• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The US name all strategic points on the globe as tyranny countries.

O

OffTopic1

Golden Member

The oil factor in Bush's 'war on tyranny'
The list of emerging targets in a new "war on tyranny" is clearly fluid, provisional, and adaptable as developments change. It is clear that a breathtaking array of future military and economic offensives is in the works at the highest policy levels to transform the world. A world oil price of US$150 a barrel or more in the next few years would be joined by chokepoint control of the supply by one power if Washington has its way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of this is believable, and it would be scary if the speculation is true.

At any rate, this article shed some lights on how Asian view America policies.

 
Whether or not the hatred the obvious Bush-basher who wrote this article is spewing is true, God gave George W. Bush the authority to take whatever action is necessary to accomplish whatever goal he (God or George) deems necessary in order to save God's United States.

Hallelujah.

 
Condi mentioned the outposts of tyranny a long time ago...this is nothing new.
I feel there are far more than shown there. I question Cuba's role in the top 6 or whatever.
I have no problem with the US being vocal about these regimes, just to make people aware and show that they do truely care for the well being of the people of the respected outposts.
I am far more interested in plans, motivation, cost, actions, etc. This is where i will form my opinions in the future.
To start bashing the bush admin over this is quite premature and uninformed.
 
Also i can't stand this doom and gloom over the price of oil...i will tell you right now that if oil prices go to 3 to 4 times current levels, *enter solar and wind*. I just came back from a lecture this morning about solar being able to produce $0.25 per kWh, and coal/oil at $0.06 per kWh. Technology will be there when costs get high (if it ever happens). This revamping of energy supplies will be GOOD for the economy. New R&D firms, new hightech manufacturing etc. Also when it all comes down to it, not taking into account alternate energy sources...who will be able to bid for this $150 a barrel oil...i'll give you a hint...NOT FRIGGIN china or india...that's right the US of A. Our lives will not change. So don't be so doom and gloom.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Also i can't stand this doom and gloom over the price of oil...i will tell you right now that if oil prices go to 3 to 4 times current levels, *enter solar and wind*. I just came back from a lecture this morning about solar being able to produce $0.25 per kWh, and coal/oil at $0.06 per kWh. Technology will be there when costs get high (if it ever happens). This revamping of energy supplies will be GOOD for the economy. New R&D firms, new hightech manufacturing etc. Also when it all comes down to it, not taking into account alternate energy sources...who will be able to bid for this $150 a barrel oil...i'll give you a hint...NOT FRIGGIN china or india...that's right the US of A. Our lives will not change. So don't be so doom and gloom.
Click to expand...

the problem though is transportation.

There is no real alternative to oil-power transportation even on the drawing board.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the problem though is transportation.
There is no real alternative to oil-power transportation even on the drawing board.
Click to expand...
First of all the majority of oil in the US is consumed by power plants. Take those out of the picture with alternate fuels (achievable with such a large price increase), the oil price will be be lowered. Then this cheaper fuel can be used in smaller hybrid cars. The industry will adapt. People will refuse to pay for high oil price, the market will shape itself to allow for this.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Also i can't stand this doom and gloom over the price of oil...i will tell you right now that if oil prices go to 3 to 4 times current levels, *enter solar and wind*. I just came back from a lecture this morning about solar being able to produce $0.25 per kWh, and coal/oil at $0.06 per kWh. Technology will be there when costs get high (if it ever happens). This revamping of energy supplies will be GOOD for the economy. New R&D firms, new hightech manufacturing etc. Also when it all comes down to it, not taking into account alternate energy sources...who will be able to bid for this $150 a barrel oil...i'll give you a hint...NOT FRIGGIN china or india...that's right the US of A. Our lives will not change. So don't be so doom and gloom.
Click to expand...
Wind/solar/thermal power can be harness, however they are going to cost more to produce energy than coal/oil/gas/nuclear/hydro. Alternative methods has been dabbled with though out the last century and the most current one that I know of is the Magrath Wind Power that cost roughly about the same as the average cost of traditional method to produce & distribute (about $0.10 kWh). However, the cost of wind power isn't factor in the distribution (cost depending on how long the line has to be).

The Magrath project works, however the actual price that the local have to paid is about 20% higher than the rest of the province (fuel price in Magrath is the lowest in Canada due to the wind power project) and the province have to absorb the rest of the bill (I think Alberta has to foot about 1/2 of the price). The bonus is that they enjoy a clean environment in a dust bowl town that constantly have incredibly strong wind (still shudder thinking about the 3 days that I spent there).

I'm not too familiar with large scale solar power projects, but has attended several speeches from the local University on the subject. The proposal didn't factor in the environmental impact of blocking out the sun light from the ground and water, and price wasn't mentioned. The proposal was to have solar panels covering the Canadian coast and prairie, and run line into existing grid.

