Political leanings

[smuttleydfs]

(Torurot @ Aug. 17 2009,17:12) >US=Hypocrite nation is not even close to right either.


Of course it is.  One could easy write a LONG list of the political, and diplomatic hypocrisy of the USA.  No one does it better.  Think about it.  They are not alone, only more obvious.

US readers are likely blind to it because Fox (the spin begins here) does not report on US govt hypocrisy!

T

Like I said I do not disagree that hypocrisy is a major characteristic of the United States but we are not alone in this trait. As stated before please point out any nation that's ideals are NOT based on hypocrisy!!!! As for faux news believe me I have a parental control on that channel

[alan1chef]

Technological advances combined with the greed of the oil exporting nations of OPEC have made alternative energy solutions viable. I think hydrogen is one of the most promising sources of power for vehicles. Fuel blends are also a viable alternative. There are also several heating oil alternatives now available. Nuclear power is unnecessary.

However, if we wait for government to act, it will take a while. Better that the voters take matters into their own hands through the initiative process. Consumers also wield a lot of influence; just look at how many hybrid vehicles are now on the market...and more will follow. Why? Because we created the demand for it. OPEC is highly sensitive to this issue. Look at how fast the price of oil drops when demand for oil weakens.

[Torurot]

Three great websites

http://www.theoildrum.com/

http://warincontext.org/

http://counterpunch.org/

Most large countries have hypocritical foreign policy. Might does not equal right as we all know.

At least Fox (the spin begins here) is only available to a relatively small? cable? audience.

[manarak]

(Torurot @ Aug. 18 2009,04:08) but in reverse you are quite happy to "dominate the oil countries".  There's a disconnect there!

There is no disconnect!

What I say is that the strong countries impose their will to the weak.

And I am pretty much in favor of that as long as the strong countries are not working against me - but this has already begun, because many countries now restrict civil rights and liberties.

Strong countries also need public opinion to support their hallucinations, so they construct cases against other countries they target and lie to the media and public.



On the other side of the equation, if I had to rule a developing country, I would have to implement a number of measures that would be very impopular with the western world:

- Nationalization of national resources (oil, gold, etc.) - or force the producing companies to pay 50% levy.
this would upset the western world very much, they would shout "communists" and stop to import my production. And then I would have no other choice than so sell the resources to Russia, China, Venezuela and their satellites.

- I would have to put up serious trade tariffs for a number of strategic goods that I want to have produced in my own country, such as: basic agricultural products, construction materials, steel, etc. and to subsidize exports of... umm... bananas?

- If my predecessor had contracted earlier a huge debt through "economic hitmans", this debt would have to be either cancelled or reduced to something that makes sense in regard to the real economic advantages of the infrastructure built.

- I would have to secure power with a "presidency for life decree", since otherwise the spoiled companies and some western governments would send in mercenaries to overthrow me

- I would have to build a sizeable army, because western forces will work on isolating me politically. I will also need a presidential guard of trusted bodyguards, corruption is likely to be widespread in a poor country

- I would have to massively develop agriculture to be able to nourish the country's population

- I would have to restrict foreign ownership of land and industries, so that my country doesn't sell-out before it is properly developed


Doing all the above, all will be on the "Axis of Evil" in no time, I am sure!

[Tomcat]

(f0xxee @ Aug. 18 2009,09:38) Oil has peaked?

I thought that was pretty much the majotity view . At projected levels of demand and assuming other technologies will surface like methane etc the world will not be pulling more Oil out in 20 years time than today unless they decide to turn Canada into a shale mine

Of course Oil Companies know a lot more but the days of Oil are numberd...Actually it could be that Oil peaks in 20 or 50 years time ..so what it still pretty close..

Its the same with Copper and Uranium and all the other stuff. Its only coming out the ground once

[pacman]

(Tomcat @ Aug. 18 2009,15:54) Its the same with Copper and Uranium and all the other stuff. Its only coming out the ground once

That's true, but we haven't started to mine the moon yet...      

[Torurot]

"First they came for........"

All that Uranium can get recycled. Throw away nothing!

[manarak]

Uranium can be recycled, but there are also tons of thorium, enough for 1000 years.

Also, people keep discovering new oil fields (for example near Brazil and another in Azerbaidjan - then there is all that oil sand).
I don't believe we will run out of oil before another 100 years or more.

[strocube]

(blonde_havoc @ Aug. 18 2009,09:42)

(strocube @ Aug. 18 2009,06:38) I believe it. Or I should say this was certainly more true when the shrub was in office.  
These days they're going after the government with everything they have. This is especially true in regard to health care right now.

It is also true that most Americans have bought the standard "We are and have always been the good guys" myth about the U.S.  You know, this is the world-view espoused by the "journalists" at Faux "News," fundamentalist christians, the republican party and people who watch NASCAR.

So this fantasy land that you live in... are there rides?

What is about anything I've written above that smacks of "Fantasy Land" to you?

Have you watched "Fox News" lately?
What's your point? Are you saying that most Americans are literate, thoughtful people who are not easily swayed by propaganda?

