The Biggest Catch 22 in U.S. History

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Dependence on oil is the biggest, most dangerous catch 22 the Unites States has ever been faced with. Our whole infrastructure is built upon our need for and use of oil. This, of course, makes us more and more dependent upon foreign sources. Dependence is growing while known world-wide reserves are dwindling. There's no two ways about it.

We have two choices and both are excruciatingly painful. Either push hard now to invest in and develop true alternatives to oil or re-instate the draft and commit ourselves to endless war for. That's what it boils down to. Neither is preferable. Conservation means overhauling our entire infrastructure (which will kill certain sectors of industry and be alarmingly expensive and time-consuming); or we can just get used to the idea that we rule the world by the barrell of a gun. I for one have carried an M-16 onto the battlefield and have no love for war. I have no fear of it, and if I had to fight for my country's safety I would; but, if there are other alternatives to that approach, I would definitely go for that first. No matter what the cost. We have no right to try and dominate the world, stealing other country's resources b/c we are a spoiled rotten nation. That is cruel and it makes us no better than red China or Communist Russia. America has vast resources and a pioneering spirit. Whenever we have put our minds to something, we've found there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

America can sustain and protect itself, as we have for 200 some years - if we're willing to look homeward and to the future, turn away from war, roll up our sleeves, invest and do the hard work required - as our forefathers were willing to do. If we're too candy-a$$ed to approach this realistically and in earnest, the United States of America will go straight down the toilet - where some currently believe it belongs.

The answer is CONSERVATION not WAR!

Here's an excellent essay written by Michael Klare. It appeared in the January 2004 issue of Foreign Policy in Focus. I encourage everyone to read it and pass it around. Our very lives may depend on it.

Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World's Oil By Michael Klare

(Foreign Policy In Focus - PetroPolitics Special Report , January 2004)

Professor Michael Klare is the author of Resource Wars: The new Landscape of Global Conflict and the forthcoming Petropolitics. This article is reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus .

Friday, January 16, 2004 Posted: 1:23 AM EST (0623 GMT)

When first assuming office in early 2001, President George W. Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction—or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's “energy crisis” was his most important task as president.

www.fromthewilderness.com...




posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
The war on terror is nothing but a smokescreen to legitimize our taking over the world's last known reserves. That's not to say terrorists aren't out there. Of course they are. But not in the way framed from 9-11 on. 9-11 was allowed to happen as a pretext for a new manufactured external threat. Pure and simple. "Al Qaeda" is a creation of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI. It has been infiltrated and is controlled.

It is endless WAR for OIL.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
From the wilderness, a good site and a good, truthfull article.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Great read, ECK. Thanks for the link.


Cheney is quoted in the link as mentioning Saddam's capability to threaten neighbors with WMD and take control of a large portion of the world's energy supply. It's obvious Saddam was a threat to US, but not in the sense that the Bush Administration led us to believe with WMD.

I'm curious to know what progress has been made in the Caspian Sea region, as far as new pipelines. After reading that article, I'm left with the assumption that no 'real' progress will be made, in any oil-rich region, without the unfortunate use of force.

[Edited on 3/3/2004 by Bangin]



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
Great read, ECK. Thanks for the link.


Hey, thanks. From the Wilderness is a site I swear by. One of the best out there.

Cheney is quoted in the link as mentioning Saddam's capability to threaten neighbors with WMD and take control of a large portion of the world's energy supply. It's obvious Saddam was a threat to US, but not in the sense that the Bush Administration led us to believe with WMD.

Saddam actually was that threat - in 1990. But we shalacked his A double S during Desert Storm. Then we especially had him by the 'nads during the containment/sanctions period. There was no need to take him out - other than to gain control of his resources and to switch the trade currency (from euro) back to the dollar. Now we got OPEC by the 'nads.

I'm curious to know what progress has been made in the Caspian Sea region, as far as new pipelines. After reading that article, I'm left with the assumption that no 'real' progress will be made, in any oil-rich region, without the unfortunate use of force.

From the Wilderness has covered just that quite extensively. If you look at their archives, you'll find a treasure trove of info. The consensus right now is it ain't nearly as feasable or valuable as was thought prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. Plus, with the continued fighting, companies aren't nearly as willing to go in and invest.

[Edited on 3/3/2004 by Bangin]


[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I actuall saw the hour long video conference presented by Michael Klare. He seemed very credible and it was a pleasure to watch him. All the names and witnesses he presents seem to be real. Hopefully, he'll get the rest of the already conditioned minds to open up their eyes and see the truth.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I concur mrmulder.
Everything Mike Ruppert puts on his site his excellent.

What did you see Klare on? I've never heard him, myself - other than reading him.

Ok, here's some questions to ponder:

1. How feasable is it to drill in ANWR?

2. Are there any advocates here for the second option: Cheney's use of force doctrine.

3. Who here is willing to support the excruciating changes needed to implement a new conservation policy?

4. Is this policy behind the attempted coup in Venezuela?

5. How long will it be before we find ourselves at war with China and Russia for the world's remaining resources?

6. Will we eventually topple the Saudi regime and take it over?

7. Will the policy remain the same if John Kerry is elected?



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Does anyone here think that Bush's treasonous immigration policy is linked to our need for Mexican oil? (Backroom deal)

That's an aspect I failed to see until reading Klare's paper. It sounds very plausible to me. What in the hell else could make Bush take such an insane and dangerous position?



