Histories of empires and why the US must fall.

Great Debates
61

Another thing that people fail to understand about oil is that it’s predominance is only due to its convenience. It is a liquid, which eases transport and storage problems, it is (relatively) easily “cracked” into useful distallates, and it has a relatively high usable energy/mass ratio.

And what that all means is that it is a cheap source of energy. But it is by no means the only source of energy. Anything that burns is a source of energy, and there are a hell of a lot of things that burn. It’s just that now, they are less convenient (read: more expensive) than oil, so they aren’t used.
But if, 50 years from now, oil is so rare/dear that it costs $5.00 for enough oil to travel one mile in a car, and you can travel the same distance on $3.00 worth of corn oil, well then, we will have become a corn oil economy.

Hydrogen/fusion/etc. are possible ways out of an economy based largely upon burning things, and they have obvious economic and environmental advantages if they can ever be made to work correctly. But if they never do, and we do run out of oil, it doesn’t mean that civilization will end - it means that an alternative will be found.

Sua

62

A gallon of gas has somewhere around 40 KWhours of energy. A KWH of energy can be generated for about 2 cents. So if you could turn that electricity into a synthetic “oil”, by converting it to hydrogen and adding a carbon, you’d have a “hydrocarbon”.

I think they’ll be alot of dislocations when oil becomes scarce. It’s very useful and relatively cheap. But I don’t think it will be the end of the world.

Before kerosene there was whale oil. And people at one time dreaded the day the world ran out of whale oil b/c progress would stop, etc.

63

As for the “empire” question; I think it’s a bizarre question. The US has “influence” and we protect many areas of the world, but we don’t have an empire.

An empire is when you go into a country extract the wealth and tell the people that they can either work with you (and pay taxes) or you will kill them. That’s what the Romans did. The US trades for goods, we don’t extract them by force. Wealth today is created by man’s ingenuity more than it is stolen in bars of gold or coal mines. Countries that don’t have things they want simply trade for it. Japan has no natural wealth to speak of. No oil, coal, iron, etc. etc. Why haven’t they invaded lately? They don’t need to! They buy stuff.

In the future there are problems for the US. China and India are basically doing jobs that were done in this country. It’s good b/c goods are cheaper. But jobs are more scarce and I would think that would be hurtful to our exchange rate of currencies between our country and China or India. With technological development will come military power. But economies don’t get rich by using military power to steal wealth anymore, so the question is “what would China and India do with their military power”? Why would they want to create a wealth destroying conflict with us?

And please don’t start about how Iraq is proof of “imperialism”. We freed those people. You may not like that, but we didn’t “steal” their oil. They produce about 1 billion barrels of oil a year (if their fields are kept in working order)…that’s 30 billion dollars. The US economy is 10,000 billion dollars of production a year. Why would we bother to steal their oil? We’d just buy it.

64

OK bri1600bv. Question is: Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, what are the other countries on this planet that needed to be “freed”?

We know that the motive to invade Afghanistan was to target Al-Qaida after the 9/11.

What was the motive to invade Iraq? And why did we target Iraq first, as opposed to all those other countries on this planet that have even a more desperate need to be “freed”?

And finally, according to you, we pay $30 per barrel, which is not stealing. But, maybe a fair price in the future should be $12 per barrel (Forget Pick Oil theories). Would you say we should send in the Navy and the Marines to the Gulf, and our Army and Air Force to occupy the oil countries. just to make sure we get a fair price?

65

The people in Iraq needed to be free, yes, but we also had interests there. We decided SH was an all around a-hole who had to go. Given his history of nuclear ambitions and other stuff we didn’t want to take the chance on this idiot giving weapons to others or using weapons to attack other countries (oil producing counties, we do have an interest in keeping oil supplies away from madmen, but does this make us bad? Why?).

Plus we had a history of encouraging a rebellion and then walking away.

Other people may need to be free (where Cuba? N. Korea?) but either we don’t have interests, or they have nuclear weapons.

