pro-war

by fergus Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:04 robsonf at tcd dot ie

Although i am miles from sharing your viewpoint as i see consumerism (the ends of your means) as an abomination ican understand what you are saying however if it is a matter of who the oil was being sold to tell me why a diplomat of GWBs stature could not have brought onside the barbarous regime of saddam like he did those of Putin,Musharraf,Sharon and others would have been much more economically favorable to the west which is now experiencing a massive ,massive rise in oil prices even in the darkest days of international sanctions were we getting Iraqs oil so would it not have been much more easily secureable by giving Iraq a respite and some aid dependent on democratic reform measures

by barry Fri Dec 10, 2004 13:46 bray

does our imported consumer culture of greed and excess give us the right to value life in terms of capital per head of population
unsustainable capitalism
divided by time =
mmmmmmmmm?

CAPITALISM KILLS LOVE

by Simon Fri Dec 10, 2004 14:34

I’m going to believe that you are being sincere, but GWB as a diplomat doesn’t quite fit with what we know of him, he’s a boots and all kind of guy, black and white, all or nothing,for or against. no brain, dead simple, honest home town primitive fundamentalist Christian.

Could this man be honest?, I mean so breathtakingly stupid that he actually believes he is doing the right thing

Yes I think so

The oil is required by the west, so that secured his support from the neocons and yes there were other ways to gain control of the oil. But have you watched the growth of China India and the rest of Asia?
Maybe there was no time, Saddam in 1990 with the largest reserves of oil?, he had clout in a buyers market maybe even the edge by gaining Chinese and Russian support, both superpowers of their day. After all he was never threatening any free nation, Kuwait only has 200 000 nationals, its a dictatorship, what freedom s were protected in the Gulf war?

Today, Brent gives us fuel but Middle Eastern oil provides chem., meds, fertilizer’s, plastics and fuels in heating automotive and lubrication, so you see we consumers need a cheap and abundant supply.

Someone else’s blood for all our oil needs please and lots of it.

What do we risk?
We lied but two nations reelected the liars.
The Iraqi government made up the WMD lie, while in the employ of America, and they will very likely be the next recognized government of Iraq...three cheers for democracy while our press ignores the civil war and the one against the occupation.
To bad its all going on miles away we are safe.

So far retaliation has cost us 4000 lives against 3 million civilians OS including Afghanistan Iraq and South Seas conflict in Indonesia and the Philippines.

We can take those loses, I don’t hear the security industry complaining!

Bring it on!!

But the oil will still flow.

You cannot make money without production and the money spent on war will guarantee production.

This is the war we are winning; does America look as if it’s at war? When did Bush ever attend a funeral for one, just one of the fallen soldiers?
Does Britain look as if its at war? The economy is booming, the workforce is not away at war the borders are not threatened…there is no war, it’s a myth. Look at Australia they sent their best wishes; sure it’s a world effort.

But the oil still flows, we are winning!!!

by no comment Fri Dec 10, 2004 14:57

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1

by Tom Sun Dec 12, 2004 13:56

The hard thing to accept is that we are benefiting from this war, it’s a fight to control oil the life blood of economies, black thick environmentally unfriendly toxic sludge which drives the latest 4x4 with 20% extra power because there was one last mountain range that has not been lain to waste.

Look around the room, where you are and ask yourself what has not been created by, oil, what exists in your room that does not thank oil for its creation?

Do you want the answer?

Its free, it will not bight ya its…

You, that’s right, just you…without clothes, a naked you…Therefore I think we all have a lot to be thankful for. Don’t you?

Support the war.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Sun Dec 12, 2004 14:24

Simon, I can't see how all you have said leads you to the conviction that war should be supported.
Look at the pics posted by "No comment". THAT is war - whoever wages it.
In my opinion war should never be supported.

by Simon Sun Dec 12, 2004 16:49

What I'm saying is. You are supporting the war, its not an invitation its an observation.

Get it?

You want first world...so this is the cost...either believe the spew in propaganda, freedom democracy etc...or own up face facts we need the oil so someone must die. 2.8 million in Iraq since the war began in 1991, that’s the one that’s on now.

