What Went Wrong?

#39 by tahmed32

Major advancements in human society were made well before there was oil, and will continue long after there is oil.

As I recall, the major advancements made were with steam. The advent of Diesel tech changed all that (those big boilers ... damn) and ushered in the industrial revolution, bulk transportation etc.

Other than Oil, steam is still the cheapest source of alternate energy, notwithstanding those boilers. Name me any other.

Besides, a major mistake people make, as your friend iron_mask does, is that they associate Oil with Cars which they drive. Not their fault, because that`s their immediate interaction with Oil when they visit the gas station to fill up. What both of you don`t realize is that while alternate energies may drive your cars, or even get you electricity, none of these will get you a fraction of the spectrum of what petro-chemicals do, including the asphalt you drive on, as well as your daily medicines.

#38 by tahmed32

Ok, so now you say you said `constitutionally speaking`, but that isn`t much good, is it?

Then you say ... ``campaign financiers put their buck with the candidate they see most likely to win..

Of-course they do. They`re not stupid. And who`s likely to win? It`s the one who promises jobs, low inflation, low taxes, low housing mortgages, and all that stuff ... right?

Now you just need to look at the US economy numbers since 2002 onwards and see how these changed when the elected `legislature` had `ceded` their war authority to the president, which according to your estimation was a blunder. Other people say US taxpayers have spent $400 billion on the war effort. Then you`ll know whether republicans lost or won.

No Sir, they knew exactly what they were doing. Wars create jobs, especially if these are at others` expense.

#37 I think this June or Julys edition of the Scientific American is dedicated to the question of alternative energy sources. You will enjoy reading that. I summary - there is no shortage of alternative energy sources, some within easy reach technologically, others seemingly far out schemes (e.g. harnessing solar power in space). And even today, massive investments are being made in each of these.

The engine of growth is not oil. It is human ingenuity. Major advancements in human society were made well before there was oil, and will continue long after there is oil.

zeemax #50 on the rest of your points -

You quote me: ``The military and campaign financiers may have the ear of the president, but the legislature has the president by the ear ...`` and respond: And the legislature does not have campaign financiers?

First, where you have dots in quoting me, I said ``Constitutionally speaking``. And I also acknowledged in that post that the congress had not done its constitutional duty here under the republicans. So, my statement is in fact factual.

True that the legislature (democrat or repubican) are unduly influenced by campaign financiers. But campaign financiers put their buck with the candidate they see most likely to win. And that is indicated by polls - and polls reflect the broader sentiments of the US population on an issue and not merely those of the campaign financiers.

So, while it may sound crazy - that is only because of this simplistic view among many Pakistanis of the US as being 300 million ignorant people ruled by 20 superhuman beings. (I exaggerate, but not by much i am sorry to say).

#35 by tahmed32

I`m not talking about where middle east will be in 50 years wih no use for oil. They`ll go back to camels. I`m talking about where western civilization will be in 50 years with no oil.

See? Unless you know of a way to power up thermal plants with `knowledge`.

zeemax: the iron mask post i refer to in #25 is #32. Great post which deserves your careful reading I think, rather than quick rejection.

zeemax: I think iron_mask has explained better than I could have the point I was trying to make. I realize that ``knowledge`` seems to be ephemeral stuff while ``oil`` seems real - however it only seems that way.

German industry was levelled to the ground in WWII as was Japanese - and yet both countries emerged within a few years as the engines of growth. The fuel for this growth was not oil or steel. It was a highly educated population. Knowledge.

So, this is no mere academic stuff we are talking about here, but something very real. And in fact there have been economic studies done that have shown the remarkable increase in ``knowledge content`` to the value added.

So, what I wrote may sound crazy to you. But think of the above. The real ``Wealth of Nations`` is between the two ears of its population. Not in an oil well. Nor in the land they occupy.

#32/33

I don`t know what BS are you talking about. What`s your point? That Oil will no longer be important in 50 years? (i.e. if western civilization as we know it survives 50 years which is doubtful).

You need to google on alternate sources of energy, their limitations and cost etc before you start on your theorems.

Re: # 31 zeemax pause for a moment ..... maybe there is something in what they say ...since they are not the ones who are strip searched at airports on a regular basis. I have a colleague, paid up american with all american children. Recently the two of us were on a trip to europe. At every airport on the way out and in, we the one who stopped, serached and taken away for some deep questioning ......
maybe you grew up and started smelling the real coffee not the crap the arb bedouins provide you with.......

Re: # 30 there is something else here......TAhmed32 was talking about 2050...

the world is changing fast and very rapidly - the recent past has shown that a reliance on basic raw materials as a source of wealth doesnot do you much good. It is value added to thie material that is the key. Many countries are on the way to finding alternative sources of energy. E.g you already have coking oil as a replacement for deisel, Merc have come out with a hydrogen enginer car and is available for roder now (they have jumped ahead of the others here). Fusion research is going on at breath taking pace (you hear very little about it but it i). Alternatives - both in terms of energy sources as well as sources of oil&gas are being found.

As the world progresses you will find the need for energy intensive industries coming down. These are often the infrastructure industries (where energy enfficiencicies are low). The future will be carbon nuetral when that happens the bedouins oil and your chutzpah will be shoved where the sun dont shine at all.