As for the second question, the price of oil was what, $3 before 1970 and went to $20 in 1973. Did we send in the navy then? We have been willing to let the market set the price even though the cartel that controls it would be illegal in the US (cartels are illegal marketing arrangements in the US). So I think your assumption that the US would demand cheap oil is off base.

66

In my opinion, the USA HAD embarked upon an Imperial Policy in 1898-we acquired amini-empire from Spain (Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.) Our experience with imperialism was a big shocker-we found out (like the British) that empires don’t pay…it is much more profitable to exploit foreign countries via private companies! Take South America-we effectively owned the oil reserves of Mexico and venezula (until the 1950’s) without firing a shot!
Actually, I can forsee a new period ofamerican Imperialism…I am readying plans to :
-annex Siberia
-re-acquire the Philippine Islands (the population WANTS this!)
-admit the canadian provinces of BC, Alberta, and the Yukon into the union.
So, with this new American empire, we will acquire a gripon the world that willlast a long,long time!
(Contact me for details)

67

I see. So, if Mr. Bully happens to be interested in a certain woman, it is OK for him to jump on her and rape her, or as the current bumper sticker goes: “Kick Their Ass, Take Their Gas”.

Having read your previous posts, I suppose you think an “interesting woman” should always be accompanied by a vicious Rottweiler just in case the bully men may become “interested” in her.

Based on your logic, shouldn’t all those countries that are “appealing” to the US, such as Iran, get access to nuclear weapons simply because the US has “interest” in them?

68

exploit?

69

Forgive me if this sounds like some kinna flame, but is there no freakin’ way we can do anything right?

Damned if ya do, saddamed if ya don’t.

We’re real friggin empirical too, what with all the withdrawal by next summer and all (I’ll find the cite if you people want, but I remember it being mentioned on NBC that somebody high up said it last week). And of course we’re just totally consuming and taking over the government and land of Iraq.

Watch us fall. I’m with what DrFidelius said farther up the thread, I see no political subjugation of other nations.

You’re right, at some point the US will fall. So will, in theory, every other world power because nothing like that can be permanent and indefinite. Good luck seeing it happen in any of our lifetimes, though.

Sorry. My two cents.

70

Rent-A-Cops perhaps?

I can’t think of much else we offer to a global economy other than mercenary rented armies to be world policemen
I read a Gore Vidal essay called “The Day the American Empire Ran out of Gas” and he sets a specific date (can’t remember the exact day) when America went from a creditor nation to a debtor nation as the day the empire fell.

He asserts that economic primacy now resides in the Far East and not New York. I remember reading that Japan has the world’s largest capital reserves (could very well be outdated info though) so it makes some sense and I’ve read about China making quite a climb economically as well (I think it was based on manufacturing).

71

There’s no way you read my previous posts.

Our “interest” in Iraqi oil doesn’t mean we’re “stealing” it. To steal it we’d have to take it without paying for it. Before the war they sold it and SH took the money, now they’ll sell it on the market on their terms and they will get the money. So this is stealing? OK b/c the US is involved it’s automatically bad so we must be stealing it, even if we’re not. That makes sense.

The rest of your drivel about an “attractive woman” blah blah blah made even less sense. Let me guess, you view yourself as a “protector” of women even though they don’t want your “protection”?

I can just see you at a social gathering pushing some guy away from the females in the name of “protecting” her from the obvious devious designs of the attractive guys she was flirting with. “Can’t you see miss? You need my protection! He’s no good for you!”. Are you the vicious Rottweiler?

72

If it’s the American public that’s wanting to reacquire the Philippines, it’s news to me as an American and if it’s the Filipino populace that wants it, it’d be news to my girlfriend, a Filipina living in Manila.

73

Why haven’t we invaded all oil countries if we are so avaricious.

You’re the type of guy that would rather have SH murdering people by the hudreds of thousands than have a stable government in Iraq that doesn’t oppress the people at all. Why? Well the stable gov’t would be good for the US. Anything good for the US is bad, so therefore the Iraqis are better off being killed by SH. Makes sense.

