Author Topic: High Gas Prices: The Beginning of The End (Read 2671 times)

BamBams · « **on:** March 03, 2004, 03:03:12 AM »

You really ought to check this out:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

And this...........

http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL37/Newsletter37.html

And this..........

http://www.peakoil.net

Mauser · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2004, 06:22:38 AM »

Truly scary. Given the state of political discourse today, however, its hard to determine what is real and what is political fear-mongering BS. The death of truth and integrity and the over-politicization of everything will make this end of the world prediction true more than anything else.

One thing I know is true: Regardless of the future of oil production, the left and the right will continue to find excuses to grow government at the expense of liberty. Freedom, not oil, is the most precious and yet threatened commodity there is.

Squirrelsaurus Rex · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2004, 06:49:23 AM »

Did you guys ever see "The Road Warrior"? :mrgreen:

Dali Llama · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2004, 01:02:36 PM »

Quote from: Mauser

Regardless of the future of oil production, the left and the right will continue to find excuses to grow government at the expense of liberty. Freedom, not oil, is the most precious and yet threatened commodity there is.

That be correct, say Dali Llama.

BamBams · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2004, 02:08:26 PM »

More info regarding Peak Oil..........

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/022304_lng_shortages_summary.html

Dali Llama · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2004, 01:28:29 AM »

Quote from: Squirrelsaurus Rex

Did you guys ever see "The Road Warrior"? :mrgreen:

No; what be subject of such cinematic fare, inquire Dali Llama? :?

Fla Brian · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2004, 05:42:39 AM »

Dali,

It's the film, made in Australia, that made Mel Gibson famous.

It's about a future society in which, after a cataclysmic war, the world has just about run out of oil. There's a little community that has a supply, and the baddies are out to get it. Mel contrives with the good guys to get the fuel transported to safety. And he, almost single-handedly, defeats all the baddies.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2004, 01:19:01 PM »

Quote from: Fla Brian

Dali,

It's the film, made in Australia, that made Mel Gibson famous.

It's about a future society in which, after a cataclysmic war, the world has just about run out of oil. There's a little community that has a supply, and the baddies are out to get it. Mel contrives with the good guys to get the fuel transported to safety. And he, almost single-handedly, defeats all the baddies.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Dali Llama say he appreciate review of movie.

tubbythetuba · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2004, 04:26:55 PM »

I'm pretty sure about this: DNC has been running ads in Mid East newspapers to the effect that all this "US Crap" will end if and when the Dems get back in the saddle. Every penny the price of gas goes up is a reduction of the good effects of the Bush tax cuts. The Dems want Bush out, the muslims darn sure want him out.....ergo sum: raise gas prices, drive down the economic recovery.......Dems win.........I'll bet on this!!! :evil: The fools that think that Bush is behind the gas increase are wrong............if Bush had any control or his old oil buddies could do anything about it, gas would be .50 a gal or less......cheap oil gets the economy going everytime and is good for America!

Dali Llama · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2004, 01:56:42 AM »

Quote from: tubbythetuba

if Bush had any control or his old oil buddies could do anything about it, gas would be .50 a gal or less......cheap oil gets the economy going everytime and is good for America!

Dali Llama say that sound somewhat analogous to Quaker Oat icon who say "nothing is better for thee than me."

BamBams · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2004, 06:11:21 PM »

Unfortunately, you won't be seeing anymore cheap oil. Right now, we are paying for it in blood, and if the experts are correct, that price will continue to escalate until there isn't any left. :cry:

RIFLERANGER · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2004, 08:23:14 PM »

For what it's worth, and of course, this is just my .03, oil is indeed a finite resource. I think it was a fantastic discovery, but like everything else man discovers and finds uses for (the dodo bird comes to mind), we use it til there is nothing left.
Oil is no exception. With the world population on the increase and no joint efforts to keep birthrates at somewhat level numbers, (before you bash my head in about this, bear in mind that oil is only one of many of our natural resources that will disappear in the future, and the higher the population, the faster it goes), it would come as no surprise to me if we saw the end of crude in our lifetimes.
I don't know how many people have their heads in the sand about this, as sometimes it seems that too many people aren't paying attention to what is really going on around us, but the impact of no oil will be devastating.
Count on it.
As the supply begins to dry up, those with the means to do so (read the wealthy) will horde all they can and spend vast amounts of money to purchase, store, and guard their stash.
Those of us with average means will begin banding together to "get some", and I believe that we will see martial law go into effect to protect the wealthy and "theirs". At that point, those unfortunate enough to have none will end up warring with those that have (more likely their protectors) all in the name of mobility and winter warmth that we have become so used to having.
It will get quite ugly.
Ranger

Dali Llama · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2004, 01:19:50 AM »