Russia tried to get a pipe line through Afghanistan, America is building one now.


America helped Saddam against Iran, they are still targeting Iran, that’s the third war planned

Talking numbers
the 2nd world war was about oil...Hitler tried for Russia's, raided North Africa and lost because he could not secure a supply While England was supplied American oil And America became rich and powerful.

But with its own resources depleting fast and the world market being run through OPEC it needs to claw back power.

So quit complaining we are white we are first world, or change the way we live because we cannot have our cake and eat it without someone getting hurt.

by RJS Sun Dec 12, 2004 21:04

'There are no current alternative fuels that can provide the enormous demand that oil maintains'.

This is untrue. Diesel engines can run cheaper, more efficiently and at less environmental cost, than on fossil fuel (petroleum oil).

RTE featured the Barron Family on News at One in November 2003. They are from near Adamstown, Co. Wexford, and run diesel engines on rape-seed oil. After a conversion fee of €500, they charge 69c per litre of fuel. Six acres will run a car for a year. This is just one of many such co-operatives throughout the country, waiting for Brian Cowan to drop the excise duties on their product.

One man i know from Co. Westmeath, runs his home heating from used chip-oil from the local chipper, and is building a house of straw bricks for better insulation.

University of Limerick have a bio-fuel programme which is quite advanced, and will undertake research for any company to show them how best they can shift dependence completely away from petroleum.

My neighbour is an engineer with Dublin Corpo, and in 1995, modified a 2.6 liter engine so that it could run on vegetable oil, diesel, or bio-gas (in case of slurry pits on farms etc), and says thta this engine would supply the energy needs of two houses.

If these 'ordinary' people can produce such easy and brilliant results withoug funding, imagine what the might of the corporate world could do, or governments, if long-term common interest could over-ride the short-term craving for profits at the people's expense, and corporate welfare paid by taxes.

Currently, 93% of Ireland's energy needs are supplied by petroleum, but this is not because there is no alternative. Windfarms are planned to supply 13% of electricity needs by 2010, and if more money was spent on gyroscopics and solar energy in the US, than on prosecuting illegal and immoral wars, the world would be cleaner and safer.

The disproportionate influence of the oil industry on US politics, especially on the leadership of the Republican Party, is the cause of massive distortions. Billionaires from other industries don't have the same influence, despite their undoubted wealth.

Oil is running out. After Iraq has been exploited by these idiots, where next? Sooner or later, they will have to face the inevitable drying up of wells, and the sooner this happens, the better for us all.

Oil costs are factored into production, processing and transport, and theefore, inflation due to spiralling demand and diminishing sources will have catastrophic effects on everyday lives so long as this ignorant blind dependence, this unnecessary illusion continues.

If biofuels replace fossil fuels, there can be less control over the global energy supply, and less profits for the few powerful polluters.

There is no such thing as a good oil industry. The alternatives are here, but this nasty oligopoly exerts far too much influence for governments to change tack, until it may be too late. Why should people be blown up to serve the interests of these moguls in the mean-time?

The jaded, heartless myth propogated by Simon has long outlived its sell-by date, and less hasten its departure.

by Simon Willace Mon Dec 13, 2004 06:57

Your last paragraph run straight to the heart of the Matter, it’s all a misrepresentation.

. My article was not designed for any side to agree with, no right wing Supporter will say the war is about oil, and no left wing debate will accept that their first world status is dependant upon oil, and no one will accept that going to war for oil is a morally acceptable reason for the current action.

nevertheless here we are.

Somewhere in between the extremes lies the answer, but not the direction you have outlined.

Your answer to all the worlds’ problems is rape seed and Bio diesel.

( although I believe it is just one alternative in a mixed bag of other simplistic solutions)

There is no doubt this alternative fuel works, in fact the Diesel engine was designed before petroleum was widely available, it was designed to run in vegetable oil although it can also function quite efficiently on Animal fat, nut oil or whale oil, but lets not go there.

During the Dark ages wars fought over Olive Oil were frequent; America declared war against Australia over Whale oil in 1870 although before the dead line of that ultimatum expired Australia obeyed demands.
Then the 1st and second world wars took their cue, see the role of oil in both wars and japans invasion of Manchuria.