Yes oil is important now. In 50 years time arab oil might not be that important eventhough oil might still be the major source of energy!

#29

Haha .. watching dhoti clad choutyas explaining world affairs to each other is so much fun ..

#27 by tahmed32

tahmed, now I`m getting worried about you. Are you alright? Do you even know what you`re doing? I mean you are creating your facts from thin air, and then believing them. This is really worrisome.

You say: ``The military and campaign financiers may have the ear of the president, but the legislature has the president by the ear ...

And the legislature does not have campaign financiers?

You say: ``the ``Powell Doctrine`` of overwhelming force (..in the Iraq 1 war ..) was quietly dropped for the ``Rumsfeld Doctrine`` of an underwhelming force (in terms of troops)``

....while the fact is that in Iraq 1, Kuwait was solely liberated by air campaigns and the troops remained exercising and eating burgers in the Saudi sands while Iraqis withdrew. There was no troop confrontation. US never entered Iraq in #1. What overwhelming force?

You say: ``The real engine of growth for a modern economy is knowledge - not land or natural resources.``

We`re not even talking of `engines` of any growth here, we`re talking about the very survival of the industrial revolution which is fueled by `Oil`, and not `knowledge`. I`m surprised how you say what you do. Don`t say this anywhere else otherwise they`ll put you in strait jackets and cart you off somewhere with whitewashed walls!

James R. Baker III, yes, the very same head of the `Iraq Study Group` of now, was most admirably clear about it when he had said to I.K. Gujral at time of Iraq#1 ``Oil is our very civilization, and we`ll never let nomads sit on it``.

Certainly the job of `studying` Iraq has been assigned to the person who is most qualified at the task!

Re:burpy#20

[..bloodthirsty fanatics planned and executed one of the most horrifying acts of terrorism killing nearly 3000 INNOCENT people of a free country in a time of peace...]

Burpy, 9/11 was not just a terror attack. It was a calculated act of war. The 3000 civilian casualties were only one aspect of it. The real intent was to destroy the icons of US civilization in order to scare and demoralize ALL of the country. By going after wall street (twin towers), pentagon, congress and the white house (the unsuccessful attacks), Al-Quaeda wanted to strike a death blow to western civilization.

This is exactly the same strategy whenever muslims have launced invasions against non-muslims whether it was in Persia, India, Balkans etc. When muslim invaders attacked India, they took particular interest in destroying the largest and most popular temples, the icons of those times. It was NOT just religious zealotry. The objective was to break the local people`s faith in their God and social system in order to switch allegiances. There are many accounts of how town after town in modern day Pakistan got converted after destroying the main temple and the idols therein.

The US reaction was therefore proportional to the provocation. It correctly decided to launch war in the middle-east i.e. play offense rather than defense. By destroying two functioning governments, it displayed its power and ability to reply in the same coin i.e. destroy and demoralise muslims. Where it went wrong was in the strategy of trying build a ``democratic`` Iraq. That was a horrible mistake that completely misunderstood the nature of the people living in the middle-east and their congenital incomatibility against democracy, tolerance or freedom etc. Those people can only be ruled by force a la Saddam. You let them loose and they behave like savages.

The US should have secured the oil fields in Iraq, established protective barriers around them, setup military cantonments and kept high level control over the rest of the country using air power. If any terror camp or madrassas etc came up, just annihilate them via missile attacks from the air. Otherwise let the Iraqis lead their own lives.

iron mask #24: glad we agree on this. more on this in #27.... :-)

zeemax #23 There is no doubt an element of truth in what you say. But I dont think it in any way represents the true picture. The US has a pluralistic society (many centers of power), with the military and industrial interests being only one of them. The military and campaign financiers may have the ear of the president, but the legislature has the president by the ear, constitutionally speaking. :-)

Of course, what went wrong was that the checks and balances failed as in the aftermath of 9/11 the congress essentially ceded its war-making authority to the President who in turn listened to the wrong people - Rumsfeld rather than Powell. What has gone unnoticed in all this is that the ``Powell Doctrine`` of overwhelming force (which had proved successful in the Iraq 1 war as well as in the Kosovo war) was quietly dropped for the ``Rumsfeld Doctrine`` of using an underwhelming force (in terms of troops) which has proved disastrous.

But it was a question of time before the checks and balances inherent in a pluralistic society like the US came into play, with last months elections signalling a turning point.

PS: As for the precious Arab oil - I think arabs overestimate the importance of both land and natural resources in modern economies. The real engine of growth for a modern economy is knowledge - not land or natural resources. And knowledge is a function of an educated population - and in this sense the middle east is among the poorest regions of the world!! Of interest only to greedy individuals seeking to make a quick buck. Where will the middle east be 50 years from now? I would bet that by that time India and China would have caught up and probably even exceeded the middle east in terms of per capita incomes.

NOTE: This has been lengthy post that puts together some thoughts incoherently. but hope the thoughts make some sense. or better yet, provoke some thinking outside the well-beaten box of this mythical ``20 men rule the world`` kind of thinking that leads to self-defeating conclusions.

Re: # 23

see my reply below to Tahmed32 unkil!