PDA

View Full Version : Mission Aborted


GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2011, 05:12 AM
The USA has run away from Iraq (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16234723) without having found the WMD.
Still, Obama managed to avoid a Vietnam style "leave anyone who can't run fast enough" fiasco.

SauceyBlueConfetti
12-18-2011, 09:33 AM
Just out of curiousity, what is your perfect world? You have such "in your face" comments about pretty much every political situation (US related anyway).

Is there anything in the world that you think is done right? Or, even acceptable, if borderline??

GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2011, 09:42 AM
I think that the way in which the USA intervened in Yugoslavia was all right. I also think that the European part of NATO should've done that years earlier.

Libya is a mess, but there "the rest of the world" did all it could and should do. The reason why it is a mess is that they have inherited the tribal problems which Khadaffi had used to remain in power.

When it comes to Iraq, I still think that the USA could have done a good, or at least acceptable, job of it, if the US government had wanted that. But they did not want to do that; they preferred to barge in with a lot of bombs and "let the market take care of the rest". Coupled with the trumped up justification, that makes the USA and its allies culpable for what has happened in the last decade or so, and for what is going on there now.

Davian93
12-18-2011, 11:54 AM
The USA has run away from Iraq (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16234723) without having found the WMD.
Still, Obama managed to avoid a Vietnam style "leave anyone who can't run fast enough" fiasco.

I bow to the wisdom of a man whose own country has such a fantastic record on human rights as I'm sure all the native inhabitants of the East Indies would agree as well as the young Muslim men and boys of Srebrenica and all those Africans that were given free passage to the New World on Dutch trade ships.

Zombie Sammael
12-18-2011, 12:07 PM
I bow to the wisdom of a man whose own country has such a fantastic record on human rights as I'm sure all the native inhabitants of the East Indies would agree as well as the young Muslim men and boys of Srebrenica and all those Africans that were given free passage to the New World on Dutch trade ships.

Hey, if we're going to play "whose country has the worst human rights record", then we should at least consider the nation responsible for the invention of the crime of genocide.

ETA: that would be Britain, by the way. Not accusing the USA of anything.

Davian93
12-18-2011, 12:10 PM
I just like pointing out that the Dutch dont really have room to criticize others on Human Rights.

Zombie Sammael
12-18-2011, 12:14 PM
I just like pointing out that the Dutch dont really have room to criticize others on Human Rights.

That's fair enough, but in Gonzo's defence, I doubt he was personally involved in the oppression of the East Indies, the Srebenicians, or the Africans. Of course, if he was, he really should STFU.

Terez
12-18-2011, 01:38 PM
Right, while certain Americans have invested a lot of effort into defending the Iraq mission. And what with us being a 'democratic' society and all, we are ultimately responsible for what our leaders do. In our lifetimes.

Davian93
12-18-2011, 03:13 PM
Right, while certain Americans have invested a lot of effort into defending the Iraq mission. And what with us being a 'democratic' society and all, we are ultimately responsible for what our leaders do. In our lifetimes.

Which is why I mentioned Srebrenica...which was most definitely in his lifetime.

Seeker
12-18-2011, 03:40 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is your perfect world? You have such "in your face" comments about pretty much every political situation (US related anyway).

Is there anything in the world that you think is done right? Or, even acceptable, if borderline??

Yes, I have to agree with Saucy here given that this is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED, GONZO!

I think it's good that they're finally pulling out of Iraq.

Sinistrum
12-18-2011, 03:52 PM
Um you're giving him exactly what he wants right now. He wants a reaction. That's all this is. See, Gonzo's views on the world are so detached from reality as to make what he really wants deep inside his heart completely impossible. I suspect deep down inside he knows this though he would never publicly acknowledge it. So as a substitute goal, he goes with just riling up those who point out that what he really wants is impossible. I'm sure he gets a great deal of emotional satisfaction out of it (probably his only source out of everything in his life) and helps feed his sense of moral and intellectual superiority. After all he's "manipulating" those lesser minds that deign to disagree with his grand world vision. And because he can "manipulate them" he has in his mind thus proved that vision ultimately correct.

DaiShan1981
12-18-2011, 05:34 PM
While I don't mean to defend any of his posts (as I honestly haven't followed them much) I don't think the above description by Sinistrum is accurate for the person I've met and spoken with on multiple occasions. But I think perhaps we all come off a little more harsh on-line than we do in real life.

