I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities.
If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?
It does not matter if we know where the cheap oil comes from. What matters is that it has to come from somewhere. Also i get the impression that you have this strange idea that business will continue as it is now once our oil demand outstrips supply while supply continues to diminish each year.
Ok now for my missing premises.
1- Bush most definitely knew that oil is going to peak soon. I can say this with confidence as he's energy adviser ,Mathew Simmons, was a major peak oil advocate for decades and was actually one of the most pessimistic about it's consequences( i use the past tense as he is dead now)
2- More importantly Cheney who was by far the major advocate of the Iraq war ,and lied out of he's backside to get america to invade there, also knew about peak oil. he was the director of Halliburton and in 1999 made this speech
"Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even"
"For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow"link to hes speech
3- So if they knew Saddam had no ties to al-qaeda , they knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. Then why did they push so hard to invade there while they still had one war going? as far as i can see there are 3 options
a) Cheney is an idiot
b) Cheney was bored and decided to start another war for fun
c) they wanted access to one of the 3 countries with the largest supply of conventional oil.
4- Now this is conjecture but i don't believe Cheney is an idiot nor do i believe he is particularly evil so i think it was c. He knew peak oil was coming. He knew what problems it would bring for America and so he did what he thought was in America's best interest in the long term . Afghanistan also has the advantage that it has barely dipped into any of the oil that it has unlike the other large oil producing countries there.
5- As both bush and Cheney have said " the American way of life is not negotiable " and if peak oil comes and America does not have access to cheap oil to offset this just what do you think is going to happen to America? I will tell you what is most likely. Economic collapse, riots, major job losses and food shortages( it is estimated that it takes 7-10 calories of energy to grow one calorie of food in America. ) and wars over what is left. Basically America is no longer going to be a first world power and it will enter major decline . To be surpassed by Russia and the middle eastern powers. You should really read that German military report, It foes into detail of the likely consequences from reaching peak oil. Now if America does have free access to Afghanistans oil it can hopefully mitigate the worst of this long enough to adapt to what is coming.
i also want you to read this. it is a short news story
these are also worth looking into
Australia and England were/are allies of the US. Both countries ignored intelligence, which was the pretext of going to war. Suddam Hussein and Osama were propped up by the US, and then they both turned turtle. Can't have that happen - US, England and Australian populations were hoodwinked, which is why there was the Mantra, 'They have WDM's.' and 'The War on Terror'. The propaganda in both countries as well as the US was appalling. It didn't matter what 'people' thought, Kofi Annan and Richard Perle were calling the war illegal. There were protests in all three countries.
Both Bush and Blair believe in armageddon.
Saddam Hussein did play games, but he was playing games, with the supposed, cleverest, most intelligent, most powerful country on earth, but still no reason to go to war. Then there was Hans Blix, who was contradicting Bush and his WMD' mantra, saying there were no WDM"S.
Our newspapers were full of it, pushed by Rupert Murdoch, another right wing egomaniac.
So, the next war looming is Israel and Iran - it's alright for Israel to annex Palestine?, with America, once again, subsiding Israel millions per year. What is the propaganda, and where is it going to take us? What would the outcome be if Romney had won?
RE: "What would the outcome be if Romney had won?"
The Bible predicts that Armageddon will begin in the Middle East, so I would have to say that any religious wingnut, including Romney, has at least the background to believe that he has the potential of being "the instrument of god," in being the one who initiates the beginning of the "end days."
My question is, what would they say if, holding that belief, they initiated a Middle-East holocaust that cost hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives, and the "End of the World" didn't come?
The Bible predicts Armageddon will begin in the Middle East? What is the Biblical term for "the Middle East"?
Okay, clearly I'm not going to enjoy a battle of wits with a half-armed man, so if I can't have any fun, I've no choice but to get semi-serious.
The biblical term lies in Armageddon itself, which in ancient Hebrew - "har meggido" - means, "Mount Meggido."