Essentially mankind has been fighting over oil for a while.

But you want to know what’s wrong with Rape seed oil,

Well here’s the thing.

Currently the western world is in full production of food while using petroleum in a mechanized farming system that requires only 1% of a nation’s population to manage and provide labor, in both arable and livestock .

The rest of the population lives in the luxury provided by consumerism which is supplied by the other products of oil.

We are dependant upon more things than a car, Fossil fuels created the 1st world.

For a new demand to enter the Market in fuel alternatives some farmers will go into rape seed production to exploit the new cash crop created, while other farmers will enjoy the higher prices that traditional crops will demand due to the immediate absence of current players.

This will cause greater deforestation and world food shortages, as farmers develop more intensive farming methods to exploit more land, demanding more water and causing greater soil loss.
food production will slip from surplus to insufficient, while third world countries will switch to oil seed production instead of food.

So you see RJS, simple answers are not the best. The demand for fuel oil for transport and heating is immense, you can develop you own system but it would be a complete disaster if the whole world tried it there are 7 billion of us.
However this is where we come in, you me and anyone else who gives a fig for the future.

Before the planet dies mankind has to stop burning and clearing land, we do not have a choice, burning oil of any kind will cause smoke, wood burning causes smoke and the manufacture of any wind turbines etc will cause pollution. Hydro Electric dams cause environmental devastation, draining wetlands and drowning forests.

Its all a bit negative, but by eliminating every thing that will not work will uncover the few that are left.

Geo sequestering?

No, this is another misrepresentation to protect current energy monopolies, stupid idea but its better than Bio diesel because no ones will actually bury carbon dioxide under the ground, The porous nature of the earths crust will not allow it.

Gep Thermal power generation.

This uses the earths Magma to turn water into steam, providing cheap and non polluting electrical generation for the cost of the hardware and a couple of holes.

Currently operational in Iceland.

From the electricity you can make Hydrogen, and run your cars trucks on that.
Most plastics can be made from the unfossilized materials that can be grown, and lots of things we can just do without.

We can also use windmills, bio diesel and solar panels, but we cannot depend upon these things, the Magma layer will always provide

However for this to work
Consumerism’s got to go, its only been around for 50 years so we can manage with out. Mc Donald’s will probably have to go but in the main westerners will still be able to live in luxury.

However it’s all pie in the sky, centralized power, chemical and Energy concerns will maintain that the endless supply of energy from beneath our feet cannot be accessed. It’s too far down.

However this is just not the case, geothermal rock can be found anywhere where there is natural hot springs, the Romans mapped these out for us centuries ago.

So although you wisely point out my article was misleading, JBYM my intention was to make you think.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Mon Dec 13, 2004 13:02

of making us think would be to say what you really wanted to say at the start.
You say you are pro War but want to save the earth. It's a bit ambiguous.

by anti-idiotarian Mon Dec 13, 2004 21:22

Too right he should have been less ambiguous. God knows indymedia is an irony-free zone

by RJS Tue Dec 14, 2004 03:28

Over-simplification is surely not good, but it is hardly less preferable than the unncessary obfuscation of your opening gambit, Simon.

Global consumption of oil is estimated to be 78 million barrels of oil per day. This is projected to increase to 128 million by 2015, as 'developing countries' industrialise. The invasion of Iraq has so far led to a drop in oil production of 20% from that country, according to a UNDP et.al. report on Nov 23rd, 2004. With the worsening security situation, things are not likely to get much better.

On the other hand, a few people are doing very well out of the high oil prices, and have never had it so good.

The number of sustainable energy sources is limited, primarily by our imagination. As in the case of the light-bulbs designed with a limited life-span, the vested interests of the few, no matter how complex you try to make it, currently over-ride the quality of life of most: buying into consumerism, most people are oblivious to this.

The same vested interests are at the root of global inequality which has half the world’s population on less than $2 per day, and 800 million starving, but buying into consumerism, most of us are unaware of this. In this way we are all, to differing degrees, culpable, but if you minimise the difference that small projects can make, you place the lion’s share of the responsibility with the self appointed decision-making few.