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I concur mrmulder.
Everything Mike Ruppert puts on his site his excellent.

What did you see Klare on? I've never heard him, myself - other than reading him.

Ok, here's some questions to ponder:

1. How feasable is it to drill in ANWR?

If ANWR means A New World Regime then it's very feasible. Look at 9/11

2. Are there any advocates here for the second option: Cheney's use of force doctrine.

Well he is second in command under Bush so it's possible. Speaking of Cheney have you notice that you hardly see his face on the news nor does he get mentioned?

3. Who here is willing to support the excruciating changes needed to implement a new conservation policy?

I am willing to support them. The only problem is not enough people in this country will support it.

4. Is this policy behind the attempted coup in Venezuela?

Not Sure

5. How long will it be before we find ourselves at war with China and Russia for the world's remaining resources?

Not long at all. In fact what is the deal with North Korea still? I'm tired of this game of checkers. If they claim they have WMD's why haven't we gone in to dismantle them?

6. Will we eventually topple the Saudi regime and take it over?

Absolutely

7. Will the policy remain the same if John Kerry is elected?

He seems to want to change things but I'm not sure.


I apologize ECK. It's Mike Ruppert on the video. Not Klare. Here's the link:

tv.phaseiii.org...

Select 9/11: The Truth and Lies. There are three parts and it's rather long.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Thanks for the info, ECK. It clarified a few things in my mind. Of course the US Govt won't like the Conservation option, because so many of their backers are in the oil industry. That won't help when the world runs out of oil though, although I guess we won't be around by then with all the wars going on.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Does anyone here think that Bush's treasonous immigration policy is linked to our need for Mexican oil? (Backroom deal)

That's an aspect I failed to see until reading Klare's paper. It sounds very plausible to me. What in the hell else could make Bush take such an insane and dangerous position?


I didn't know Mexico had any oil.
Must've missed that part. Anyways, Bush obviously has a hidden agenda. To take over the worlds oil. I have answer as to why aside from running out of it but that is in serious debate right now.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Great comments one and all. Always glad to share the information.

I havta do a few things right now, but definitely will get back to the thread the first chance i get.

MRMULDER, ANWR is the reserve up in Alaska Dems and Repubs have been fighting over drilling forever.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
MRMULDER, ANWR is the reserve up in Alaska Dems and Repubs have been fighting over drilling forever.


Oh, that! Right! Well, then in my opinion if there is alot oil up there then I guess it would be feasible. It would be better to drill there than steal oil from Iran and Iraq so we don't have conflicts that result in war.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Yeah, Mexico is our third biggest supplier.

And this quick:

CARACAS, March 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Venezuela would block the US access to its oil resources if the United States imposes sanctions on or invade the country.
news.xinhuanet.com...

BushCo was behind the attempted coup in Venezuela without a doubt.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
MRMULDER, ANWR is the reserve up in Alaska Dems and Repubs have been fighting over drilling forever.


Oh, that! Right! Well, then in my opinion if there is alot oil up there then I guess it would be feasible. It would be better to drill there than steal oil from Iran and Iraq so we don't have conflicts that result in war.


As a 'good' Republican I always supported drilling ANWR. It would certainly make us somewhat more self-reliant. It is argued that it would only cover a slight fraction of our needs. However there are legitimate questions that arise concerning what it will do to the eco system. I'd love to hear from someone who is knowledgeable in that area as well as everyone's opinions on it. I'll consider all sides before I make a definitive judgement. To me, partisanship is complete nonsense in this post-9-11 world.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well I think fossil fuels of any kind is dangerous to the eco system. I'm not an expert in that area but I can tell you that our government has alternative means to rid the world of fossil fuels and oil.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Yeah, Mexico is our third biggest supplier.

And this quick:

CARACAS, March 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Venezuela would block the US access to its oil resources if the United States imposes sanctions on or invade the country.
news.xinhuanet.com...

BushCo was behind the attempted coup in Venezuela without a doubt.


Man Bush needs to stop this now! I'm not going to war just because of oil. That is so stupid. Of course, low and behold, the Bush Administration isn't going to tell you that. They'll deny ignorance as usual.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The liberals are concerned it will destroy the eco-system. It's legitimate, especially considering the small amount of oil we'd actually could pull out of there. The question is, is it really worth it?

I say we need to start this very minute committing ourselves to weening off the oil and promoting a new conservation agenda. No matter how difficult it is. It's the only sane policy.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Man Bush needs to stop this now! I'm not going to war just because of oil. That is so stupid. Of course, low and behold, the Bush Administration isn't going to tell you that. They'll deny ignorance as usual.

You are not going to war, huh? Does this mean that you are already in the military?



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Man Bush needs to stop this now! I'm not going to war just because of oil. That is so stupid. Of course, low and behold, the Bush Administration isn't going to tell you that. They'll deny ignorance as usual.


You are not going to war, huh? Does this mean that you are already in the military?

No I meant I won't stand behind the President any longer when he says we're going to war because of oil. And no I'm not in the military. So if they try and draft me I'll do my damnest to refuse. I have the right to choose if I beilieve in my cause.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum