Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Carter Doctrine (Our N. American future)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Carter Doctrine (Our N. American future)

    Peak Oil has hit, Middle Class structure in the US over the next 50 years is going to crash fairly hard well (suburban living) Since cheap oil supplies are going to fall short of the need. Energy supplies will too IE: 2003 blackout caused cause breakers went as since the plants were nearing 100%.
    Oil consumption going up every year, Only way to increase economy is through use of more hydrocarbons, But supply is shrinking and prices are rising and more Countries are useing more petro now than ever. Still ironic India with population drastically larger than the US's uses barely any energy in comparison but here, people think they are entitled to a middle class life style since the late 40s it's been thriving because of cheap oil. We today are great at pumping oil out of thr ground but that just helps us use it up even faster I mean really.

    If some of you disagree you guys need to go take a first year geology or simple science class at a university. So how many wars do you guys expect to see? Any of you even care? I mean Cheney even said expect war for the next 50 years. This all seems pretty scary to me the fact that the US would sooner go to war to ensure it has control of middle easy Oil instead of securing and ensuring a better more ecologically friendly way of life.

    If you don't once again buy any of this have a chat with Mr. Simmons of Simmons and Company International.

    This leads me to the Carter doctrine. Another dangerous very neocon strategy that will never work and will damage the US before it helps. IE Iraq, look how well thats going and honestly I hope you all realize it that this is a part of this plan.

    When I say Suburban life will crass there are a few places working in this country to stop urban sprawl and to work on neighborhoods that are based on the old american way of life of self sufficient communities. (very very few though) I honestly think this has a lot of great benefits, I for one would actually like to know my neighbors again instead of just looking at a row of big houses thats more like a row of dormatories than a community. Well I'm pretty troubled by all this so please give me your guys insight.

  • #2
    You obviously were not alive during the Carter years because I can tell you that they were a hell of alot more dangerous than today. Carter gave confidence to the USSR that they can win ... and the Soviets proceeded to act accordingly.

    Had it not been the one single Carter act of bringing on the Chinese to our side, Moscow and not Washington DC would have won the Cold War.

    Comment


    • #3
      Mr. glow, open your eyes and discard the brainwashing you get from your university professors or moveon.org.

      Oil isn't everything. We rely on oil because it's cheap. We'll move to something else when oil gets expensive as it runs out. But first, prove that oil is running out. Just like you have to prove cutting CO2 will cure the world of the global warming hoax.

      We find more and more oil every single year. We just don't want to drill them. There are vast oil reserves in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and our 2 coasts. You want more oil? Drill them. Who's preventing them from being explored? The people who say oil is running out.

      I don't understand your type. On the one hand, you worry about burning too much oil and cause global warming, which is a hoax anyways. The best way to burn less oil is for the price to increase. That happened. And you are screaming about oil companies gouging the consumers. Gouging is a hoax also. There's no such thing as gouging. People pay the price they think is fair to obtain a product or service they need. The best way to lower gas price is to increase supply. But you don't want to drill for more oil and don't want more refineries.

      You people are entirely illogical.

      And Cheney means wars against the islamic terrorists for the next 50 years. Not wars for oil. But of course you people refuse to see the threat and are completely fixated on oil.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        Had it not been the one single Carter act of bringing on the Chinese to our side, Moscow and not Washington DC would have won the Cold War.
        OOE,

        Sir,

        I was in Junior High when Carter left office and Reagan was on his way in.

        Our Social Studies teacher gave us the standard lecture on Evil Commies, how they were out to get us all, etc., etc.

        Then, when he was done, he said don't worry about it, time was not on their side. The Soviet Union, he said, had serious systemic issues that were dragging it down and they would collapse in ten years, maybe twenty at the very most.

        This particular teacher was a retired Captain from Army intelligence who spoke Russian and specialized in things Russian.

        Sure enough, almost ten years later the Wall came down and the rest, as they say is history.

        Having had an expert call the game accurately ahead of time, I guess I was prejudiced against the argument that Reagan spent our way to victory long before that argument was even floated.

        Regards,

        William
        Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          Oil isn't everything. We rely on oil because it's cheap. We'll move to something else when oil gets expensive as it runs out. But first, prove that oil is running out.
          Hi Gunnut,

          The "market will provide" argument might not bear out.

