It's also for future space based problems and future technologies not neccessarily related to war but rather to future or possible earth/space events, some stuff to save everyone's butt's, planetary defense and/or aid. Future exploration will need accurate GPS right? So will everyone else!
Military Industrial Complex is he talking about Area 51? No enemies? The system's in place are for equal Global Security tied together with other countries as a security blanket unified defense network, it's not a domination concept to hold all the coins in 1 basket.
OMG how wrong he is.....has he forgotten about Indonesia? the most populous Muslim nation in the world (180 million Muslims)? they're going to come after us with radical Asian terrorists
That study was initiated by Chevron to make people think there was less oil, so they could move the price up in the 50's and 60's when oil was dirt cheap. OPEC sets quotas for countries becuz if we produced oil like we could it would be dirt cheap, but they dont want that. they want ppl to think were running out so they can jack the priceup and amke record funds
You're actually confusing 2 problems as one. OPEC can jack prices regardless of supply; because, as a cartel, they can operate almost like a monopoly.
The peak oil problem will occur sooner or later. We can't continue consuming something faster than the earth can produce it forever. The debate is not "if" but "when". Some say now, some say later. When it does come, I believe it will cause war as have most such resource deficits in the past.
I agree 100%. That's why we need to implement and continue to implement advanced technologies sooner than later, the US has always had a habit of holding back it's developments publicly up until the later internet era and open public project participation to advance medical sciences and other technologies. Onlything we really need a tiny bit of oil for is is paints, hydrualic fluid, and sealed bearing lubrication.
interesting movie, I will probably watch it soon. however I quote "yet reserves have doubled while the fields have been exploited mercilessly for 50 years. "
Oil production has been increasing, and there is a reason people are always trying to adjust Hubbert's peak... its wrong and htey are trying to make it right.
Lambdafox are you crazy? Their is plenty of oil dont even try saying we are running out of oil. We discover more and more oil every year. OIL IS INCREASING
Terrorists are not a huge powerful state, therefore, the idea that the only threat a nation faces is from a huge army is foolish. If just one rouge state passes a dirty bomb to an international terrorist network an entire American city can be tragically wiped out. If you think terrorists aren't trying to get a dirty bomb, or that an failing state wouldn't sell them one, we should just stop debating because you're delusional.
He isn't delusional and you are just misinformed. Dirty bombs are a non-issue. The radioactive material of a dirty bomb would be spread out over such a large area that the effects of the radiation itself would pose no significant health threats. All well-researched analysts agree the greatest threat of a dirty bomb would be from the ensuing public panic only. Panic fueled by fearful ignorance.
I think we agree more than you think. I don't disagree with you at all that these are threats. What I think is most salient in his statment is the level of fear we have each day because it is fed to us over and over again. It's more likely that you or I will win the powerball, I think, than get killed by a dirty bomb (or military action by a state, or any other terrorist act). You may judge the risk higher, but I think Gravel was right on pointing out how irrational our fear is.
Wouldn't you say, however, that the reason we are so unlikely to get killed by a terrorist act is because we have such a powerful security appartus in the United States? Say what you will about Bush-I'm no fan of his-but there is a reason why attacks haven't escalated post 911 and that is largely because America's security apparatus is very much on its toes.
That is, more or less the point. Our security is so good that we should not be "afraid". That is not to say that we should eliminate the military. He goes on to say, though, that we are in some ways increasing our risk by misdeploying assets on Iraq. He also points out that we don't have the best recent history of international relations which is actually somewhat of a separate topic.
Because the Bush-Cheney administration was behind 9/11 that's the ONLY reason there hasn't been another "surprise terrorist attack" inside the US. Where was the powerful security appartus on 9/11? What happened was designed by PNAC. thepetitionsite(dot)com/takeaction/283054100?ltl=1177820937
SKITTZ0 my friend its nice to see that you know your stuff. Yes not only did the administration know about the terrorist plot but they purposely magnified in a way that put fear in the heart of the Americans and gave them public support for going to war. Osama Binladen himself said that he never in a million years expected the two towers to actually go down and called it a miracle from god. it wasn't a miracle from god though it was courtasy of the Bush administration.
My basic philosophy on the contemporary state of the world is that we're undergoing a massive transition of the "rules of the game." Terrorist networks and nukes are now the primary threat to security. There will likely not be another serious inter-state warfare as in the early 20th century but the problems will come from groups whose actions can destablize an increasingly interconnected global economy.
I would more or less agree with this point for the near term. In the future, if we don't get global warming under control, we may have wars for water and food. We may also face additional conflicts because of diminishing oil supplies. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that occur to me as most likely. Although, I like Kucinich, I disagree with his total peace platform inasmuch as I believe that Afghanistan was an ethical and appropriate response, while Iraq is simply insanity.
