 | The Round-Up: August 24th 2007 | The Oil Drum: Canada | Extracting Heavy Oil: Using Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAI) |  |
174 comments on Tar Sands: The Oil Junkie's Last Fix, Part 1
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
You missed my point entirely. I've mentioned in other threads that we will fight over the table scraps. But history can teach us some useful lessons if we are smart enough to listen.
As for the military, please don't presume to lecture me. I spent 20 years in the USMC to preserve your's and every other citizens right to bitch about whatever blows your skirts up. I swore an oath to protect and defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I've never gone back on it. Have a nice day, and go a little easy on the drugs and alky.
And just so you do not misunderstand, even not knowing your history, I was in no way attempting to lecture you. If it was taken in that way, you have my apology.
On the military issue, first, let me do the right thing: Thank you for your service in what is a hard and under rewarding profession. I live next to a military base that my father worked at for over 30 years, have uncles and great uncles who have served thier life in the military. I have not served myself, and due to that great peacetime run we had after Vietnam, I was never called to.
And to make my point clear, it was that the efforts of the American government and military should indicate to anyone that we do in fact intend to continue on a modern state and a world power. Some may differ with those goals. That is their right. But those are the facts on the ground.
The "cost structure" and goals are a bit different when it is a security issue. No one really argues about the exact retail price of an F-18 or an aircraft carrier if it is percieved that is what needed to survive and prevail.
On history, that is a bit closer to an area I have dealt with than the military.
I absolutely agree that study of history in our current situation is vital to assist understanding of paths taken. However, it is easy to misinterpret history. Caution must be taken. G.W. Bush for example used history as an example, and cast Saddam as Hitler, all who questioned the Iraq war as Chamberlian in 1938 England and himself as the Churchill. Was that a correct use of the lessons of history? You be the judge. But it silenced all opposition at the time.
To America's ememies I beg you...do not underestimate the resolve of this government and this nation to survive. Please do not. The human suffering has already been great in making that error. Bin Laden and the gangs who desire our destruction (and despite the knee jerk anti-Americanism we often see, they are very real) can get a few of us. But they did not bring a big enough dog to the fight to win their stated prize of our destruction. Instead, they have assisted in bringing real horror on the whole of the Middle East.
Was that their goal? Educated Muslims and Arabs should ask themselves that question.
Back to point.....nuclear devices in the tar sand and the oil shale regions to extact millions of barrels of usable oil? They'll do it. The Canadians will do it, because they, like us, will in the end refuse to be carved up by our mutual enemies.
And if that sounds fueled by "drugs and alky" you go back over it and let me know where you proved me wrong. All lessons will be taken as a gift thank you.
RC
al Queda & friends whipped the Russians soundly - they bled them and bled them, no matter what was thrown at them. The Soviet Union, as we'll recall, crashed and burned after spending themselves in Aghanistan.
Now the United States is caught in the same trap. 150,000 troops pinned in Iraq, a half a trillion dollar crater in our national balance sheet, another division's worth of troops in Afghanistan not getting near the beating we're taking in Iraq, but Pakistan(nukes!) is sliding into chaos, with Waziristan breaking free, and the British abandoning their position in Iraq so their troops can face real threats in Afghanistan.
The military we've constructed to defeat the Soviet Union in an organized land battle in Europe is not quite useless in a low intensity conflict in Iraq. Should We, The People decide to conduct a genocidal war in Iraq in order to control their oil it may again be effective. This strikes me as madness, but I look at our neocon assclowns (industry term - diplomacy) and I think that this will be the case.
There is some debate as to what caused The Soviet Union to collapse. As I understand it, there is some consensus here that it was caused by Saudi Arabia (on orders from America) flooding the world oil market with cheap oil. Russian oil revenue quickly shriveled, and then did their empire.
The United States is not in the same trap as The Soviet Union. We still control Saudi Arabia, which is to say, we still control the world oil market. Russia never did.
We still control Saudi Arabia
“I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/More_George_W__Bush_Energy_+_Oil.htm
I'm sure Bush understands, as we do, that there is no spigot to open. This is rhetoric. Next! :)
The articles in Foreign Affairs indicate we've flat burned that relationship by our stupid, unipolar actions in Iraq. Yeah, we're the big dog, but we're half blind, toothless, and peeing on the carpet ... the Saudis, the Syrians, the Turks, and the Iranians are all delighted(NOT) by our antics. History is full of examples of what happens to empires that overreach in the face of no opposition ... the smaller players gather round and form a thwarting party.
bmcnett,
Are you sure you don't have the control relationship reversed, "white slave" ?
The Saudis didn't open the tap to destroy the Russians, they did it because Jimmy Carter's energy policies were working, an demand destruction from high prices. Go look again at the charts of world consumption and price history, and read what they said at the time. Attributing anything to Reagan except White House naps is on awfully shaky ground.
Bob Ebersole
I will go give it a look, thanks Bob.
The control relationship is not as simple as "white slavery."
We need them because they have a lot of cheap oil, and we need to control who gets it and on what terms.
They need us, because without our weapons, their monarchy would collapse.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. This (misunderstandings) is the primary reason I dislike controversial discussions conducted on the internet. It's far too easy for everyone concerned to get their dander up. 'nuf said. Perhaps we can start over on a more amicable note.
My name is Gene. I'm in my '60's, on my 3rd career (avocation rather than a "job"), married for 36 years, reasonably comfortable in life, and expect to be around for another 20 years or so if family history is any guide. Pleased to meet you.