          Given the lead time involved in developing new resources on that kind of scale, the market has no incentive to provide while prices are as low as they currently are and when they spike the market will have nothing in the pipeline (punny, isn't it) to supply the consumer with.

          The hubris that capitalism will fix everything when the crunch hits is not much of a counter argument to that which says careful development and planning regarding energy development and security is in the vital interest of this Republic.

          We find more and more oil every single year. We just don't want to drill them. There are vast oil reserves in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and our 2 coasts. You want more oil? Drill them. Who's preventing them from being explored? The people who say oil is running out.
          You might find dependence on domestic oil to be more disconcerting than dependence on foreign oil.

          Too, domestic production does not neccesarily translate into cheaper product. The global market will continue to dictate the price and OPEC can always lower output to keep prices high no matter where the oil is drilled.

          Furthermore, exploiting Alaskan oil defies logic and economic sense because there are sources closer to the market in greater abundance. Alaskan oil will run out faster and cost more than any one of several alternatives. Why bother?

          Finally, new oil discoveries lag significantly behind new methane discoveries on the order of something like 4:1. These discoveries are much more geographically distributed, which, when combined with the fact that many of these are outside of the Middle East and Central Asia, translates into greater energy security.

          Continued pursuit of oil for the purpose of burning is a fool's errand. Besides, the stuff is so useful it ought to be a crime to burn it.

          And Cheney means wars against the islamic terrorists for the next 50 years. Not wars for oil. But of course you people refuse to see the threat and are completely fixated on oil.
          That is one argument, but not the only one.

          There is a fairly rational, logical position that the military adventurism in the Middle East is essentially a cover for grand strategically throttling Chinese and possibly Indian economic development.

          Besides, it might possibly defy logic to assume that two oil men in the White House cooking up a plan to turn the World's energy bread basket upside down by prosecuting a major war there did not have energy issues fairly high up on their list of priorities.

          Have a good afternoon,

          Regards,

          William
          Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

          Comment


          • #6
            You want more oil drill them? YEah thats going to work for the long run It's like an easter egg hunt, they are all over the place but eventually you're still going to run out. C'mon it's a big dangerous game right now securing Oil deposits.

            Ummmm What? Global warming is hoax? Are you even serious? LOL do you not believe in acid rain either? I think you should read up on Carbon cycles. Generally getting your information from conservative businessmen or republican party is the worste idea for any real insight. But ya know 1000s of upon 1000s of researhers and scientists collecting information or the obvious signs of global warming that are taking place are just figments of our imagination.

            Comment


            • #7
              William, the market will provide. That is a fact. Your contention is that it won't provide it "cheaply." Which I never said will be the case. A transition might be painful, but bearable. We have gone through many different economic and industrial transitions in our history. Each time we come out better and stronger.

              Your assessment of 2 oil men meddling in the mideast is interesting, especially with regards to throttling China and India's development. However, that requires quit a bit of foresight and conspiracy. Maybe Bush and his team hatched the plan. Maybe that was a US plan, hatched prior to Bush's term. Maybe that's just a conspiracy theory.

              But here's the central issue that the left can't seem to wrap their brains around. Bush and just about all capitalists believe that oil is a commodity, not a utility. Commodity can be and should be bought and sold on the open market. We have no need to invade anyone if we can buy this stuff. Wars are expensive. A simple cost-benefit analysis will show that a war for oil is simply not economical. The only people who will launch a war for oil are non-capitalists.
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by glow View Post
                You want more oil drill them? YEah thats going to work for the long run It's like an easter egg hunt, they are all over the place but eventually you're still going to run out. C'mon it's a big dangerous game right now securing Oil deposits.
                Fine. Let it run out. Price will increase and make other forms of energy more cost effective to use. More usage means more development, further lowering the price. Simple market economics.

                Originally posted by glow View Post
                Ummmm What? Global warming is hoax? Are you even serious? LOL do you not believe in acid rain either? I think you should read up on Carbon cycles. Generally getting your information from conservative businessmen or republican party is the worste idea for any real insight. But ya know 1000s of upon 1000s of researhers and scientists collecting information or the obvious signs of global warming that are taking place are just figments of our imagination.
                Not gonna go through 9 million pages of discussion about global warming being a hoax here.

