oil addiction (an extended rant)

[Tiarnan O'Corrain]

> I repeat: How would "they" be better off, exactly? I understand fully
> how *we* would be better off.

I think you have that backwards. You would not be better off, since most
of your infrastructure depends on oil. They might be better off, since
the riverine tyrannies under which they groan (it matters not that the
river is black and viscous), would lose their support from the wider
world.

In any case, the US is sitting on quite a bit of oil.
 
> We can't build anymore hydro-electric dams because they
> are ugly and kill fish.

Unlike, say, oil slicks...

> Though it should be tapped for all it is
> worth, solar power isn't going to juice the grid. Windmills won't turn
> the trick either. 

Not on their own. But perhaps a combination of renewable energy sources
might be able to do most of the work. Solar power where that's feasible,
hydroelectricity on the main rivers, wind power on the plains. Not saying
that you won't need to keep a nuclear plant or so up your sleeves (except
that I'd recommend refraining from building them on faults), but it would
be a step in the right direction. Then you can concentrate on bringing down
the USA's frankly obscene consumption of energy. Smaller refrigerators,
slightly more sense about immersion heaters, air conditioning and central
heating. 

> Moving forward will eventually mean a) nuclear power
> with attendant waste and risks; 

It does already, n'est-ce pas?

> b) fusion if we can ever get it to
> work, maybe; c) turning off all these computers and working the land
> for a living while our surplus population dies off for the good of the
> planet. 

Can you contemplate a middle ground between profligate waste of energy,
and a nation full of farmers hoeing soya beans and getting stoned on hemp?

Can you contemplate a middle ground between Osama bin Laden and Geo. W Bush,
or between the Arab rulers (Them) and their subjects? It is true that the
Arab rulers are doing very nicely out of selling oil to the west. It is
false
to say that the populations of the same countries are deriving any benefit.
Look
at Texas, an oil-producing state, with people dying from appendicitis every
year. Great natural resources create the means for a society that exploits
the
poor and keeps the rich in ferraris and St. Tropez dollybirds.

> If we cease to buy their oil, will they have more to
> eat? 

Your question might be more accurately phrased as: if we stop bombing them 
to hell and allow them to overthrow their leader (whom we installed and
supported),
will they have more to eat?

To which the answer would be, yes...

> Will they have better health care? How will their lives be made
> less unpleasant? 

Iraq was by far the most modern Arab state in the Middle East before they
got involved in that war with Iran. Good healthcare, comparatively
emancipated
woman, and so on. That they are now a third world country can be attributed
to the
systematic destruction of their infrastructure by Allied forces in the Gulf
War.
After the GW, US troops occupied Saudi Arabia, leading to Osama bin Laden's
declaration
of jihad on the US. What ever happens in Afghanistan is Gulf War Round II.

>Will the bad men leave the weak men in peace if only
> U.S./Big Oil would butt out? 

Baby...

> Mayhap we ought to return to an economy based upon subsistence
> agriculture? 

Sure sure. You seem to be unable to encompass anything other than extremes.
An example of the Cold War mindset perhaps? Bit flipping... 10100111001

> We shall all work the land in our 'autonomous
> anarco-syndicalist communes' and never be trouble by violence again.
> Thomas Pynchon will of course have to stop behaving like a glittering
> social parasite and get to work "raising protein quota", so we'll have
> a lot less to think about, or enjoy.

Hence the existing order is just hunky dory and we should keep doing what
we are doing at the moment?

> What must be done *now* with the terrorists who threaten, and
> successfully attack *us*? 

First find out *who* they are, then find out *where* they are.

> I think they ought to be treated like the
> honorable warriors they believe themselves to be and 
> *terminated*. 

Killed? Sure, go for it. Don't expect it to be easy, or bloodless on
your side. Now, if you could only call on a killer-android from the
future to do the work for you... Unfortunately it'll have to be done
with the too too solid flesh of your soldiers, hefting 45lb packs into 
the mountains after your generals have realised that planes and cruise
missiles won't do the job against the Hindu Kush mountains.

Tiarnan