[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

Fri May 30 08:01:08 EDT 2003

Wally, Brad, et al,

Let me just add a chemical engineer's point of view to this discussion.  The
world population is presently about 6.2 billion people & still growing
exponentially.  It depends upon which expert you believe, but most estimates
put the maximum world population that could be sustained on planet earth
without modern technology at around 2 - 3 billion people.  So, we're already
2X - 3X beyond what can be supported without modern technology.  Think about
how the infrastructure of civilization around you works and how the goods &
services you depend upon are built & delivered.  How would you support the
population of a major metropolitan area like New York or Los Angeles without
it?  There is an intrinsic interconnectness or interdependency to modern
civilization that makes it relatively fragile.  The engineers have done a
marvelous job of making it all work pretty reliably & most people never even
give it a moment's thought.  But, it's really a house of cards.  We in the
US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, & a relatively few other
places are sitting at the top of that house of cards.  It's a good life, but
we should all be relatively nervous.  At the bottom of the house of cards,
it all comes down to resources - water, energy, raw materials, etc.  Fossil
fuels, like crude oil & natural gas, have a unique status in that they are
both the world's primary energy resources & crucial raw materials for things
like plastics, fertilizers & other ag-chemicals, pharmaceuticals, & other
petrochemicals.  Like it or not, the unvarnished physical truth is that
civilization as we know it would come to an end, 50 - 67% of the world's
population would have to die, & the standard of living for the rest of us
would be very much lower if access to crude oil were cut off.  At present,
the Middle East has something like 60% of the proven reserves of crude oil
in the entire world.  You can say what you want about the sincerity of our
politicians, the morality of our foreign policy, the justifiability of any
given war, etc.  Any politician or foreign policy that does not take into
account these physical realities is naive to the point of childishness.
This is the way the world really works.  All the multinational corporations,
politicians, & governments are contrained by these physical realities.  It's
already way too late to back off from it.  Look closely at it.  Take
ownership of it in your own mind, patterns of thought, & behavior.  Make
your judgements re foreign policy with it in mind.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