In a general sense I would say that everybody has room to accuse everybody else of each others role in human rights issues. I think it's fair to say that Holland hasn't won any prizes foor good conduct in Srebreniča. But that doesn't mean Dutch people should then shut up about other human rights issues, that way nothing would ever get solved. In this case I would say finding the sore spots is more important than defending one's ego. We all know how big our personal responsibilities have been during these atrocities, which is usually not very big at all. Yet we feel compelled to defend "our guys" for some reason. Why? Mostly, they're hardly at fault either, and if they are, they SHOULD take blame. I say the sooner we recognize where blame lies (in the cases where there is actually blame to be laid), the sooner we can actually solve the issues or at least prevent them from happening again.

Ivhon
12-18-2011, 05:59 PM
While I don't mean to defend any of his posts (as I honestly haven't followed them much) I don't think the above description by Sinistrum is accurate for the person I've met and spoken with on multiple occasions. But I think perhaps we all come off a little more harsh on-line than we do in real life.

In a general sense I would say that everybody has room to accuse everybody else of each others role in human rights issues. I think it's fair to say that Holland hasn't won any prizes foor good conduct in Srebreniča. But that doesn't mean Dutch people should then shut up about other human rights issues, that way nothing would ever get solved. In this case I would say finding the sore spots is more important than defending one's ego. We all know how big our personal responsibilities have been during these atrocities, which is usually not very big at all. Yet we feel compelled to defend "our guys" for some reason. Why? Mostly, they're hardly at fault either, and if they are, they SHOULD take blame. I say the sooner we recognize where blame lies (in the cases where there is actually blame to be laid), the sooner we can actually solve the issues or at least prevent them from happening again.

Here, here!

Mort
12-18-2011, 06:19 PM
The army is gone, except the 200 stationed at the embassy. What the other 15800 personnel will be doing there is beyond me though.

What about the mercenaries like Blackwater? So far as I know, they are still over there but no one is really talking about that. How many are they by the way? And how many will there be in a year?

Terez
12-18-2011, 06:32 PM
The army is gone, except the 200 stationed at the embassy. What the other 15800 personnel will be doing there is beyond me though.

What about the mercenaries like Blackwater? So far as I know, they are still over there but no one is really talking about that. How many are they by the way? And how many will there be in a year?Yeah, we're taking out our soldiers, but leaving behind the filthy contractors. Blackwater doesn't exist any more, though. They became Xe, and then they became Academi. I have been trying to find books talking about the contractor situation over there, but these books are hard to find. Many of them only deal with the issue tangentially.

Ivhon
12-18-2011, 06:47 PM
Yeah, we're taking out our soldiers, but leaving behind the filthy contractors. Blackwater doesn't exist any more, though. They became Xe, and then they became Academi. I have been trying to find books talking about the contractor situation over there, but these books are hard to find. Many of them only deal with the issue tangentially.

Why do we indulge in the doublespeak euphemism of calling them "contractors" instead of the mercenaries that they are?

Mort
12-18-2011, 06:50 PM
Yeah, we're taking out our soldiers, but leaving behind the filthy contractors. Blackwater doesn't exist any more, though. They became Xe, and then they became Academi. I have been trying to find books talking about the contractor situation over there, but these books are hard to find. Many of them only deal with the issue tangentially.

They will always be Blackwater to me, too good a name to go with anything else.

Maybe the first rule of foreign policy is that we do not talk about Blackwater? ;)

Res_Ipsa
12-18-2011, 07:16 PM
Why do we indulge in the doublespeak euphemism of calling them "contractors" instead of the mercenaries that they are?

Political correctness playing both sides of the aisle?

@The rest
As for us leaving, it was about time. We did not prosecute the war to the fullest nor are we in Afghanistan, and all we are doing is wasting lives for a bunch of ungrateful little bastards. Too bad we didn't use all their oil to pay for the war, but Bush was too afraid of the "no blood for oil" argument.

Really tired as a taxpayer of funding the world's security. People like Gonzo make me all too aware that idiots abound and they will not thank you for protecting them. Instead, the better solution is to leave them to their miserable existences and protect only our interests. It would be safe to say the world would be a different place w/out the US safety net.

Ohh well, it won't happen. We will continue to involves ourselves in idiotic world ventures like Libya and the UN instead of doing right by our own citizens.

