oil addiction (an extended rant)

[Mark Wright AIA]

Howdy
I enjoy this process of snipping out 1/2 of a fellas sentances and then
responding to the remainder.

Riverine tyrannies (I like that!) have existed in the riverine
territories in question for some six thousand years. It didn't take oil
to create or prop them up.

I'd love to have the services of a soul-less killer robot from the
future.  As it is, we are facing soul-less killer robots from the past.

Mark


--- Tiarnan O'Corrain <tiarnan.o'corrain at cmg.nl> wrote:
> > 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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com