                There are thousands of scientists who believe global warming is a hoax. They don't get the spotlight because it's a happy story, not a doomsday scenario.

                Do you believe in evolution? You must do. What is the central difference between creationism and evolution? Change.

                Creationism states that god created everything. New creatures cannot come about on their own. Things stay static. Species can only extinct, not emerge.

                Evolution believes in ever changing life. New creatures appear to adapt to changing environment. Those that cannot change will cease to exist.

                Evolution relies on changing environment. Earth has gone through quite a bit of change, resulting in milliions of species. Global warming is real, but not man made. Global warming along with ice age are part of the earth's life cycle. They come and go on a cyclic basis. We have nothing to do with it.

                It is interesting that adament believers in evolution want a static climate for the earth.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • #9
                  gunnut,

                  Commodity can be and should be bought and sold on the open market. We have no need to invade anyone if we can buy this stuff. Wars are expensive. A simple cost-benefit analysis will show that a war for oil is simply not economical. The only people who will launch a war for oil are non-capitalists
                  the problem with that analysis is that oil is a STRATEGIC commodity. it is vital for the global economy. if one nation-state, or a group of nation-states, control too much of this strategic resource, then this has not just economic but political impact. more so if the state in question is an enemy of the US.

                  in any case, we HAVE waged a war for oil. the FIRST gulf war, in which we made sure that saddam did not roll over a damn large portion of the world oil supply.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    gunnut,



                    the problem with that analysis is that oil is a STRATEGIC commodity. it is vital for the global economy. if one nation-state, or a group of nation-states, control too much of this strategic resource, then this has not just economic but political impact. more so if the state in question is an enemy of the US.

                    in any case, we HAVE waged a war for oil. the FIRST gulf war, in which we made sure that saddam did not roll over a damn large portion of the world oil supply.
                    Minor disagreement here Astralis, the war(s) were waged to ensure continuity of supply, not for ownership as I'm interpreting your comments. It goes back to Gunnuts 'only non-capitalists would wage a war' comment
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Simple. Let oil become so expensive that we start to use something else. But of course the same people who want us to use less oil will say it's "gouging."

                      So the solution is to keep oil cheap but voluntarily switch to something more expensive.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by glow View Post
                        You want more oil drill them? YEah thats going to work for the long run It's like an easter egg hunt, they are all over the place but eventually you're still going to run out. C'mon it's a big dangerous game right now securing Oil deposits.

                        Ummmm What? Global warming is hoax? Are you even serious? LOL do you not believe in acid rain either? I think you should read up on Carbon cycles. Generally getting your information from conservative businessmen or republican party is the worste idea for any real insight. But ya know 1000s of upon 1000s of researhers and scientists collecting information or the obvious signs of global warming that are taking place are just figments of our imagination.
                        Glow, you're in the presence of some extremely well educated people, who have discussed this issue at length. (try searching 'global warming' within the forum) Banal generalisations and roll-eyes don't really cut the mustard here:)
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          parihaka,

                          Minor disagreement here Astralis, the war(s) were waged to ensure continuity of supply, not for ownership as I'm interpreting your comments. It goes back to Gunnuts 'only non-capitalists would wage a war' comment
                          no, not continuity of supply. saddam would have merrily provided his ill-gotten oil to the western world, which would have further enriched his coffers and sped up his WMD programs. probably also give him the money for another go at iran. it certainly was in saddam's interest to make sure there was a continuity of supply.

                          our problem with him was that he would have controlled so much, he would be able to seriously influence the price of oil. OPEC is bad enough, but at least the oil supply wasn't all controlled by one nation. this the US would and will never allow, even though saddam had been an useful proxy during the 1980s.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                            Glow, you're in the presence of some extremely well educated people, who have discussed this issue at length. (try searching 'global warming' within the forum) Banal generalisations and roll-eyes don't really cut the mustard here:)
                            People pulling research from scientists who've been paid by oil companies/ governments aren't exactly educated I'de say misinformed. You know global warming and signs of it keep popping up all over but never all at once. Kinda like plane crashes. Well **** happens time to time but obviously until it starts happening in horrendous numbers people really never seem to make a big deal out of them.

