lebanese have a whole lot of water... As well as several tracts of land bought by Jewish philanthropists in the early 1900's, and confiscated and de-Jewed in the conflicts later on. History is complicated.
So then why doesn't Israel admit that it has nuclear weapons?
Israel has not signed any treaty obliging her to do so.
But there ARE US laws that would shut off funding sources.
There was some sqauking over India/Pakistan and these laws in the past years.
But there ARE US laws that would shut off funding sources. And?
And?
And Israel will not admit to having nuke weapons in public as the US might then cut off funding.
Unless one thinks the US of A is not a country under the rule of law.
For years the argument justifying MAD would require 'your enemies' knowing you have nukes. So either Israel has no fission or fusion weapons (because they are at peace with their neighbors?), MAD is not a valid argument, or Israel does not want the US laws on cutting funding to kick in.
I'll leave it to you to figure out why Israel as a nation has not announced its fission/fusion weapon status.
Actually, Olmert did admit just that. Please see any of a large number of news items.
Olmert did admit just that.
If funding happens (like it did for Pakastan/India) then the laws of the US of A have no meaning eh?
America will do what is in its interests, as per the division of responsibilities delineated by Constitution and law and parceled out to Congress, the President, and the State Department. There are no matters of treaty law related to it, as there are no treaties between the US and Israel that pertain to Israel's nuclear program. There is past legislation, but whenever Congress and State square off over something like this, it's usually Congress that backs away, because a hamstrung State Department is not a good thing.
Israel, in the mean time, will pursue its own interests. The non-proliferation treaty is not related to any of this.
Actually, its eqitable application is exactly the issue regarding Iran and Israel.
Here is a search results page from the National Security Archive at George Washington U. (I implore people to search this massive trove of previously secret info, especially the Operation Northwoods file) for Israeli nuclear weapons. The whole collection from just this search makes fascinating reading--now you know where your tax dollars went. Furthermore, The documents found at the link were used along with others to make credible this book.
Most people understand the Pentagon Papers revealed a whole hidden history--the internal truth--regarding US involvement in Vietnam. There are many other similar stories about other aspects of US Imperial policy, some of which are available at the above GWU site.
*clap* *clap*
Thank you for digging up the book and link. Hopefully others will look at these matters before actual bombs are dropped.
The "equitable" application of the treaty is its application to the signers. Israel never signed.
America will do what is in its interests, as per the division of responsibilities delineated by Constitution and law and parceled out to Congress, the President, and the State Department.
Huh. Plenty of people can argue plenty of times when action has stepped outside of the delineation you have stated (Trail of Tears) or used the public power for private gain. (Teapot Dome)
But you just keep on typing responsibilities delineated by Constitution and law - perhaps one day you'll find a nice reality-free zone where such will be believed.
And in this news cycle you have this oddity:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=300093
Israel, in the mean time, will pursue its own interests.
Yes, because the Nation-State of Israel is UNIQUE in all state-based actions are done for the state, never ever for the private benefit of various people in contridiction to the states own laws.
The non-proliferation treaty is not related to any of this.
You can say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.
I've already shown that you are wrong on the whole America and Law angle with nothing more than the way the man on the $20 bill treated the soverign Cherokee nation. A man who flaunted the Supreme Court gets to have his picture on the money - that is how much American citizens love their law eh?
But I'm sure the Internet will be a-buzz with analysis of the various treaties if Iran gets bombed. Perhaps then, after action has been taken, "we" will know the legality of it eh?
you just need to read below the fold...
"...Bush tempered his remarks by adding that the Iranian push for experience handling all phases of the nuclear cycle was not only their right under the NPT, but was entirely understandable.
"Look, we are sympathetic to their goal, they have enormous quantities of natural gas but have no easy access to the major world markets for that gas.
Of course they would like to develop a petrochemical industry to give future generations of Iranians the benefit of a value-added industrial base.
Chemicals, fertilizers, plastics, these are the key to Iranian development and of course they don't want to burn their feedstock to power these energy-intensive industries...