There were a local/home solar panel project that failed in my area (there were an incentive by the local government that foot %75 of the construction & material cost), because the maintainance cost is much higher than anticipated therefore the project was abandon in the late 80s. Solar panels has come along way in the last 15 years, but I don't think it is enough to balance over the cost of building & upkeep (I think the cost ended up to be 5 to 7 times higher than hydro).
 
Originally posted by: conjur
We're up to about $54/barrel today.
Click to expand...
Nice!
Great news. Either way the price of oil goes, the 1st world will benifit.
My oil and gas fund is now up over 50% since august 🙂
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Stunt
Also i can't stand this doom and gloom over the price of oil...i will tell you right now that if oil prices go to 3 to 4 times current levels, *enter solar and wind*. I just came back from a lecture this morning about solar being able to produce $0.25 per kWh, and coal/oil at $0.06 per kWh. Technology will be there when costs get high (if it ever happens). This revamping of energy supplies will be GOOD for the economy. New R&D firms, new hightech manufacturing etc. Also when it all comes down to it, not taking into account alternate energy sources...who will be able to bid for this $150 a barrel oil...i'll give you a hint...NOT FRIGGIN china or india...that's right the US of A. Our lives will not change. So don't be so doom and gloom.
Click to expand...

the problem though is transportation.

There is no real alternative to oil-power transportation even on the drawing board.
Click to expand...
Fuel cells, electricity, and propane.
 
OT: I am not disputing the fact that wind and solar are more expensive...i already posted the numbers where solar and wind are only viable if oil prices jump significantly. This is precisely what your article is proposing. If prices do go to the levels your article specifies...then YES, these alternate sources are viable options. Maybe not now, but this will be a gradual event, lots of time to phase into the new energy economy.
I am not worried in the least, most shouldn't. Humans are highly adaptable, we will not be dependent on oil forever.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
OT: I am not disputing the fact that wind and solar are more expensive...i already posted the numbers where solar and wind are only viable if oil prices jump significantly. This is precisely what your article is proposing. If prices do go to the levels your article specifies...then YES, these alternate sources are viable options. Maybe not now, but this will be a gradual event, lots of time to phase into the new energy economy.
I am not worried in the least, most shouldn't. Humans are highly adaptable, we will not be dependent on oil forever.
Click to expand...
I have been to a few places on this planet and Magrath is way windier than any that I can recall. IMHO, there aren't many places that wind power would produce as low a price as Magrath, and then there is an additional distribution cost on top of that. My projection is that the fuel cost would have to be at least X3 the current price to make Magrath like project viable.
 
ok, 3 times the current price, you quoted a price of $150 above...that's 3 times what it is now...
Therefore at that point it is a viable option...welcome to 5 posts ago 😛
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
ok, 3 times the current price, you quoted a price of $150 above...that's 3 times what it is now...
Therefore at that point it is a viable option...welcome to 5 posts ago 😛
Click to expand...
That is the price for Magrath like environment, and the actual cost would be a lot higher if wind power were to be in a larger scale.

Magrath is the windiest place in Canada and the project provided enough power to 13,000 homes. Canada have 7% of the world land mass, therefore only 13 more places in the world would have the same strong wind as Magrath (speculation). That mean only about 182,000 home or one small US town would enjoy Magrath price, and the other billions of home would see much higher price than Magrath price.
 
Heh, you are neglecting the fact that by the time oil hits $150 a barrel as you are suggesting, the technology will have become more efficient and effective at delivering power to the end user. Just because now it doesn't make sense, and we all know this...doesn't mean it has no future. It might, if the market determines this to be the case. Don't put your nose up at anything at this point, all options are on the table...once oil is not a viable source of energy, something will take its place.
 
Originally posted by: OffTopic

The oil factor in Bush's 'war on tyranny'
The list of emerging targets in a new "war on tyranny" is clearly fluid, provisional, and adaptable as developments change. It is clear that a breathtaking array of future military and economic offensives is in the works at the highest policy levels to transform the world. A world oil price of US$150 a barrel or more in the next few years would be joined by chokepoint control of the supply by one power if Washington has its way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of this is believable, and it would be scary if the speculation is true.

At any rate, this article shed some lights on how Asian view America policies.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't have anything against a "War on tyranny" so long as it was conducted intelligently and targeted primarily those nations whose governments have a history of causing great harm and violence to their own citizens.

I've always though that at the end of WWII we should have followed Patton's advice and taken out the Soviet Union. They were weak enough at that point that we could have crushed them quickly and easily, and it's sad to think that if we had done so we might have been able to save tens of millions of lives and several decades worth of immeasurable oppression and suffering.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: OffTopic

The oil factor in Bush's 'war on tyranny'
The list of emerging targets in a new "war on tyranny" is clearly fluid, provisional, and adaptable as developments change. It is clear that a breathtaking array of future military and economic offensives is in the works at the highest policy levels to transform the world. A world oil price of US$150 a barrel or more in the next few years would be joined by chokepoint control of the supply by one power if Washington has its way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of this is believable, and it would be scary if the speculation is true.