Sei'taer
12-18-2011, 08:36 PM
I bow to the wisdom of a man whose own country has such a fantastic record on human rights as I'm sure all the native inhabitants of the East Indies would agree as well as the young Muslim men and boys of Srebrenica and all those Africans that were given free passage to the New World on Dutch trade ships.

You forgot this: Zwarte Piet (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/holidays/2011/12/zwarte_piet_holland_s_favorite_racist_christmas_tr adition_.html)

Uno
12-18-2011, 08:45 PM
You not only take the bait, you take it, swallow it, and then regurgitate a general attack on the provocateur's country, going centuries back?

Seeker
12-18-2011, 08:52 PM
Um you're giving him exactly what he wants right now. He wants a reaction. That's all this is. See, Gonzo's views on the world are so detached from reality as to make what he really wants deep inside his heart completely impossible. I suspect deep down inside he knows this though he would never publicly acknowledge it. So as a substitute goal, he goes with just riling up those who point out that what he really wants is impossible. I'm sure he gets a great deal of emotional satisfaction out of it (probably his only source out of everything in his life) and helps feed his sense of moral and intellectual superiority. After all he's "manipulating" those lesser minds that deign to disagree with his grand world vision. And because he can "manipulate them" he has in his mind thus proved that vision ultimately correct.

"Hi, Pot, I'm Kettle."

"You're black."

Isabel
12-18-2011, 10:33 PM
You forgot this: Zwarte Piet (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/holidays/2011/12/zwarte_piet_holland_s_favorite_racist_christmas_tr adition_.html)

Yeah, and discussion to ban Zwarte Piet have let to nothing. I can bring you some candy from that holiday? (i would have to search very hard to find it)

Ofcourse every country has commited atrocities, it does depend if you admit it or not.

For example, finally after more than 60 years the Dutch government has apologize for Rawagede. (ok, after a court order)
It's not perfect, but it's a first step.

Sinistrum
12-18-2011, 10:56 PM
"Hi, Pot, I'm Kettle."

"You're black."

Considering you share many of the same unrealistic world views, not to mention many of the same posting habits, it's not too surprising you would react like that. Whatever helps you sleep at night with your cognitive dissonance Seeker. ;)

Zombie Sammael
12-19-2011, 04:58 AM
Honestly, I wasn't going to say anything, but Seeker went there first so I can hide behind him: I'm convinced Gonzo and Sinistrum are the best of friends. Gonzo posts something blatantly left-wing and often absurd, Sinisturm pops up to "put him back in his place" (actually giving him the attention he craves), Gonzo posts something snarky in response, and the cycle continues. The only surprising thing is that the two of you can even remember what the argument was actually about in the first place, but I know you can.

GonzoTheGreat
12-19-2011, 05:17 AM
I just like pointing out that the Dutch dont really have room to criticize others on Human Rights.
Just as the Jews murdered Jesus?

I think that it would be somewhat better to only blame people for what they actually did, what they actually approved, and what they are actually responsible for. That said, there is indeed a bit more to say about that, which I'll do in the next bit of this post.

I bow to the wisdom of a man whose own country has such a fantastic record on human rights as I'm sure all the native inhabitants of the East Indies would agree as well as the young Muslim men and boys of Srebrenica and all those Africans that were given free passage to the New World on Dutch trade ships.

Which is why I mentioned Srebrenica...which was most definitely in his lifetime.
Yes, Srebrenica was indeed in my lifetime. I disagreed with how my government handled that. I even referred to that (and a bunch of other policy decisions regarding the same mess) in my third post in this thread, which appeared before any of your reactions here. Thus, you could actually have known about this. If, of course, you had been interested in actually dealing with reality.


I think that the way in which the USA intervened in Yugoslavia was all right. I also think that the European part of NATO should've done that years earlier.
My view on Yugoslavia in general and Srebrenica particularly:
Europe should have acknowledged the independence of the various countries there a lot sooner. It was very clear that Serbia was not willing to accept any peaceful solution which would not leave Serbia as the ruling entity over a bunch of subjugated colonies. European dithering made things a lot worse.
When it was decided to put Srebrenica under UN protection, that should have been taken seriously. The UN (specifically: the Dutch army) should have enforced it. If air strikes had blasted away the attacking Serbians while a column of tanks was on its way to break the siege apart, then Mladic would have ran away. In my view, it was the decision by the Dutch government to call off the air strike which gave the green light for the Serbians to murder those Muslim men.