> Wally,
>
> First let me make a couple of minor points and then
> I'll give you the answer you seek.
>
> "The President had consistently resisted the pressure
> to stop the flow, lest total cutoff trigger a Japanese
> invasion of the Netherlands East Indies, thus
> extending the European war to Asia and makeing the
> defeat of Hitler that more difficult.  Now, on August
> 1 (1941), after long, serious discussions, Roosevelt
> slammed an embargo on high-octane gasoline as well as
> crude oil".... At Dawn We Slept, Gordon W. Prange
>
> "The Maikip oil feilds, producing annually two and a
> half million tons of oil, had been captured on August
> 8 (1942), ............On the thirty-first Hitler was
> urging Field Marshal List......to scrape up all
> available forces for the final push to Grozny so that
> he "could get his hands on the oil fields".....The
> Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, William L. Shirer
>
> Of course WW2 was more complicated than a quest for
> oil but it was certainly a factor.
>
> Do we engage ourselves in Middle East politics because
> of oil?  Well, it sure as hell isn't about the sand.
> Did we have any business going into Somolia, Bosnia,
> and all the other places we went during Clinton's
> administration?  I have mixed emotions but I think its
> a bit shallow and partisan to accept one invasion
> because it was "the right thing to do" and a given
> President decided to do it and then criticize another
> President because he "did the right thing" but oil was
> involved.  If someone wants to deplore or protest war,
> fine.  Keep party politics out of it and be
> consistant.  I don't remember the massing in the
> streets of all the anti-war folks when "their" man was
> in office.
>
> Brad
> --- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Brad,
> >
> > Hitler's run over Europe was not about oil. We
> > didn't like Japan's advances
> > into China so we slapped strict trade sanctions. I
> > think it more about steal
> > than oil but I could be worng. Japan bombed Pearl
> > Harbor because we were
> > hurting them through these embargos. They got
> > pissed, attacked Pearl Harbor,
> > we were then in a war. We then kicked ass and it was
> > the right thing to do.
> > We probably should have gotten involved even
> > ealrier. We were to stupid to
> > realize our National Security was at stake and still
> > gettin gover WW I. I
> > have no problem with going to war to defend National
> > Security.
> >
> > Brad you will admit that oil was the primary cause
> > of these wars. Many will
> > not and I think they are iin denial. I agree most
> > wars have been over
> > economic issues, border disputes and religous
> > reasons.
> >
> > Wally
> >
> > >From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION,
> > politics ahead
> > >Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >Wally,
> > >
> > >Lets go back a ways in history.  Japan invades
> > China,
> > >we do nothing (read "Rape of Nanching", Iris
> > Chang).
> > >Japan continues expansion throughout Pacific Rim,
> > we
> > >cut off their OIL.   Hitler invades Poland and
> > France,
> > >well, France sends him invitations. Japan bombs
> > Pearl
> > >Harbor and we go to war. Charles Lindbergh
> > advocated
> > >your position as regards going to war in Europe and
> > >was isolated to the politcal fringes for the rest
> > of
> > >his life (read "Autobiography of Values, C.
> > Lindbergh)
> > >  I don't think its a stretch to say that
> > ulitmately
> > >WW2 was about oil, among other economic issues.
> > >Throughout all history, when you peel away the
> > stated
> > >reasons for fighting, theres always an economic one
> > >hidden somewhere.  Nothing would make me happier
> > than
> > >if we never had to fight another war, BUT, the
> > world
> > >operates on the wrong Golden Rule;  "He Who Has The
> > >Gold Makes The Rules".  I think the US has been
> > pretty
> > >judicious with its power since WW2.  Like it or
> > not,
> > >we are the only remaining Superpower.  That won't
> > last
> > >forever but we can't turn back the clock and
> > isolate
> > >ourselves.  Had we listened to Lindy 60+ years ago
> > >that's what we would have done but I'm not sure
> > we'd
> > >still be here as a soveriegn nation.
> > >
> > >Brad
> > >
> > >--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I think you are missing the obvious, that is if
> > > > there was no oil in the
> > > > region we would never have been there in the
> > first
> > > > place. I don't question
> > > > your points but if there was no oil no Desert
> > Storm,
> > > > no fly zones would not
> > > > exist, oil for food  would not exist, weapn
> > > > inspections would not exist and
> > > > so on. If Kuwait did not have oil we would not
> > have
> > > > come to the rescue.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong I am glad the guy is no
> > longer in
> > > > power I just think it
> > > > is obvious that the reason we care is because of
> > the
> > > > oil.
> > > >
> > > > Wally
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Michael Meltzer"
> > <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION,
> > > > politics ahead
> > > > >Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 18:43:58 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > >I think you guys are missing the oblivious. It
> > was
> > > > exactly what it was.
> > > > >
> > > > >1)they simple did not like him, deep hated and
> > > > mistrust... It really that
> > > > >simple, they had his history, 2 wars, gas his
> > own
> > > > people,
> > > > >rape/kill for control, starve his people for
> > PR,
> > > > etc.. it might not have
> > > > >been on the US media radar but it was on
> > leaders
> > > > radar(and
> > > > >every worker who job it was to watch the area),
> > > > trying to kill dad did not
> > > > >help. deeply felt repulsion at a moral level by
> > the
> > > > >leaders/works to him, No one to stand up for
> > him.
> > > > Thought in "everything he
> > > > >says is a lie"
> > > > >2)He and is sons where considered crazy, as in
> > > > every report crossing desks
> > > > >"We have no idea what he will do, but here is
> > his
> > > > >history"
> > > > >3)He like to stick it to the US every chance he
> > > > got, No Fly zone shootings,
> > > > >The UN, oil for food, playing with WMD. keep
> > him
> > > > self on
> > > > >the radars(unlike Libya).
> > > > >4)Remember the people who are doing the
> > government
> > > > analyst are human, see
> > > > >item 1-3, They really thought he would use a
> > nuke,
> > > > germs
> > > > >or any thing else he could get his hands on.
> > Any
> > > > worst case idea US
> > > > >analyst's came up with seemed to be answered
> > "He
> > > > could do it and
> > > > >would do it when he can". You could see it in
> > > > everyone actions. Most of the
> > > > >action the leaders took looks like it was "For
> > the
> > > > good
> > > > >of the nation and it is the right thing to do.
> > > > motive".
> > > > >5)Their is nothing magical about the
> > intelligent
> > > > here, the NY time and a
> > > > >Tom Clancy will tell you how they are doing it.
> > The
> > > > problem
> > > > >is allot of it like a "ink blot test", they had
> > > > hard intelligent from
> > > > >years ago and a lot of softer stuff
> > now(invoices,
> > > > wiretaps,
> > > > >radio, overhead pictures), but those pesky
> > human's
> > > > from item 1-4 do color
> > > > >it.
> > > > >6)it was for oil but at the same time not, I do
> > > > believe they ment the oil
> > > > >for the people.
> > > > >7)they where/are all kind of side benefits,
> > Iran,
> > > > Syria, Big Dog on the
> > > > >block, The Economy(as in was is good for it).
> > and
> > > > Sodom will
> > > > >kill people in a month then the war.
> > > > >8)The contracts are a red herring, They by
> > natural
> > > > were a DOD contract
> > > > >spec, saw the posting when it happened, it was
> > all
> > > > theory,
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>