                            Who was that Oil industry exec a while ago came out and said we knew what was happening but "whats the big deal, everyone likes warmer weather anyways" Something like that.

                            I agree with Swift Sword, Especially on Alaskan Oil, at the rate the US uses oil even if it grabbed it out of Alaska we could use it up in 4 days. Not only that but it would be a huge expense to even get it. It already takes 1/3 of a barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of Oil from the Oil sands in Alberta.

                            Either way you look at it, we're going to run out. Your biggest ally Canada which is supplying you with 15-20% of your oil can only supply so much. Yeah its 15-20% but thats 50+% of their oil per year.

                            The evolutionary debate analogy you gave me was amusing but none the less, I really don't see how you can debate it. Did you also believe there wasn't a hole in the ozone too? I bet you thought that was bunk. You realize that theres more and more health problems resulting from c02 emitions I don't think you can fight that. So if it's not good for Organic creatures how could it be good for anything else? c02 is about 350ppm and increasing. Kinda ironic things are changing more and more with it. The bush administration has finally recognized it, the world has, and theres been study after study altered and edited to show that it might not exist. I mean c'mon. I always here this from generally brain washed conservatives who live in Southern states where the oil industry and jesus tend to play a big roll. Well move to a climate where it is vastly different than the one you might get in California or Southern US. I don't think anyone in Scandinavian or Northern regions share your views.

                            Evolution exists, hate to tell ya. Dinosaurs did exist too. People were around longer than 6000 years.
                            Oil industry has lied about global warming and your in some sort of denial. I mean c'mon Bush put an Oil man incharge of environment. Gimme a break.

                            Are you one of those folks who goes to church and asks forgiveness if you break the law too? I hope not you seem smarter than that and maybe not that quite brainwashed.

                            This really sounds like the Ogallala aquifer debate. It's going down every year in the US. Use of it goes up every year, has use slowed or has there been any real stops on over use? not really. So what do people do? Oh just dig deeper wells. Same concept.
                            So what happens when farmers cant produce as much and get in an uprawr even though they screwed themselves over for water? Go after the great lakes, well thats not so broght since they screwed themselves over. Or what is the US going to go "spread democracy" like it did in Iraq to control another commodity it didn't bother to regulate and over use in the first place?

                            You should read about the Tragedy of the commons.

                            Gunnut what are you talking about why would you want to slow Indias economy or Chinas other than preventing them from using more oil? Think also who's fueling chinas economy more than anyone really? THE USA! So if they wanted to slow Chinas economy hell stop flooding walmarts and everywhere else full of Chinese goods. That will hurt more than anything. At least China is goeing to be approaching ZPG. (zero population growth) not like some other countries. India is a good ally in the world and despite the Billion+ people they have they use hardly any energy. Less than even Canada a lot less actually.
                            Last edited by glow; 14 Jun 07,, 00:15.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              People pulling research from scientists who've been paid by oil companies/ governments aren't exactly educated I'de say misinformed. You know global warming and signs of it keep popping up all over but never all at once. Kinda like plane crashes. Well **** happens time to time but obviously until it starts happening in horrendous numbers people really never seem to make a big deal out of them.
                              We've gone through that. Scientists who are for global warming also have money at stake. They are paid to study it. If they say it doesn't exist, they lose their pay check.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              Who was that Oil industry exec a while ago came out and said we knew what was happening but "whats the big deal, everyone likes warmer weather anyways" Something like that.
                              Global warming is good for a certain percentage of the human population, you can't deny that.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              I agree with Swift Sword, Especially on Alaskan Oil, at the rate the US uses oil even if it grabbed it out of Alaska we could use it up in 4 days. Not only that but it would be a huge expense to even get it. It already takes 1/3 of a barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of Oil from the Oil sands in Alberta.
                              Oil sands are different than oil in Alaska.

                              How about oil on the 2 coasts? They are relatively easy to get to. There's huge quantity of it. Why don't we try to get to them?