So, in that case as in so many others, I sincerely disapproved of the decision taken by a right wing Dutch politician. Some other decisions taken by that specific government (which also had the Labour Party in it) I did agree with, but in the case under discussion here they very seriously botched it.

I do admit that as a Dutch citizen I have part of the responsibility for the blunders which led to the Srebrenica massacre. I also admit that as a Dutch citizen I have part of the responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of dead as a result of the Iraq war, because my government gave political support to that war.
In both cases I think that decency rather than expdiency should have been the deciding factor.

However, when it comes to Srebrenica, the Dutch army did not go there with the explicit purpose of killing Muslims. When the American army rolled into Iraq, they did intend to kill Muslims. The only thing in which the Americans have the "high moral ground" over the Serbians is that the Americans only wanted to kill those Muslims who were intend on defending their own country, instead of using the Christian "kill them all, God will know His own" approach.

Seeker
12-19-2011, 11:52 AM
Honestly, I wasn't going to say anything, but Seeker went there first so I can hide behind him: I'm convinced Gonzo and Sinistrum are the best of friends. Gonzo posts something blatantly left-wing and often absurd, Sinisturm pops up to "put him back in his place" (actually giving him the attention he craves), Gonzo posts something snarky in response, and the cycle continues. The only surprising thing is that the two of you can even remember what the argument was actually about in the first place, but I know you can.

Welcome to Theoryland. ;) Enjoy your stay.

Seeker
12-19-2011, 12:05 PM
Yes, Srebrenica was indeed in my lifetime. I disagreed with how my government handled that. I even referred to that (and a bunch of other policy decisions regarding the same mess) in my third post in this thread, which appeared before any of your reactions here. Thus, you could actually have known about this. If, of course, you had been interested in actually dealing with reality.

Hey, Davian, have you ever noticed that the biggest nutjobs are the first ones to claim they have a firm grasp on reality?

What's up with that?

Terez
12-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Why do we indulge in the doublespeak euphemism of calling them "contractors" instead of the mercenaries that they are?I was trying to include all of the contractors who aren't mercenaries, and who have been every bit as much as part of the problem. The ones who went over there to take advantage of the economic situation which favored their profit margin at the expense of Iraqi freedom, health, and security. They sucked our own coffers dry in the process, and billions remain unaccounted for. 'Mercenaries' are just a specific type of bloodsucker.

Zombie Sammael
12-19-2011, 02:11 PM
Welcome to Theoryland. ;) Enjoy your stay.

They weren't like this when I was Gnat, I swear.

Sei'taer
12-19-2011, 05:18 PM
Just going by what I've been reading and talking to a buddy of mine in/from Lebanon, I'm betting on Iraq being part of Iran in the next few years.

My friend seems to think things will domino in the middle east when that happens, even now, he's showed me some things that point toward Iran having a huge influence in the goings-on in Iraq.

Terez
12-19-2011, 06:10 PM
Not surprising, considering.

DaiShan1981
12-20-2011, 04:44 AM
Seeker, Davian and a few others, I don't think it shows good class to blatantly ridicule someone, even if you think their arguments are ridiculous. I know I've been away for a while, but that doesn't match what I know of you guys at all. I'm not your mom though, so do with it what you will (or nothing at all), I just felt the need to say something.

Gonzo, as much as you may dislike the American intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm still glad that the current "world police force" is roughly on our side. I'm not saying I agree with much of the policing but at least I feel they wouldn't come barging in here with guns blazing. I hesitate to think what would happen if China were to start really flexing its military muscles, for instance.
I would like to think that there could be a "police-free" world but I'm afraid the world is simply in a constant power struggle with some pretty bad people in the mix (of which the POTUS is easily the least dangerous to us, trust me). The only thing they will respond to is being more powerful than them. It's sad, but true.
Again, that's not to say the decision to move into Iraq or Afghanistan was a good one (or was handled well afterwards), just trying to throw a different perspective on things.

yks 6nnetu hing
12-20-2011, 05:15 AM
Whatever else you say about Obama, he FINISHED a war (in Iraq) and DID NOT start another war (in Libya, Iran or Palestine) and is scaling down Afghanistan as well, now with a clear plan of exit.

Yes Dav, I know, 'mercans were actually kicked out of Iraq. But seriously, if you guys had wanted to stay, you would have stayed and there's not very much that the local authorities could have done about it.