Only dimwitted idiots could look at the current situation and say that we are “stealing their gas”. You’re too stupid too respond to. The same dimwitted idiots that said we were stealing Kuwait’s oil 13 years ago.

74

It would be more profitable to exploit using international conglomerates, if the conglomerates wouldn’t turn around and have their main headquarters located in the Cayman Islands and American jobs wind up being outsourced. I have nothing against the Himalayan/Ganges Indians, they have to eat too; it is just that te countries looking at just the bottom line may be missing the big picture.

75

I meant the corporations looking at…

76

Then you aren’t thinking enough. The US has a $10 trillion economy. The military consumes 3-4% of that economy. That leaves around $9.6 trillion.

The rest of the world really likes it when part of that $9.6 trillion is used to purchase their products, invest in their countries, or produce goods they’d like to buy.

Sua

77

Posted by ralph124c:

You’re trolling, right?

Siberia? I can see the sense in uniting the U.S. with all or part of Canada. I’ve even heard Pat Buchanan say the U.S. should annex Greenland (as if Alaska weren’t cold enough for us), but Siberia? A region with an established population of non-English-speaking Russians, Yakuts, etc.? Why on earth would the U.S. want to annex Siberia?

And the Philippines? An overpopulated, underdeveloped, impoverished third-world country in a dangerous and volatile region, with an intractably rebellious Muslim minority?

You’re trolling, right?

78

Glutton: You’re aware that Canada also has non-English speaking regions, aren’t you?

79

Learn the difference between trolling and a joke.

Gore Vidal, huh? Well that settles it.

The world’s largest capital market is still in New York. The US still has the largest economy in the world, the largest GDP, etc.

China is indeed making an impressive economic climb, but it’s not hard when you consider that they are still in the fairly early stages. It’s a lot easier to make progress when you are at the bottom than when you are at the top.

80

Oh yes, there is.

Simply go to the bottom of your own post and click on “search”. You will find out of the 18 posts you have made so far in SDMB, 6 of them are in GD, 5 of which are to this particular thread. Seven of them are to IMHO. Two of them are to BBQ, and 2 of them are to “Comments on Staff report”. I did read them all, and what a waste of time that was.

Do you know the concept of Colonialism, let alone Neo-colonialism?
Just explain why the US government removed Mossadegh from power and replaced him with the Shah. On the surface, it appears that the US “interest” in Iran’s oil didn’t mean that the US and Britain were stealing it. But look at Iran now in spite of all its oil wealth for the past 70 years. It is a mere 3rd world country with a GDP/capita of no more than $1,700. Now, why is that? Where did all the oil revenue go?

Well let me tell you where it went. Just like Saudi Arabia’s oil revenues, it went to pay the bills for a lot of useless Tomcats and F-16s and billions of dollars of other defense junk and its logistics support that were of no use when those countries needed them.

Yes, the US took the oil, but rather than paying the miserly $3 per barrel, they kept the Shah and the House of Saud in power as hostages, turning the countries’ receivables into payables by sending “military advisers” there to persuade those puppets why they had to buy billions of dollars of US and British military junk and Bechtel contracts. Remember that Schultz and Weinberger were both executives of Bechtel Corporation. The former was the US Secretary of State, and the latter was the US Secretary of Defense.

**
Yes. It does make sense, because of what I explained above. If you are too lazy to run some Google search yourself, I’d do it for you, and provide you with plenty of “cites”.

**
Oh. That is easy to answer. We don’t want to tarnish our image to look like a bunch of colonialist pigs. We now do it through neo-colonialism. If we can find a puppet to place there and achieve our ultimate aim, why invade like Chenghiz Khan?

**
Actually, I am not that type of guy. I think SH was a piece of trash, and his government should have never been legitimately recognized by the US. It is that photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein, and the supply of WMD by the US to Iraq in the 1980s that bothers me. US knew then that Saddam was murdering his people, just as Nixon (and especially Kissinger) knew that the US was training SAVAK to help the Shah to murder his people.