We fully support the Iranian people's desire for a development model that does not leave them enslaved to Western bankers and dependent upon transfers of Western technology and engineering.
The US honors its treaties, respects the rule of law, and adheres to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations.""
At least I think that's what he said, I misplaced my glasses this morning.
haha, if only... the sarcanol alarm went off when I saw "Bush tempered his remarks."
Gareth Porter exposes BushCo once again trying to "fix the facts around the policy."
I did read the entire article. Always do when I intend to comment because a few years ago I forget to thouroughly read a TOD post on nuclear energy and Prof. Goose immediately wizzled me back.
"we are sympathetic to their goal, they have enormous quantities of natural gas but have no easy access to the major world markets for that gas"
That's more hypocrisy if y'll ask me. Sanctions anyone??
Iran is after electricity - period - And GWB is paranoid on behalf of the entire US population. How long is it till November?
From the article
I can't wait till that man is in office, this approach is exactly what the US need to win back global approval. To be frank, I hear the voice of "a profet" of some sort, when Obama speaks...
"a profet"???
do you mean prophet or profit? As a tried a true cynic, I only hear the latter when he speaks, though I've heard others claim the former.
Paal - I seldom agree with anything anyone in govt. says but Obama's protocol I agree with wholeheartedly. What few Americans realize is our traditional foes, Iran and Cuba, have signifigant grievances with the U.S. that have never been addressed. Perhaps if the U.S. would have the courage to acknowledge our wrongs (coups and assasinations just to name the most glaring)we could create a working dialogue.
I think Americans base foreign policy on movies. Like former Vegas Casino Executives in the 50's tried to imitate George Raft in order to learn how to act like gangsters, American diplomacy is based on a false Machismo:
"Never apologize...sign of weakness." John Wayne movie line in Fort Apache
"Bring it on." George W. Bush
I find it of great interest that you consider Iran and Cuba "our traditional foes."
As noted by the authors of the musical South Pacific, Americans are "carefully taught how to hate and fear." Yes, and it's been done all too well.
We have always been at war with Eastasia, gosh darn it.
I just got that. It took me a while.
No. President Gas says we have always been at war with Freedonia.
****Obscure References
President Gas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwVnHJ0Zucs
Freedonia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYCOyaIUCSo
Karlof1 - I'm confused!?! Do you object to my point that Iran and Cuba are traditional foes or are you making a plug for Rodgers and Hammerstein?
The story South Pacific however is based on two short stories by James A. Michener from his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1948 book, Tales of the South Pacific.
I agree that the USA has been a traditional foe of Cuba & Iran, but I am quite unsure of the reciprocal.
Alan
If Iran and Cuba are now considered our "foes", traditional or otherwise, we gave them every reason to be.
(Disclaimer--I used to show the film South Pacific to students primarily for that one particular scene that provides us with the great line I already cited.)
Well Joe, how long does it take for something to become a tradition? Generations, usually. Iran "became" our friend by the imposition of the Shah until freedom loving Iranians deposed him in 1979. Since then, our propaganda networks have worked overtime to carefully teach Americans and the world that we should hate and fear Iran. Part of that "education" was the waging of war through our proxy Iraq against Iran, whereby we found a new friend Saddam Hussein.
Cuba is somewhat different in that it was seen as inevitably becoming an American state. Thomas Jefferson envisioned Cuba as an American possession. (I highly reccommend this essay as it provides a lot of background as to why the current US-Cuban state-of-affairs exists.) Here the fears and hate are initially racial and tied to US Slavery. The Platt Amendment essentially annexed Cuba, and is what the Cuban Revolution fought to rid itself of. At first, Castro was seen as someone who could be manipulated by Ike and his CIA, but this optimism was shortlived and an economic war declared that continues today, 50 years later. So from a generational-time standpoint, Cuba might qualify as a foe, except for the inconvenient fact that proves the USA as agressor and Cubans merely wanting freedom from such.