Nobel Peace Prize? perhaps not so undeserved, after all. Particularly compared to his immediate predecessor.

Davian93
12-20-2011, 08:57 AM
Well, Bush's invasion removed an evil secular dictator....and replaced it with a Shia extremist led state that will naturally ally with Iran.

So, Mission Accomplished.


@Dai: Fair points...my comments were a bit over the line I suppose.

Sei'taer
12-20-2011, 09:50 AM
Well, Bush's invasion removed an evil secular dictator....and replaced it with a Shia extremist led state that will naturally ally with Iran.

So, Mission Accomplished.


@Dai: Fair points...my comments were a bit over the line I suppose.

Possibly to the other Dutchies, but not to Gonzo...never to Gonzo.

Davian93
12-20-2011, 10:56 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-iraq-politics-hashemi-idUSTRE7BI1E020111220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

So, what was that, like 2 days after we leave they already move against the Sunni minority? Give it 2 months and you'll have a completely Shite dictatorship under Maliki.

$800 Billion well spent.

Ivhon
12-20-2011, 11:56 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-iraq-politics-hashemi-idUSTRE7BI1E020111220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

So, what was that, like 2 days after we leave they already move against the Sunni minority? Give it 2 months and you'll have a completely Shite dictatorship under Maliki.

$800 Billion well spent.

Far better spent pissing in the desert than taking care of our own citizens - cuz those citizens are poor and hence don't deserve our help. Lazy bastards.

Silver lining is that we get to show once again what happens when you mess with the U S of A - practice makes perfect on warfare and we have shown yet again that nobody can go in, kill people and leave a bigger mess than we can. Stocks at Haliburton are soaring in anticipation of the next excuse to justify pouring more money into the military.

DaiShan1981
12-20-2011, 04:56 PM
Given that the stated aim of the US has always been an Iraq with its own independently elected government, and the rough demographic was known beforehand, I don't see how anyone could have expected a different outcome.

Also, Taer, perhaps you mistook me; you're welcome to ridicule anyone you want, I just think it reflects badly on the person doing the ridiculing more than it does on the target. Whether you care or not is an entirely different question :)

Terez
12-20-2011, 05:21 PM
Given that the stated aim of the US has always been an Iraq with its own independently elected government, and the rough demographic was known beforehand, I don't see how anyone could have expected a different outcome.1. Despite the claim we steadfastly avoided allowing them to elect their own government from the beginning.

2. In the process, the division became a lot sharper and the extremists gained a lot of influence. So, now that we've actually allowed it, it's much worse than it would have been if we had simply allowed it in the first place. But if we'd done that, we wouldn't have gotten away with allowing our contractors to suck them (and us) dry.

Davian93
12-20-2011, 07:22 PM
Given that the stated aim of the US has always been an Iraq with its own independently elected government, and the rough demographic was known beforehand, I don't see how anyone could have expected a different outcome.

Also, Taer, perhaps you mistook me; you're welcome to ridicule anyone you want, I just think it reflects badly on the person doing the ridiculing more than it does on the target. Whether you care or not is an entirely different question :)

The architects of the conflict believed we'd be welcomed by cheering crowds much the same as the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944...they actually made comments to that effect. You have to understand that they (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush) really really believed that our peculiar form of government and culture is the best and they even saw it in Crusader overtones where they were carrying the Cross to the pagans. So they were slightly surprised that when given the opportunity, most Arabs want a Islamic gov't with Islamic law...as has been elected in Egypt, Libya, etc when the people get to express their view.

How that view is really different than the view of most of the American right-wing other than replacing the Crescent with the Cross is a bit confusing though. Most right-wing GOPers want the exact same type of religious gov't in the US too...though they label it "Conservative Values" instead of "Christian Theocracy".

Res_Ipsa
12-20-2011, 08:01 PM
How that view is really different than the view of most of the American right-wing other than replacing the Crescent with the Cross is a bit confusing though. Most right-wing GOPers want the exact same type of religious gov't in the US too...though they label it "Conservative Values" instead of "Christian Theocracy".

I do not know what most right-wing GOPers want so I very much doubt you do either. :P In point of fact the Bible teaches against mixing government and religion through the various teachings of different churches that had sprung up and lost their way. It seems more likely you are taking a position to which you are diametrically opposed and assuming the worst based on your own biases which is what you claim the other side does as well. It reflects a lack of understanding or caring to understand and rather an easier job of both sides to label the other as offensive. Seems like that is just politics to me, but I realize it is all a game.