Quote from: RIFLERANGER

As the supply begins to dry up, those with the means to do so (read the wealthy) will horde all they can and spend vast amounts of money to purchase, store, and guard their stash.
Those of us with average means will begin banding together to "get some", and I believe that we will see martial law go into effect to protect the wealthy and "theirs". At that point, those unfortunate enough to have none will end up warring with those that have (more likely their protectors) all in the name of mobility and winter warmth that we have become so used to having.
It will get quite ugly.
Ranger

...and on that bright note, we will begin another day in the neighborhood, say Dali Llama. :-)

RIFLERANGER · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2004, 04:43:53 AM »

Goes for potable water too.
I suppose we could live in the warmer climates without oil, but without water, we as humans can't exist.
Dali, good to see you are still ever the optimist.
Ranger

NYH1 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2004, 06:37:32 AM »

We've had almost 600 U.S. men and women die in the name of oil this past year alone. And another 300 or so in 1991. If you ask me we shouldn't be paying half of what were paying right now. We wouldn't be if we had a Government that had guts. :evil:

Dali Llama · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2004, 08:37:08 AM »

Quote from: RIFLERANGER

Dali, good to see you are still ever the optimist.
Ranger

Dali Llama say he prefer see glass half full rather than half empty. :-) :-) :-)

Major · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2004, 10:15:42 AM »

Quote from: Dali Llama

Quote from: RIFLERANGER
Dali, good to see you are still ever the optimist.
Ranger
Dali Llama say he prefer see glass half full rather than half empty. :-) :-) :-)

I don't think the glass is half full or half empty... it's just the wrong size glass.

RIFLERANGER · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2004, 12:38:56 PM »

Quote from: Dali Llama

Quote from: RIFLERANGER
Dali, good to see you are still ever the optimist.
Ranger
Dali Llama say he prefer see glass half full rather than half empty. :-) :-) :-)

Ranger say the only determining factor in whether glass be half full or half empty be whether you are filling it up or drinking from it.

Major · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2004, 01:43:13 PM »

Quote from: RIFLERANGER

Quote from: Dali Llama
Quote from: RIFLERANGER
Dali, good to see you are still ever the optimist.
Ranger
Dali Llama say he prefer see glass half full rather than half empty. :-) :-) :-)

Ranger say the only determining factor in whether glass be half full or half empty be whether you are filling it up or drinking from it.

That be very true too...

Gunsmoke · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2004, 07:54:53 PM »

Don't really understand why New York hunter thinks our soldiers are dying for oil. I thought it was an effort to stop further terrorist attacks on American's on our on soil. Seems to me if it is for oil, we had it sewed up in 1991, why would we have given it back to them, plus restoring the oilfields of Kuwait, we could have kept both if that's what we were after.
Why is it the government's job to guarantee us cheap fuel? Does the same standard apply to housing? What about cars? Both of these items have increased in price app. 300% in the past 25yrs. Fuel has increased only app. 35% in the same time frame. Yet no one complains about those costs to the government.
There is a limited amount of oil availiable in the world today. The USA produces about 5.8 million bbls. per day, yet we consume about 20 million bbls. per day. We are at the mercy of our suppliers, which includes not only OPEC, but Venezuela, Mexico, and several others. We can thank the enviromentilists for a lot of our problems. Just my thoughts.

jh45gun · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2004, 10:31:23 PM »

I really do not see oil into the picture expecially with Bush pushing for Hydrogen technology for use in vehicles and heating. Saddam needed taking out no matter what the reason though I do think that JR. was just fininshing the job that dad should have finished. Jim

BamBams · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2004, 02:46:32 PM »

I realize that many people do not see oil as one reason we invaded Iraq, and farbeit from me to try and persuade you otherwise, but I believe, that in the "not too distant" future, you will indeed see it. *smiles*

Major · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2004, 04:17:30 PM »

Oil is only in the picture because the democrats want you to think that is what the war is about. They think the terrorists will go away if they ignore them and we will pull our men home if we believe they are dying for oil. They were in power when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time in 1993 and the Khobar Towers in Dhahran S.A. in 1996. The democrats were also in power when the US Embassies in Kenya/Tanzania were bombed in 1998 and the USS Cole was bombed in Aden Yemen in 2000. During all that time their response was to tear down the US Intelligence Agencies.

The democrats dont want to put an end to this terrorist activity. They just want to control you as they continue to tear away at the Constitution and your rights. They dont care if you die on your own soil because they had 8 years to get the message about the new war we are in and didnt. They only want your guns so that you cant stop them when they REALLY step over the Constitutional lines.