The foes of US citizens exist within the US itself and have for over a century. There were two, somewhat connected, short periods of time where this was recognized by a plurality of the populace: 1898-1917, 1933-1940. The rise of the National Security State and its associated propaganda netwoks has made resistence to the US Empire very weak despite the lessons from the Vietnam era. The current behavior of the Democrats proves my point in that ample evidence exists to impeach and remove many of the top executive magistrates but is ignored because they expect to wield the same powers. There are those here who believe Peak Oil's dislocations will be exploited by the Empire to gain even more power and essentially end the Republic. I believe they have good reason to think that.
Karloff - Thank-you for that excellent analysis. It makes me feel better that we have teachers talking to children who know something.
I would be intersted in your opinion of the following article and how you would present this information to s class of high school seniors and would that presentation be different than what you would present to college freshman?
Malthus, the false prophet http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11374623
"Once again the gloom is overdone. There may no longer be virgin lands to be settled and cultivated, as in the 19th century, but there is no reason to believe that agricultural productivity has hit a buffer. Indeed, one of the main barriers to another “green revolution” is unwarranted popular worries about genetically modified foods, which is holding back farm output not just in Europe, but in the developing countries that could use them to boost their exports.
...Although neo-Malthusianism naturally has much to say about food scarcity, the doctrine emerges more generally as the idea of absolute limits on resources and energy, such as the notion of “peak oil”. Following the earlier scares of the 1970s, oil companies defied the pessimists by finding extra fields, not least since higher prices had spurred new exploration. But even if oil wells were to run dry, economies can still adapt by finding and exploiting other energy sources."
Thank-you
Joe
?? ! ?? I didn't know Malthus was a prophet.
I thought he was just an analyst like Hubbert. You have these general trends, which can be expressed as mathematical relations, and you graph them out. Although the answer might not be popular, it does explain a real physical phenomenon which can be observed by anyone who cares to look at it.
Actually, I did go and give it a quick glance, then read the comments as I noted at the very bottom of this thread. I'd like to fulfill your request, but it will have to wait as I'm on the road for 10-11 hours tomorrow. But to understand Malthus, he must be put into his historical context, and a good place to start with that is even earlier with Thomas More's Utopia. One could go further and consult Hobbes and Hume, but for a group of highschoolers I'd just do More. Then there's the actual eco-state-of-affairs in Europe at the end of the 1700s; it is quite ugly--deforestation, topsoil depletion, erosion, plague-causing "hygenic" urban conditions, superstition masquerading as medical practice, etc. The Corn Laws didn't help the masses either, and further pushed Malthus's thoughts.
Presumably, the author is a Brit and should have read all of this during his schooling, or perhaps he went to one of those private elite schools where they frown on teaching those sorts of things. If I were actually teaching, I'd be using an exploratory-based learning/teaching methodology like this, and this article would provide a teachable moment within that method. The article itself would be filtered through a critical learning device the students would still be experimenting with called the Hexadigm. All students would write a commentary that would be read and commented upon by all students, similar to how a blog works on occasion. This discussion would be refereed by me, but most of the learning/teaching is done by the students. This process would be the same for any 7-20 grade level. I would finish the exercise by having the students write a letter of critique to the author, cc'ed to me for assessment.
That's how I'd teach. Note that aside from providing background material, I want students to explore and discover for themselves and then share their thoughts and ideas with each other in a collaborative manner with as little imput form me as possible. That should fulfill half of your request; my opinion will have to wait.
Why should we acknowledge our wrongs? Think they are going to acknowledge theirs? Yep, we've done bad, so have they...alls fair in love and war. Working dialogue for what purpose, we are all going to be worried about our own hides soon enough, who cares what the Cubans and the Iranians think?
Obama as president will apply the Patriot act quite liberally, hope you like being told what to think, speak and read.
You don't seem to have a very clear grasp of history.
Obama as president will apply the Patriot act quite liberally, hope you like being told what to think, speak and read.
Based on your time travel device Mr. Titor?
Hey, do you have links to where you fought to make sure that the present President did not get these very same powers you are now mentioning? Or is this going to be a case of whining after the fact that 'we' all get to hear?
jrc9596 - Where do you live? I want to make sure we're not neighbors.