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 : Attack on Iran Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (122)	6/5/2006 4:15:26 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186

For a moment, let's assume this administration is aware of the consequences. That would mean that the oil situation is very near "end game" (past peak extraction rates) and they feel that the consequences of their actions are less dire than would be otherwise. The present situation in Iraq has meant less oil from Iraq. That oil has been, for all intents and purposes, sequestered from the world market. But it will still be there in the future. The consequences from this administration's actions may be aimed with a certain kind of future in mind. Given that the governing apparatus of a country cannot operate under conditions in which there is a loss of control of the populace, it is in the best interests of the governing apparatus to avoid those conditions. History is full of examples when governments have lost control of the populace. This country was created as a result of just such an instance. There have been and will be times when an event or events have and will occur that precipitate loss of control. There also are times when such events are known in advance to be more than likely or even inevitable. In these cases, upon recognition of the likelihood or inevitability of such an event it can be assumed that a government or governments will take steps to organize systems and means of control in advance. It is well known that fear is a means of control. Distraction can work for a while. Surveillance is a tool of control. During a period of lack of control the legal system can be helpful in aiding a degree of control. Putting laws in place prior to such a period for the purpose of aiding control would be a rational step for a government to take. Attempts to ameliorate the effects of or forestall a known, upcoming control-threatening event would be seen as a viable course to take. Depending on how extreme the loss of control is seen to be possible, such attempts can get quite drastic. Force applied toward a country's own populace is another means available if control slips to a certain point. Nobody likes lack of control. The first 5 of the above 6 have been taking place over the last several years with respect to a known upcoming event. A spokesperson for The Bank for International Settlements has said, "Everyone needs to commit to some unpleasant compromises now, in order to avoid even more unpleasant alternatives in the future." business.timesonline.co.uk They do mean everyone, they do mean unpleasant and they do mean commit. However, it is most likely the case that these "unpleasant compromises" will only briefly forestall the event. In 1956 M. King Hubbert, a geologist for Shell Oil, predicted the peaking of US Oil production would occur in the late 1960's. Although derided by most in the industry he was correct. He was the first to assert that oil discovery, and therefore production, would follow a bell shaped curve over its life. After his success in forecasting the US peak, this analysis became known as the Hubbert's Peak. The amount of oil discovered in the US has dropped since the late 1930s. 40 years later, US oil production had peaked, and has fallen ever since. World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s, and has declined since then. If the 40 year cycle seen in the US holds true for world oil production, that puts global peak oil production, right about now; after which oil becomes less available, and more expensive. The developed world's physical and economic infrastructure is built on oil and its maintenance is built on the assumption of an ever increasing supply of oil. Alternatives to oil, at this time and into the next 10 to 15 years, are not sufficiently developed enough to even nearly approach filling oil's shoes. I suggest that people should become familiar with the event known as "peak oil" and try to understand how geopolitics has lately been dictated by it, the threat it poses as an agent for loss of control and how seriously that threat is being taken by the world's governments and the actions taken to deal with that. Cheney's secret energy confab is secret for a reason. The Patriot Act ain't just for terrorists. The invasion of Iraq wasn't a response to terrorism. The "us" versus "them" of people calling themselves Muslims vs people calling themselves Christian has not been pursued for religious reasons. The fear that is constantly being pushed on the world over terrorism is not being pushed as a means to control terrorists. It may very well be that some acts attributed to "evil terrorists" are not what you think. It is not being said that bin laden is possibly hiding in Iran because getting bin laden is a goal. China and India aren't doing large oil and gas deals all over the world NOW at a frantic pace because they think the price might go down any time soon or that availability will increase in the future. All the big private oil companies don't now sport hyphenated names as a fashion statement. The NSA widening their ability to track every citizen's communications is not because they think there's a significant amount of foreign terrorists running around the country. etc...etc...etc... Nearly every political analysis of current events should include peak oil in its formula.