I have a good friend that is the head of one of the Homeland Security Divisions that reports directly to Tom Ridge. He has told me how the democrats undercut the budget and supplies of the US Intelligence Agencies so bad that he and most everyone that was old enough, and smart enough, got out or retired. One of the biggest opponents to the US Intelligence Agencies was Kerry. Now all of a sudden the democrats want to know why the Republican US Intelligence Agencies didnt do more, why did they let us down. Klinton and his crew did the same thing to the US Intelligence Agencies as he did to our military, just cut them to the bone. My friend came out of retirement at the personal request of Mr. Ridge to help rebuild what little was left of the US Intelligence.

Now, the democrats will cry oil and US Intelligence Agencies letdowns and anything else they can think of.

Yes, oil will run out someday but that is not what this is all about and you can take that to the bank. Like jh45gun said, with Bush pushing for Hydrogen technology for use in vehicles and heating it isnt really about oil. That is just the big election year lie. If oil WAS a reason we would not have given Kuwait back its oil fields and we would be running the Iraqi oil wells to and we are not.

NYH1 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2004, 05:58:03 PM »

Quote from: Gunsmoke

Don't really understand why New York hunter thinks our soldiers are dying for oil. I thought it was an effort to stop further terrorist attacks on American's on our on soil. Seems to me if it is for oil, we had it sewed up in 1991, why would we have given it back to them, plus restoring the oilfields of Kuwait, we could have kept both if that's what we were after.

We went to Iraq in 1990/91 because they invaded Kuwait and took control of their oil fields. We didn't want Iraq to have control of them. We didn't go their because Iraq invaded Kuwait and killed innocent people. The oil in fields in Kuwait were in our"National Interest's". How many other countries have been invaded or are fighting sivvial war's and we don't get involved.

And if "Big Daddy W" would of taken care of business in 1991 we wouldn't be their now. And you can say the same thing about "challie Willie" he had his chances too. Many be we should go back to Vietnam while were at it. Both "Texas George W " ( born in New hampshire) and "challie Willie" served in Vietnam, no I'am sorry that was my father. I'll have to ask my dad if he inhaled. I know he never did "cocaine" so that takes him out of "W's" league.

As far as Mexico and Venezuela. Like I said if our government had "guts" they'd tell Mexico to stick it in their *ss. We give Mexico more ad then we give any other country and they have the audacity to charge us more for oil. You can put Venezuela in the same boat as Mexico.

Our men and women are dying for oil so yes the government should ensure low price oil. You can think what you want, but we went to Iraq the first time for oil You can make it a Republican't or a Dumacrap thing if you want. But its still for oil.

Major · « **Reply #24 on:** March 10, 2004, 07:05:06 PM »

New York Hunter,

If you would look at history you will find that WWII was fought for oil, but not by us. Germany was after the oil in Africa and around the Mediterranean. Japan was after the oil in South East Asia. We (the US) went to war to protect our people and way of life. We not only didnt keep the oil fields we liberated but we helped rebuild most of the world. We fought in Vam, not for oil like you were told but against Communism. We fought in Korea against Communism too and both times those wars were lost because of the democratic Congress and White House would not let the Army and Navy fight to win. Politicians need to keep out of wars and let the military fight.

If we were to start a war for oil as you seem to think then why go half way around the world for it. The largest amount of oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico. It would be so easy to take either one or even both of those countries over for less cost than it takes just to get our troops all the way to Iraq, let alone fight. We could then take the rest of South America too for all their oil. But you see it is not about oil. It is really about protecting our citizens and our homelands from invasion and terrorists, just like WWII was. And I for one am glad I have a President that is willing to take the fight to the enemy soil instead of waiting for them to keep coming back to ours.

If you want to believe its about oil I guess thats your right. When I was in the military I told many people that I was willing to lay down my life for their right to be wrong. But I can not sit by and watch the reason for all that spilled blood be twisted around. They all died for our freedom, our ability to be having this discussion, among other things. If it were about oil we (the U.S. of A.) would be occupying most of what we call the free world that we have won and liberated as part of the spoils of war.

But in every single case we have always given back the land and its riches to the people that live there. We then help them rebuild their country and economies. We have become one of, if not the biggest, debtor nation because we do not exploit others. Not for their oil or timber or gold or any other mineral or commodity they may have. If you still believe the lies that it is for oil I kind of feel sorry for you. Read history and think about what has really happened, not what some politician or the news media tells you. Think for yourself by looking at the whole picture. You cant really know where you are going if you dont know where you have been. Those politicians only want power, they could care less about protecting you as a person, its only about getting your vote.

One other thing, you ask how many other countries have been invaded or are fighting civil wars and we don't get involved? We have gone to the aid of every country that has asked for our help and then we get out. The Philippians come to mind right off. It would be in our best national interests to still have a base there but we left when asked. We risk war with China over Tai-wan because they (Tai-wan) ask for our help, not because they have anything we need. Those are just two of many. Are you starting to see the big (true) picture? We really do believe in freedom for all and so many have paid for that freedom, but NOT for oil.