At any rate, this article shed some lights on how Asian view America policies.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't have anything against a "War on tyranny" so long as it was conducted intelligently and targeted primarily those nations whose governments have a history of causing great harm and violence to their own citizens.

I've always though that at the end of WWII we should have followed Patton's advice and taken out the Soviet Union. They were weak enough at that point that we could have crushed them quickly and easily, and it's sad to think that if we had done so we might have been able to save tens of millions of lives and several decades worth of immeasurable oppression and suffering.

Jason
Click to expand...
Yeah Patton wanted to do that so that we could help people.He along with people like Lemay wanted to strike so that we would be the only superpower in the world.You really need to study the Defense Dept plans for post-WWII.Of course this is from the same group of men that wanted to pre-emptively attack Russia and admitted that 100 million innocent civilans would die. I think we should have but not for liberty for them but for our own global strength,
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Whether or not the hatred the obvious Bush-basher who wrote this article is spewing is true, God gave George W. Bush the authority to take whatever action is necessary to accomplish whatever goal he (God or George) deems necessary in order to save God's United States.

Hallelujah.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I recognize when you're being facetious! 🙂 Though if I *did* believe God granted Georgey boy any authority for any purpose, I would *immediately* become 50 times more distrustful and critical of the bastard.

God's not exactly known for his great love of mankind (well, OK so he IS, but when you read his actual DEEDS, you realize that he has no love of anything but Power and control.)

Here is an excellent post on the topic.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Stunt
Also i can't stand this doom and gloom over the price of oil...i will tell you right now that if oil prices go to 3 to 4 times current levels, *enter solar and wind*. I just came back from a lecture this morning about solar being able to produce $0.25 per kWh, and coal/oil at $0.06 per kWh. Technology will be there when costs get high (if it ever happens). This revamping of energy supplies will be GOOD for the economy. New R&D firms, new hightech manufacturing etc. Also when it all comes down to it, not taking into account alternate energy sources...who will be able to bid for this $150 a barrel oil...i'll give you a hint...NOT FRIGGIN china or india...that's right the US of A. Our lives will not change. So don't be so doom and gloom.
Click to expand...

the problem though is transportation.

There is no real alternative to oil-power transportation even on the drawing board.
Click to expand...

Uh, Hydrogen ring a bell?

Jason
 
Originally posted by: eigen
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: OffTopic

The oil factor in Bush's 'war on tyranny'
The list of emerging targets in a new "war on tyranny" is clearly fluid, provisional, and adaptable as developments change. It is clear that a breathtaking array of future military and economic offensives is in the works at the highest policy levels to transform the world. A world oil price of US$150 a barrel or more in the next few years would be joined by chokepoint control of the supply by one power if Washington has its way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of this is believable, and it would be scary if the speculation is true.

At any rate, this article shed some lights on how Asian view America policies.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't have anything against a "War on tyranny" so long as it was conducted intelligently and targeted primarily those nations whose governments have a history of causing great harm and violence to their own citizens.

I've always though that at the end of WWII we should have followed Patton's advice and taken out the Soviet Union. They were weak enough at that point that we could have crushed them quickly and easily, and it's sad to think that if we had done so we might have been able to save tens of millions of lives and several decades worth of immeasurable oppression and suffering.

Jason
Click to expand...
Yeah Patton wanted to do that so that we could help people.He along with people like Lemay wanted to strike so that we would be the only superpower in the world.You really need to study the Defense Dept plans for post-WWII.Of course this is from the same group of men that wanted to pre-emptively attack Russia and admitted that 100 million innocent civilans would die. I think we should have but not for liberty for them but for our own global strength,
Click to expand...

I understand Patton's reasons perfectly well, and I didn't say that his reasons and mine were the same, now did I? The estimate that "100 million people will die" is absurd and I've never once read such a statistic from a reliable source. If you'd care to provide one I'd be glad to see it.

For reference, in 1937 the Soviet Union's population was only 190 million, which means that by your count we'd have had to kill more than HALF of the population of the entire Soviet Union. You'll understand when I say that seems an absurd premise at best. They had already lost more than 26 million in the war to date, and their resources were all but exhausted.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
HAH!...hydrogen...
that's all i have to say on that...go do some research.
Click to expand...

Is there a problem with Hydrogen, exactly? Are you aware that the first two Hydrogen fueling stations recently opened in California and that a number of manufacturers, including Toyota, Honda, GM, BMWand others are actively developing Hydrogen powered cars? Did you know that Governor Schwarznenegger fueled up his new Hydrogen Hummer when the station opened?

Hydrogen, regardless of your scoffing, is a viable, smart way to power automobiles and many, many other types of gadgets for the future.

The best part, IMHO, is that we get to financially SCREW the middle east and OPEC while simultaneously cleaning up our environment. NICE! 🙂

Jason

 
Oh, the infrastructure of fueling stations is the EASY part.
Go research a)the cost of these cells b)where hydrogen comes from.
Then report back to me 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top