Afghanistan's invasion was to make sure that oil pipeline was laid & protected. Also, the opium poppy production that the Taliban had almost completely eradicated needed to be corrected to produce MORE to support the CIAs drug trade.
If the global warming scenarios are true and the planet will combust into all sorts of enviornmental disasters, than everything we're talking about here will be irrelevant because wars over control of land will be the only way to secure resources for a state's survival. The pentagon recently issued a report that speaks to this. I'll link it if I find it.
Afghanistan was not only a necessary response to 911 but also important in the wider global strategy of containing China. If you've noticed, US-India relations have been significantly warming, as have our relations with Vietnam and Japan. A permanent base in Afghanistan is critical to the future security balance of South Asia.
I paid attention to what he was saying and it's utter nonsense. The idea that only existential threats are what comprises a threat in the Post Cold war era is a very short sighted view of security. If you're suggesting that introducing nukes into Iran and North Korea doesn't comprise a real threat to the international schema than you clearly don't know anything about basic international relations.
Sorry, but I only think of "enemy" in a military context, and I believe that is the arena to which he was speaking also. The level of fear we have in this area is irrationally high given our size & might.
If you pay "close" attention, you will hear that he says NOT that we have no enemies. He says we have no "important" enemies. We are made to be irrationally afraid of our truly insignificant enemies. We could blow everyone off the face of the earth several times over, why are we afraid of peons like North Korea? Take another listen...
Mike Gravel is a genious. If I were a registered democrat id vote for him. Being registered as a republican however, I will be voting for Ron Paul.
Thrice13 4 years ago
It's also for future space based problems and future technologies not neccessarily related to war but rather to future or possible earth/space events, some stuff to save everyone's butt's, planetary defense and/or aid. Future exploration will need accurate GPS right? So will everyone else!
KnightChatX 4 years ago
Military Industrial Complex is he talking about Area 51? No enemies? The system's in place are for equal Global Security tied together with other countries as a security blanket unified defense network, it's not a domination concept to hold all the coins in 1 basket.
KnightChatX 4 years ago
OMG how wrong he is.....has he forgotten about Indonesia? the most populous Muslim nation in the world (180 million Muslims)? they're going to come after us with radical Asian terrorists
gremlin05 4 years ago
Holy crap, how did he get elected?
quiIl 4 years ago
I agree with those 2 posts. However I view us running out of oil likely to occur atleast 100 years from now probably even much longer.
Gadz13 4 years ago
That study was initiated by Chevron to make people think there was less oil, so they could move the price up in the 50's and 60's when oil was dirt cheap. OPEC sets quotas for countries becuz if we produced oil like we could it would be dirt cheap, but they dont want that. they want ppl to think were running out so they can jack the priceup and amke record funds
Gadz13 4 years ago
You're actually confusing 2 problems as one. OPEC can jack prices regardless of supply; because, as a cartel, they can operate almost like a monopoly.
The peak oil problem will occur sooner or later. We can't continue consuming something faster than the earth can produce it forever. The debate is not "if" but "when". Some say now, some say later. When it does come, I believe it will cause war as have most such resource deficits in the past.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
I agree 100%. That's why we need to implement and continue to implement advanced technologies sooner than later, the US has always had a habit of holding back it's developments publicly up until the later internet era and open public project participation to advance medical sciences and other technologies. Onlything we really need a tiny bit of oil for is is paints, hydrualic fluid, and sealed bearing lubrication.
KnightChatX 4 years ago
interesting movie, I will probably watch it soon. however I quote "yet reserves have doubled while the fields have been exploited mercilessly for 50 years. "
Oil production has been increasing, and there is a reason people are always trying to adjust Hubbert's peak... its wrong and htey are trying to make it right.
Gadz13 4 years ago
Truth to Power!!!!!!
kdwormy 4 years ago
Lambdafox are you crazy? Their is plenty of oil dont even try saying we are running out of oil. We discover more and more oil every year. OIL IS INCREASING
Gadz13 4 years ago
Gadz13, where did you hear Oil was increasing?
I just read in the Gazette the other day about the "Peak Oil" issue. They've been talking about it for years.
Also check out the film, A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash for more info on the subject.
Increasing??
If you know something, you are welcome to enlighten us.