Just as a point of technical interest, you ( and others )may or may not be aware of an organization called DARPA. If not, I'd recommend visiting their website. In particular, this http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/physci/index.htm may be a good starting point to see what sort of basic science is being done that will likely have civilian as well as military applications for energy interests. You won't get a lot of detail, but the site is quite extensive, and extraordinarily interesting and informative.
And if you have a potential solution applicable to one of their thrust areas, they will be glad to throw some money your way.
For anyone who wishes to harm this nation, and who might be reading this, they would also do well to review this site. It may change their minds. Keep in mind that this is all public information, so one can infer that "more interesting" work is also being done. :)
These are the folks who actually did invent the internet by the way.
Gene,
I'm glad you found The Oil Drum and are sticking around and commenting. Your service is your best credential, it shows your sincerity and sense of honor. The best part of being a Marine is your loyalty to each other and to the rest of us in this country.
I suspect we disagree a lot politicly, and I was one of the immature assholes that couldn't appreciate the true patriotism of men who saw their duty and no matter what, did the deal. These days I can see how wrong I was then, and I'd like to thank you for your service to the country and the rest of us, even when we are wrong. Semper Fi sums it up.
Bob Ebersole
Gene,
I'm glad you found The Oil Drum and are sticking around and commenting. Your service is your best credential, it shows your sincerity and sense of honor. The best part of being a Marine is your loyalty to each other and to the rest of us in this country.
I suspect we disagree a lot politicly, and I was one of the immature assholes that couldn't appreciate the true patriotism of men who saw their duty and no matter what, did the deal. These days I can see how wrong I was then, and I'd like to thank you for your service to the country and the rest of us, even when we are wrong. Semper Fi sums it up.
Bob Ebersole
Maybe not so much (re: political views). Career military folks have a somewhat more long term view of things than this or any former occupant of the White House or Congress. Many people misunderstand from the getgo where the militaries loyalties truly are. It's not with any individual. It's to the Nation as a whole, regardless of who happens to be in office at the moment. Politicians of whatever persuasion sometimes forget that, and need to be gently reminded from time to time. Even the Commander-In-Chief.
It also works in the other direction, at some degradation in efficiency but it's worth the cost. There is a reason the US Military does not have a single service, but rather several "branches" with some overlapping functions and cooperative tasks, but with separate chains of command (USAF,Army, Navy, Marines, etc.). It is to preclude one branch from having too much power, thereby avoiding the kind of military dictatorships that consume many other countries. Periodically someone will propose that the services merge for the sake of cost efficiency, etc. Bad idea, and never goes very far for the reason stated above.
Do you think that Bush has cultivated personal loyalty within the military, or perhaps I should say loyalty to dominionist sensibilities above service to the nation?
I think this, a former girlfriend who is a reserve captain shares that view, and an airforce major I dated before her had done the academy thing and while she wasn't forward about her beliefs I think she was in favor of that whole Christian Embassy thing ...
I'm curious to hear the views of someone who served prior to the Bush administration's poisoning of every single institution we have.
:) "I'm curious to hear the views of someone who served prior to the Bush administration's poisoning of every single institution we have."
I have to smile a little at that. I've heard this nearly identical statement more than once in the past 40 years or so applied to every President since Eisenhower. "Poisoning of institutions" ( such as the military for example ) isn't quite as easy as you seem to think. In general terms, every elected leader since G. Washington has tried to "cultivate personal loyalty" to a greater or lesser extent. Usually unsuccessfully, since we have a thing called "Term Limits" - at least for the Presidency - so career people know they will be around long after that individual has departed. Lends a different perspective. As has been said: "Patience grasshopper, this too shall pass." :)
In any case I think my personal political views of Pres. Bush are mine. I don't mean to sound uncooperative, but I don't discuss personal politics, religion, personal finances, and several other subjects with anyone, let alone complete strangers. Sorry.
Gene
I spent most of last year in El Paso, and the motels I were at were full of career Army, Army Reserve and contractors that were retired military. I got to be friends with some of them, and was very impressed.
One thing I'd like to note in particular-the Reserve kids were truly fine young men and women. They'd mostly joined as a way to work their way through college without crippling debt, they represent the best kids in our country, they have a great work effort and a sense of duty and service. And, the administration has horribly abused them by putting them in this war.
The retired military and professional military were first rate too. The retired guys were a little more vocal, but it was easy to tell they didn't support the war, but, they'd taken the money and they were going to follow through with their duty, it was both a personal sense of honor and loyalty to their fellow servicemen.
So it was a real eye-opener to me. I began to see that we all need to see our common heritage as Americans and celebrate the things that we all hold in common-we all love this country and do what we do out of the same motives, we want the best for the country and the world. Sure, there's some nut and sociopaths that would rather divide us because they see manipulation as their personal path to power and wealth. Unfortunately, way too many of them are in politics and the media.
But, my father was a marine in WWII and Korea. My grandfather was an Army Medic serving with the Marines at St. Michael, the Argonne and Belleau Woods. I was born at Quantico, but Viet Nam kept me from being a Marine, and I'm not sorry about that. As I said, thanks for your service!Bob Ebersole
Bob, I appreciate your comments and your views as well as those of others. I really do. But, I fear this subthread may stir up peoples feelings on one side or the other of past or present disputes, or dredge up ancient history, or digress into areas that will likely only end up in acrimonious and pointless arguement. So, if you're agreeable, I'd just as soon end it here.