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              Either way you look at it, we're going to run out. Your biggest ally Canada which is supplying you with 15-20% of your oil can only supply so much. Yeah its 15-20% but thats 50+% of their oil per year.
                              When we run out, we switch to something else. What is so difficult to understand?

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              The evolutionary debate analogy you gave me was amusing but none the less, I really don't see how you can debate it. Did you also believe there wasn't a hole in the ozone too?
                              There was a hole there. There is a hole there. But the contention was that we caused the hole to be there or enlarging it. How long have we known about the hole? 30 years? How old is this earth? You're gonna tell me that hole wasn't there 150 years ago? 3000 years ago? 1.5 million years ago? Prove it.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              I bet you thought that was bunk. You realize that theres more and more health problems resulting from c02 emitions I don't think you can fight that.
                              Really? Is that why there are more and more humans and living longer and longer?

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              So if it's not good for Organic creatures how could it be good for anything else? c02 is about 350ppm and increasing. Kinda ironic things are changing more and more with it.
                              What? CO2 not good for organic creatures? Plants require that to photosynthesize. Animals require CO2 to regulate some of their body functions. Without CO2, we actually will die.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              The bush administration has finally recognized it, the world has, and theres been study after study altered and edited to show that it might not exist. I mean c'mon. I always here this from generally brain washed conservatives who live in Southern states where the oil industry and jesus tend to play a big roll. Well move to a climate where it is vastly different than the one you might get in California or Southern US. I don't think anyone in Scandinavian or Northern regions share your views.
                              I live in California because it's warm. If I lived in Scandinavian countries, I would welcome global warming. In fact, I would burn as much trash as I can just to warm up my place and hopefully hasten global warming, if it has any effect at all.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              Evolution exists, hate to tell ya. Dinosaurs did exist too. People were around longer than 6000 years.
                              So you do believe in evolution. I do too. I also believe that earth's climate change just because it's part of this living, breathing system. You, on the other hand, want to artificially constrict this planet into a mold that you have deemed to be superior to all other periods in this planet's history. You want no change. You don't believe in change. You fear change. Yet you believe in creatures change. Tell me, do you believe that the earth has reached the best climate possible for all times, for all creatures, and we should keep it this way?

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              Oil industry has lied about global warming and your in some sort of denial. I mean c'mon Bush put an Oil man incharge of environment. Gimme a break.
                              So has Al Gore. Have you seen his movie? Everything he presented has been thoroughly debunked.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              Are you one of those folks who goes to church and asks forgiveness if you break the law too? I hope not you seem smarter than that and maybe not that quite brainwashed.
                              I'm an atheist. Are you?

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              This really sounds like the Ogallala aquifer debate. It's going down every year in the US. Use of it goes up every year, has use slowed or has there been any real stops on over use? not really. So what do people do? Oh just dig deeper wells. Same concept.
                              So what happens when farmers cant produce as much and get in an uprawr even though they screwed themselves over for water? Go after the great lakes, well thats not so broght since they screwed themselves over. Or what is the US going to go "spread democracy" like it did in Iraq to control another commodity it didn't bother to regulate and over use in the first place?
                              Short on water? You should be glad about global warming. It will unlock the fresh water stored in glaciers and polar ice caps.

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              You should read about the Tragedy of the commons.
                              And you should ask some questions about what Al presented in his sci-fi comedy called "An Inconvenient Truth."

                              Originally posted by glow View Post
                              Gunnut what are you talking about why would you want to slow Indias economy or Chinas other than preventing them from using more oil? Think also who's fueling chinas economy more than anyone really? THE USA! So if they wanted to slow Chinas economy hell stop flooding walmarts and everywhere else full of Chinese goods. That will hurt more than anything. At least China is goeing to be approaching ZPG. (zero population growth) not like some other countries. India is a good ally in the world and despite the Billion+ people they have they use hardly any energy. Less than even Canada a lot less actually.
                              I'm not asking why. I'm asking about the conspiracy theory. Did Bush come up with this? I thought he's an idiot. How can an idiot come up with such an elaborate and forward thinking plan?

                              India uses less energy not because it doens't have to. It's because there aren't enough for them to use. India and China are desperate for energy. The cheapest and cleanest way to provide them with energy is through nuclear power. Hence the deal we signed with India to provide them with such.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X