Mount Meggido is a tell - a mound created by generations of ancient cities, built one atop the other - located a few blocks south of the Sea of Galilee, on which ancient forts were built to guard the main highway, the Via Maris (the Road of the Sea, in Latin), which connected ancient Egypt with Mesopotamia - both of which, if memory serves me, are located in the where? The Middle freakin' East!
See Revelation 16:16 for further details. Don't expect me to do it ALL for you!
Clearly there is no biblical term for "the Middle-East," because when you're actually IN the Middle-East, then for you, the Middle-East would exist somewhere east of you.
Much as there is no East or West of the North Pole, only South.
But there are geographical locations in the Middle-East that are named. Why would you consider yourself in the "Middle-East," when you believe you live in the center of the Universe?
Sadly, theists might be considered at that moment, representatives of the anti-christ. The survivors might hunt them down and ....
That alternative future has not yet been televised or actualized. Great care must be taken with 'what you wish for'....;p(
As i said the wars had nothing to do with WMD's and they all knew that. The real reason for the wars was access to cheap oil. We are about to or even more likely have already reached peak oil.
i say already have since 2005 the production of crude oil has hovered around 73-75 million barrels despite record prices( 10 dollars a barrel in 1998. 100 dollars a barrel in 2012 even despite a worldwide recession) and ever increasing demand oil production) This is something you can bet your ass bush knew as hes energy adviser (Mathew Simmons) was a major peak oil advocate.
Now i say what bush and cohorts did was understandable as our countries are addicted to oil and once productions starts on the downward curve after it peaks the ramifications are going to be severe for us. the world leaders have realized oil has or is just about to peak which led upto the 140 dollars a barrel which caused the 2008 recession. currently our economies are being kept artificially afloat by the bank bailouts, massive lending from the fed reserve and lowered interest rates but this cant go on for much longer as supply is going to start dwindling while demand keeps increasing. the US military predicts that in 2015 demand will outstrip supply by around 10 million barrels a day. When that happens 2008's recession will seem like a day at the park in comparison.
Now Americas only real survival plan is to have access to all the oil it can when this happens to buy it some time ,which means it needs a foothold in the middle east( Russia is out of the question as it has enough chemical weapons and nukes to leave America as an irradiated sludge pit)
Now before you think i am just a conspiracy crackpot i want you to read some things.
a 2005 report commissioned by the American government on the implications of peak oil hirsch report
a 2010 report by the US military on peak oil ( you can skip to the part on energy and oil if you want) military report
a 2010 report from the German military with in depth implications on the likely consequences from peak oil( this report is interesting as it was leaked to the public before it went through the PR branch) report
The uk also had commissioned a study but has refused to reveal it to the public
I also want to add that you cant really blame bush for this. The real problem behind this is capitalism and democracy in conjunction with us, the general public.
Capitalism is to blame as it is extremely short sighted. Its only focus is to make as much money as quickly as possible while, as the Hirsch report says, to mitigate most of the problems from peak oil it would require atleast a 20 year ramp up period with a vast capital expenditure.And 20 years ago there would have been zero chance you could find investors willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money to start preparing for something that far in the future while there was so much easy money to be made elsewhere. There is also the fact that capitalism requires continues exponential growth to function which is just plain stupid in the long term. It is a simple mathematical fact that you cant have continues exponential growth in a finite system. here is actually a very good video that explains exactly what exponential growth means as humans are inherently very bad at understanding it.video
Democracy is to blame as our leaders are elected by the the general public,which is not very bright. If a president had made peak oil harm reduction a major campaign point where he promised to spend exorbitant prices to counter a problem that may only happen in two decades there would have been no chance of him being elected as people vote for the person who tells them what they want to hear. This would have been comparable to a president two decades ago basing hes campaign largely on global warming reduction. as the german military report says
"Gaining an illustrative picture of a subject is very much a matter of habit. When
considering the consequences of peak oil, no everyday experiences and only few historical
parallels are at hand. It is therefore difficult to imagine how significant the effects of being
gradually deprived of one of our civilization's most important energy sources will be.
Psychological barriers cause indisputable facts to be blanked out and lead to almost
instinctively refusing to look into this difficult subject in detail."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A Enjoy the awkwardness but awesomeness :) hahaha