HatTricksInc 4 years ago
That's why I referred to it as a future problem.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
Right o. Truth at last.
desertcafe 4 years ago
Important enemy: George W Bush!!
theoshow2 4 years ago
Terrorists are not a huge powerful state, therefore, the idea that the only threat a nation faces is from a huge army is foolish. If just one rouge state passes a dirty bomb to an international terrorist network an entire American city can be tragically wiped out. If you think terrorists aren't trying to get a dirty bomb, or that an failing state wouldn't sell them one, we should just stop debating because you're delusional.
cockandballz 4 years ago
He isn't delusional and you are just misinformed. Dirty bombs are a non-issue. The radioactive material of a dirty bomb would be spread out over such a large area that the effects of the radiation itself would pose no significant health threats. All well-researched analysts agree the greatest threat of a dirty bomb would be from the ensuing public panic only. Panic fueled by fearful ignorance.
sublimetrance 4 years ago
What analyst are you talking about? Don't waste space if you can't provide credible refrences.
cockandballz 4 years ago
I think we agree more than you think. I don't disagree with you at all that these are threats. What I think is most salient in his statment is the level of fear we have each day because it is fed to us over and over again. It's more likely that you or I will win the powerball, I think, than get killed by a dirty bomb (or military action by a state, or any other terrorist act). You may judge the risk higher, but I think Gravel was right on pointing out how irrational our fear is.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
Wouldn't you say, however, that the reason we are so unlikely to get killed by a terrorist act is because we have such a powerful security appartus in the United States? Say what you will about Bush-I'm no fan of his-but there is a reason why attacks haven't escalated post 911 and that is largely because America's security apparatus is very much on its toes.
cockandballz 4 years ago
That is, more or less the point. Our security is so good that we should not be "afraid". That is not to say that we should eliminate the military. He goes on to say, though, that we are in some ways increasing our risk by misdeploying assets on Iraq. He also points out that we don't have the best recent history of international relations which is actually somewhat of a separate topic.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
Because the Bush-Cheney administration was behind 9/11 that's the ONLY reason there hasn't been another "surprise terrorist attack" inside the US. Where was the powerful security appartus on 9/11? What happened was designed by PNAC. thepetitionsite(dot)com/takeaction/283054100?ltl=1177820937
SKITTZ0 4 years ago
SKITTZ0 my friend its nice to see that you know your stuff. Yes not only did the administration know about the terrorist plot but they purposely magnified in a way that put fear in the heart of the Americans and gave them public support for going to war. Osama Binladen himself said that he never in a million years expected the two towers to actually go down and called it a miracle from god. it wasn't a miracle from god though it was courtasy of the Bush administration.
burningpheonix01 4 years ago
My basic philosophy on the contemporary state of the world is that we're undergoing a massive transition of the "rules of the game." Terrorist networks and nukes are now the primary threat to security. There will likely not be another serious inter-state warfare as in the early 20th century but the problems will come from groups whose actions can destablize an increasingly interconnected global economy.
cockandballz 4 years ago
I would more or less agree with this point for the near term. In the future, if we don't get global warming under control, we may have wars for water and food. We may also face additional conflicts because of diminishing oil supplies. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that occur to me as most likely. Although, I like Kucinich, I disagree with his total peace platform inasmuch as I believe that Afghanistan was an ethical and appropriate response, while Iraq is simply insanity.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
Afghanistan's invasion was to make sure that oil pipeline was laid & protected. Also, the opium poppy production that the Taliban had almost completely eradicated needed to be corrected to produce MORE to support the CIAs drug trade.
SKITTZ0 4 years ago
If the global warming scenarios are true and the planet will combust into all sorts of enviornmental disasters, than everything we're talking about here will be irrelevant because wars over control of land will be the only way to secure resources for a state's survival. The pentagon recently issued a report that speaks to this. I'll link it if I find it.
cockandballz 4 years ago
Afghanistan was not only a necessary response to 911 but also important in the wider global strategy of containing China. If you've noticed, US-India relations have been significantly warming, as have our relations with Vietnam and Japan. A permanent base in Afghanistan is critical to the future security balance of South Asia.
cockandballz 4 years ago
I paid attention to what he was saying and it's utter nonsense. The idea that only existential threats are what comprises a threat in the Post Cold war era is a very short sighted view of security. If you're suggesting that introducing nukes into Iran and North Korea doesn't comprise a real threat to the international schema than you clearly don't know anything about basic international relations.
cockandballz 4 years ago
Sorry, but I only think of "enemy" in a military context, and I believe that is the arena to which he was speaking also. The level of fear we have in this area is irrationally high given our size & might.
LambdaFox 4 years ago
LMAO!! We have no enemies!? HAHAHAHAHA
cockandballz 4 years ago
If you pay "close" attention, you will hear that he says NOT that we have no enemies. He says we have no "important" enemies. We are made to be irrationally afraid of our truly insignificant enemies. We could blow everyone off the face of the earth several times over, why are we afraid of peons like North Korea? Take another listen...
LambdaFox 4 years ago
If you have the hots for this guy, check out Republican candidate Ron Paul. More focus on securing America, and preserving our economy.
drr0b0tnik 4 years ago
Damn right. I am getting the hots for this guy.
toxoid 4 years ago