Bad cess to consumerism and its corporate sponsors.

However, there are a few more points worth mentioning. I think you underestimate the extent to which the state controls farming in the ‘developed’ world, to a greater extent than large farmers use the state (both ripping off the public). While the MDCs agreed to reduce export subsidies in Geneva, (August 2004), The most efficient subsidies of all have come in the recent EU trends towards Direct Aid (farmer’s dole). Phytosanitation directives too in food processing, and Kyoto Protocol in industry generally, place Third World at a disadvantage, since their governments cannot afford the necessary grant-aid to help their industries meet new Western standards: but more importantly for present purposes, the EU REPS scheme means that EU policy decides what is grown, and even, that nothing should be grown at all (in the case of set-aside).

MDCs could switch production to rape-seed for example, but this would mean less meat production/consumption, and this might make governments even more unpopular (the J-curve of unsatisfied expectations often leads to revolution). On the other hand, the cheaper transport costs of local energy sources rather than farming them out to LDCs, will be an incentive, and the J-curve will be worse if lack of investment in whatever energy alternatives, continues.

Governments’ lack of planning capability should be obvious by now, on a national scale, let alone on a global one. The coming water crisis caused in part by oil consumption, will make the lack of oil pale into insignificance. Mass-migration and unsustainable demographies may ensue.

Interesting times await, but it’s not too late to act now, in whatever way you think fit. People will disagree on strategies of public debate, as well as possible solutions; but the more immediate the perceived threat, the more readily people will be to unite in the common cause. That may be too late.

What can be done now?

by Simon Willace Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:58

Thanks for you re reply.

What can be done now is honest debate, where the benefit of the world is considered and mankind takes second place.

Think about this seriously.

‘When nature is understood both science and religion will become redundant’

i will explain the concept.


nervertheless
By Then it will be just us and our actions, no god to clean up our mess, no salvation, just us and nature, as it has always been.
However by then it will be too late unless enough populations have made some changes to normal human behaviour.

Currently Science is being used as a tool to defeat nature not to understand it. Science is used to break nature down into saleable objects for short term profits as centralised power maintains control.

nature only has value when a price tag is scanned.

God is used for all kinds of excuses, god was never intended for such a task.

So should we rise up and attack consumerism? Clearly the greatest enemy… but where exactly would you begin? It’s at home and it’s spreading through globalized efforts throughout the developing world.

Developing and ever expanding, demanding more and more. while oil and other fossil fuels the furnace of industry, expanding and growing every year in what must become self defeating.

To change direction so fundamentally you must have a plan to offer the masses, there are 7 billion of us to consider. The new system to replace the one people are used to must be really radical, brilliant yet simple and easy to instigate, therefore we must chew over all requirements, plan in collectives organise in councils and then act once we have the plan.

This will take a while.

This would be a new approach, revolutionary in itself.
historically mankind has only ever acted in desperation as a last resort completely without thought or a post action plan.

That is why we are talking now ; this is why humans have always failed as a species, victims of bad planing or of no plan at all.

There are many things to consider, not only do we have to devise a system that will attract support which would generate self sustaining action but the said action must encourage the developing world to follow.
Tall order

We must generate the same marketing appeal as consumerism.
If ya can’t beat em

Forget demonstrating to governments as well you know, they are well under the control of corporate shared interest.

just count the times they assure you of the consumer confidence,and display the mums and dads share index, its a dead give away, saving the planet is not in their budgetary concern.

The greatest amount of money ever spent on one project of environmental protection was 8 million dollars, that’s one incompitant corporate salary.

There are solutions but the problems are so many and varied, maybe all that can be done is that one person should save themselves.

You could just drop out of society, and live well. This would encourage others to follow suit, building a society that treads lightly upon the world and each other while requiring less from a depleted world.

Once established in generations this asset would set the example, while consumerism dies of natural causes.
Exhausted.

I made a start.

by JOD - None I am prepared to mention Tue Dec 14, 2004 13:03 jodrisco at ireland dot com EnvironMENTALIST's Nightmare

Nicely put.