In very general terms, my point was, that most people in this country are so indoctrinated by propaganda that they are incapable of even recognizing their own interests, much less of acting on those interests.
In this country you have working class people who consistently vote against their own interests. Since Reagan there has been a steady erosion of the protections put in place by FDR that have effectively protected regular working people from the ravages of "free market" capitalism. This would've been impossible to achieve had it not been for working class people voting against their own interests. It is also why you're now seeing these same people clamoring against any kind of health care reform. It is also why these same people overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Iraq, even though they were the ones who were most negatively affected by it.
In France, by way of comparison, if the government even hints that it may cut teacher's wages, people shut down the fucking country.

[strocube]

(manarak @ Aug. 18 2009,14:52) Strong countries also need public opinion to support their hallucinations, so they construct cases against other countries they target and lie to the media and public.

Exactly, that's what the U.S., and to be fair, other countries do all the time.
It's that since I live in the U.S. I'm a victim/recipient of their barrage of bullshit.

[strocube]

(manarak @ Aug. 18 2009,14:52) On the other side of the equation, if I had to rule a developing country, I would have to implement a number of measures that would be very impopular with the western world:

- Nationalization of national resources (oil, gold, etc.) - or force the producing companies to pay 50% levy.
this would upset the western world very much, they would shout "communists" and stop to import my production. And then I would have no other choice than so sell the resources to Russia, China, Venezuela and their satellites.

- I would have to put up serious trade tariffs for a number of strategic goods that I want to have produced in my own country, such as: basic agricultural products, construction materials, steel, etc. and to subsidize exports of... umm... bananas?

- If my predecessor had contracted earlier a huge debt through "economic hitmans", this debt would have to be either cancelled or reduced to something that makes sense in regard to the real economic advantages of the infrastructure built.

- I would have to secure power with a "presidency for life decree", since otherwise the spoiled companies and some western governments would send in mercenaries to overthrow me

- I would have to build a sizeable army, because western forces will work on isolating me politically. I will also need a presidential guard of trusted bodyguards, corruption is likely to be widespread in a poor country

- I would have to massively develop agriculture to be able to nourish the country's population

- I would have to restrict foreign ownership of land and industries, so that my country doesn't sell-out before it is properly developed


Doing all the above, all will be on the "Axis of Evil" in no time, I am sure!

Of course, if you are the leader of a resource rich developing country and you decided that you no longer wanted to act as PIMP (i.e. sell out your country for personal gain) for the benefit U.S. multi-nationals, then you would very quickly find yourself and your country portrayed as the latest threat to all that is good and decent in this world. You would be vilified as the new Hitler. Maybe after they tried and failed to get rid of you by the usual means, (coup d'état), then you just might get invaded and occupied.

This has happened repeatedly.

[Torurot]

Venezuela and Honduras for eg.?. According to the self appointed "world policemen", "Democracy", we don't need no stinking democracy unless it's our man winning! "Rule of law", that's only important if our man is winning.

[strocube]

I'm not really sure if we can put Honduras in that category. I haven't really followed what's happening there too closely, but from what I've seen, it looks like this may be the one time when the spooks at Langley are not obviously implicated. Maybe they're getting better at what they do, but I doubt it.

But, Venezuela has certainly been targeted.
To the list we can add: Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, Grenada, Viet Nam, etc. I'm sure I'm probably forgetting a few . . .

[Torurot]

Strocube, try this link, you will likely change your mind.

http://www.google.com/search?....nch.org

[Torurot]

The Specter of Debt Revolt Is Haunting Europe
Why Iceland and Latvia Won't (and Can't) Pay for the Kleptocrats' Ripoffs
http://counterpunch.org/hudson08182009.html
By MICHAEL HUDSON August 18, 2009

In the wake of the world crash populations are asking not only whether debts should be paid, but whether they can be paid! If they can't be, then trying to pay will only shrink economics further, preventing them from becoming viable. This is what has led past structural adjustment programs to fail.

For the past decade Iceland has been a kind of controlled experiment, an extreme test case of neoliberal free-market ideology. What has been tested has been whether there is a limit to how far a population can be pushed into debt-dependency. Is there a limit, a point at which government will draw a line against by taking on public responsibility for private debts beyond any reasonable capacity to pay without drastically slashing public spending on education, health care and other basic services?

The problem for the post-Soviet economies such as Latvia is that independence in 1991 did not bring the hoped-for Western living standards. Like Iceland, these countries remain dependent on imports for their consumer goods and capital equipment. Their trade deficits have been financed by the global property bubble €“ borrowing in foreign currency against property that was free of debt at the time of independence. Now these assets are fully "loaned up," the bubble has burst and payback time has arrived. No more credit is flowing to the Baltics from Swedish banks, to Hungary from Austrian banks, or to Iceland from Britain and the Netherlands. Unemployment is rising and governments are slashing healthcare and education budgets. The resulting economic shrinkage is leaving large swaths of real estate with negative equity. ......