Davian93
12-20-2011, 08:51 PM
I do not know what most right-wing GOPers want so I very much doubt you do either. :P In point of fact the Bible teaches against mixing government and religion through the various teachings of different churches that had sprung up and lost their way. It seems more likely you are taking a position to which you are diametrically opposed and assuming the worst based on your own biases which is what you claim the other side does as well. It reflects a lack of understanding or caring to understand and rather an easier job of both sides to label the other as offensive. Seems like that is just politics to me, but I realize it is all a game.

Assuming the Right Wing actually follows the bible is a good one...you're a funny guy.

Explain pushing prayer in school, Ten Commandment displays, every single instance of "attacking Christmas/Christianity, etc etc along with the entire Reagan southern strategy that mobilized the religious right.

Terez
12-20-2011, 09:31 PM
The architects of the conflict believed we'd be welcomed by cheering crowds much the same as the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944...they actually made comments to that effect. You have to understand that they (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush) really really believed that our peculiar form of government and culture is the best and they even saw it in Crusader overtones where they were carrying the Cross to the pagans. So they were slightly surprised that when given the opportunity, most Arabs want a Islamic gov't with Islamic law...as has been elected in Egypt, Libya, etc when the people get to express their view.I don't believe this is true, because their actions speak against it. Sure, they believed that the Iraqi would be pleased to be rid of Saddam, but I think this was mainly a talking point to sell the war, rather than a genuine goal (that is, bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq). If it was the genuine goal, they would have handed the government over to the people from the beginning, and wouldn't have spent billions on enriching multinational corporations with cost-plus contracts to essentially seize Iraqi public and private property and enterprise. The earliest resistance was a response to that, specifically. We could have overthrown Saddam and been out of there in a few months, but we made too many missteps too quickly, hence the increasing violence. And of course, we had to search for the WMDs. :rolleyes:

Seeker
12-21-2011, 11:37 AM
Seeker, Davian and a few others, I don't think it shows good class to blatantly ridicule someone, even if you think their arguments are ridiculous. I know I've been away for a while, but that doesn't match what I know of you guys at all. I'm not your mom though, so do with it what you will (or nothing at all), I just felt the need to say something.

Point taken, Dai.

Good to have you back.

Ivhon
12-21-2011, 11:53 AM
Something tells me that the primary architect of this war hasn't the faintest concern for crosses or crescents or stars or whatever. He does have a concern over the dollar signs that flow into his offshore accounts from oil and particularly war money. It has been his primary concern to make money off of killing people since he was in the Nixon admin

Seeker
12-21-2011, 01:18 PM
Something tells me that the primary architect of this war hasn't the faintest concern for crosses or crescents or stars or whatever. He does have a concern over the dollar signs that flow into his offshore accounts from oil and particularly war money. It has been his primary concern to make money off of killing people since he was in the Nixon admin

I think it goes deeper than that. What you have to understand is that - no matter what corporate ads tell you - domestic oil sources are, for the most part, depleted. When you get an ad that says, "We have enough oil/coal to last a century," the ad is omitting the unstated assumption that energy consumption will not grow. Which, of course, is not mathematically realistic.

A little background information, if you're interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

So, now you have to look at the basics of American (and Canadian) culture. Throughout the 50s, 60s and early 70s, America achieved economic dominance of the world markets for two very important reasons. The first is that America was essentially untouched by both World Wars - Pearl Harbor aside. While other countries had to focus on rebuilding, America could essentially divert all of its resources to goods that could then be sold both domestically and overseas. The second reason is easy access to cheap domestic oil throughout Texas and other Southern States. This became the backbone of the American economy. While America - and to a lesser extent, Canada - was riding high on this good fortune, the average consumer experienced an abundance of energy and material wealth as compared to previous generations.

However, the situation began to change in the 70s when local oil reserves ran dry. And this is where the problem comes in. Now that you've got the population used to a certain level of comfort, asking them to go back to a state of lesser material wealth in the name of energy conservation is simply unpalatable - I'm sure you can imagine the reaction if the Government were to mandate that Americans must live in smaller, more energy-efficient houses - and thus new sources of energy have to be found. So, you end up with a battle for control over Middle Eastern oil.

