Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quehubo who wrote (135801)	6/6/2004 12:34:41 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<< The world has changed over the last year as Asia and the USA have dramatically increased their energy needs and TODAY we cannot lose Iraqi production without a severe price spike.>>> The world probably has less than 100 years of oil supply left. Not even in cosmic terms, even in terms of human history, 100 years is not much time at all. It has barely been 100 years since the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. Look at what takes place in 100 years. The modernization delta, or change curve, is increasing exponentially. So what will take place technologically over the next 100 years can not be extrapolated using euclidean mathematics. Chances are most people on this thread will see the combustion engine pass into history. You have to remember, we are not going to wait until the last drop of oil is pumped out of this earth before we change our energy source. The point is, those people painting this horrific scenario of people going to war, killing each other for oil is ridiculous. Or, anyway it should be ridiculous. And, in some ways it will be ridiculous.

To: quehubo who wrote (135801)	6/19/2004 3:07:56 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi quehubo; Re: "We went to war when Saddam tried to get his hands on more oil in Kuwait." Our invasion was supported wholeheartedly by the population of Kuwait. That kind of invasion is easy to justify and easy to execute. A better example would be Iran. When the Shah fell and Iranian oil production crashed, we didn't invade Iran. If we had invaded, the same forces that fought the Shah would have kept us from exporting significant oil out of Iran. Another better example would be Iraq itself. Here it is, more than a year gone by and oil exports from Iraq are still lower than before the war. The insurgents just managed to blow up three pipelines all in one day. Things are not getting better, but instead the situation has become so bad that the American government suggests that all American civilians leave Saudi Arabia. Hey, if the invasion of Iraq had resulted in an increase in oil production, or even in a continuation in the (legally limited) oil production that was already going on, there would be better argument, in the event of a collapse in Saudi Arabia's production, to intercede. But that's not what happened. Re: "Bilow, the world will not let Saudi oil exports fail without a response. You cannot have 10% of the worlds present production and a country with the largest oil reserves fall into chaos or into the wrong hands." Yes, there would be a "response", LOL. The President will go on TV and announce that it's a "damned shame" that Saudi Arabia isn't producing any oil anymore. Then they'll make some pledges to support the royalty (with weapons), if that's what it takes to get the oil going again. If it becomes obvious that the monarchy cannot be saved, then some other group, perhaps democratic, will be supported. But as far as sending troops in to turn the spigots on, not a chance. It hasn't been done since WW2. It wasn't done in 1973. It won't be done now. It is simply impossible to steal oil without resorting to a level of bestiality that the US is now unable to achieve. You can't always get what you want. Even if that thing is a near universal human desire. Like immortality. -- Carl