What many Democrats and liberals fail to realize - or at least fail to talk about - is that a non-interventionist foreign policy will require a radical change in the American way of life. The vast abundance of goods in the marketplace will have to be scaled back and people will have to make do with less.

Many Republicans and conservatives see this as a justification for continued war - though they hide behind the banner of "spreading democracy." However, what these people fail to realize is that access to Middle Eastern oil will at best delay the inevitable market crash. Even ignoring the moral concerns of wars over resources, the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually run dry and we will be faced with the same problem of resource conservation.

Many people believe that, by that point in time, we will have learned to harness renewable energy resources. And this may be true. However, most people have an inaccurate picture of what society will look like if we switch to renewable energy. Most people picture that hypothetical society as present-day America with solar-powered cars. That mental picture is unrealistic.

The simple truth is that our current economic model is inherently wasteful and cannot be reconciled with philosophy of resource conservation. For instance, many products, from automobiles to major electronics, are designed with planned-obsolescence in mind. This is to encourage repeat buying but it is inherently wasteful. This is one instance in which the profit-motive cannot be reconciled with resource conservation; it has to be one or the other.

And new resources aren't going to magically appear.

Even if we do discover a cheap source of abundant energy - which is not something we should bank on - the raw materials that make up cars, computers, houses and virtually everything we touch on daily basis are finite in supply. An economic model based on perpetual growth cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the developing world is going to demand greater access to the stockpiles of those resources within their borders.

The bottom line is that the coming change in American (and Canadian) culture is inevitable. It cannot be prevented but politicians create disastrous foreign policies as a form denial, an attempt to cling to the good old days when energy was right under our feet.

That's why Obama isn't going to fix the problems that Bush JR, Clinton, Bush SR and Reagan set in motion.

Davian93
12-21-2011, 01:21 PM
Canada likely has higher actual oil reserves than any other country in the world including Saudia Arabia (whose official reserves are a fantasy and there are hints that their actual reserves are maybe half of their reported total).

Seeker
12-21-2011, 02:16 PM
Canada likely has higher actual oil reserves than any other country in the world including Saudia Arabia (whose official reserves are a fantasy and there are hints that their actual reserves are maybe half of their reported total).

Yes, but the methods necessary to harvest that oil are devastating to local agriculture, not to mention wildlife. One must remember that there are other necessary resources besides oil, not the least of which is food. If harvesting oil destroys a large chunk of Canada's farmable land, one must question the efficacy of such a policy.

And this is ignoring the fact that best estimates give the Alberta tar sands 20 more years at most.

Davian93
12-21-2011, 02:19 PM
Dont worry, we'll trade you wheat and corn from the Midwest while you destroy your country.

Seeker
12-21-2011, 02:43 PM
How comforting.

Terez
12-21-2011, 02:49 PM
Isn't it all just frozen tundra anyway?

Davian93
12-22-2011, 09:20 AM
At least we created a stable state in Iraq thanks to all that money...

http://news.yahoo.com/series-blasts-hits-iraqi-capital-police-051953167.html

No wait, they're collapsing back into a 3 sided civil war. The Shiites immediately moved against the Sunnis the day after we left, the Sunni leader (al-Hashimi) fled to Kurdistan and the Kurds are telling the Shiites to fvck off when they asked for him back.

Good times. Thanks George!

GonzoTheGreat
12-22-2011, 11:01 AM
No wait, they're collapsing back into a 3 sided civil war. The Shiites immediately moved against the Sunnis the day after we left, the Sunni leader (al-Hashimi) fled to Kurdistan and the Kurds are telling the Shiites to fvck off when they asked for him back.
That's what thousands of American soldiers died for.

Ivhon
12-22-2011, 01:16 PM
That's what thousands of American soldiers died for.

But Dick Cheney made a tidy bundle. Which was really my point. All Seeker's points on the reality of oil economy taken and acknowledged, we also have a huge war economy in thus country. You simply cannot spend as much as we do on materiel and let it rust. Hippy liberals might question it. You have to manufacture reasons to justify the use of that tremendous expenditure. "Spreading Democracy" is one such construct. As is "Islamist fundamentalism" fearmongering. Starting a war - any war, but ok use oil or religion or a Bad Man as an excuse - was top priority for the man calling the shots in the first Bush administration.

Dick Cheney makes bank when America kills people.

Rand al'Fain
12-22-2011, 02:31 PM
Isn't it all just frozen tundra anyway?

No, that Wyoming right now.