Gunsmoke · « **Reply #25 on:** March 10, 2004, 07:22:43 PM »

Well said Mr.Major. I couldn't agree with you more.

BamBams · « **Reply #26 on:** March 10, 2004, 09:12:01 PM »

I have a question. If we REALLY gave these countries "back," then why do we still have military bases in most, if not all, of them? From one perspective, yes, we gave them back, but from another, how much do we really continue to control/influence THEIR foreign policy down the road? Something to think about huh? If there were Philipine or British bases scattered all around the United States, some of you guys would be the first to say that we are an "occupied" country. You'd probably start grinding your teeth at the sight of Korean war planes launching daily from some air base 5 miles down the road from your farm, OR to make things more palatable for yourself, you could buy into the necessary propaganda endlessly reminding you how our "friends" are here to ensure the safety of the world?

Now, before you jump all over me, let me state that I DO believe it was a good idea to invade both Afganistan and Iraq. I support Bush 100% in those two wars, but I still believe that oil is a huge factor in this equation. And saying this, doesn't in any way, diminish the huge sacrifices we have made as a country to ensure our freedom, power, and way of life here. If I could have gone to either of these wars, I'd have been one of the first to volunteer, BUT when Iran gets invaded next for having WMD will you then believe me? When Saudi Arabia gets handcuffed by us for harboring terrorists, will you then believe me? When we finally assume total control, behind the scenes of course, of ALL middle east oil will you THEN believe me? I am not yet convinced that we have really given anyone "everything" back.

The imminent oil shortage is going to totally wreak havoc on this earth, for nearly everything around you is produced or acquired from petroleum....even the computer you are using right now wouldn't be here if it were not for plastics. There is now way that we can switch everything over to other resources BEFORE we run out of oil, so start preparing yourselves and your families now.....this is REAL, and if one wants to be okay 20 years from now, that person should wake up and start thinking of how he is going to survive. When we think about "oil" we instantly think about transportation, but there are gazillions of products and services that are 100% reliant upon petroleum. When a barrel of oil becomes so high priced that you can only fill up your tank once a month - if you're lucky, you will see that cost reflected in EVERYTHING else as well.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2004, 06:01:45 AM »

Major,

I also agree most heartily with what you've said with one small correction. It may have been a Demoncrap who got us into Korea, but, to be honest, it was a Republican, I'm sad to say, who "negotiated us out of there - Dwight Eisenhower.

The debacle over Korea, I am convinced, was the precursor to, and set the stage for, the disaster of Viet Nam. The same polititically-run-from-Washington "limited war" and no-win policies were involved both times. Were it not for these incredibly stupid political decisions we would have won in both those conflicts. We would not be having the trouble that we are experiencing today with North Korea - because there would be no North Korea. And Viet Nam would have been unified alright, but not under the North Viet Namese Communists.

As for what NYH said about Bush Sr. "not taking care of business," that's about the only thing he said that I agree with. He, apparently, was so afraid of losing his "coalition" that he broke off from a war that we were winning. Sound familiar? As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

NYH1 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2004, 07:49:28 AM »

Quote from: Major

New York Hunter,

If you would look at history you will find that WWII was fought for oil, but not by us. Germany was after the oil in Africa and around the Mediterranean. Japan was after the oil in South East Asia. We (the US) went to war to protect our people and way of life. We not only didnt keep the oil fields we liberated but we helped rebuild most of the world. We fought in Vam, not for oil like you were told but against Communism.

First off I never said we went to Vietnam for oil, I don't know where you got that from. I said "IF" "Big Daddy Bush" would have finished the job in 1990/91 like Gen. Scharzkopf wanted to, we wouldn't be their right now. So I meant as long as were taking care of unfinished business now maybe we should go back to Vietnam, I was being sarcastic. We went to Vietnam to help our good friends the French, you remember then don't you. Their the same people we invaded Normandy for. And every chance they get they get in our way.

I also never named a specific adminastrain. Most of you assumed I was talking about "W's" adminastraintion. I guess where theirs smoke theirs fire. I was referring to our government as a whole over the last 30-40 years. Every time we help a country it usually comes back to bite us. We helped Iraq against Iran, aghanistan against Russia.

All the BS you accuse the Dumocraps of doing the Republican't are doing the same things. It go's both ways, if you think it doesn't you are really nieve. Just about all of them are scum.

You want to talk about corruption. Why did "W" give MCI Worldcom the contracts to rebilled the communications in Iraq with out "putting it up for bid"? Remember MCI Worldcom is going through bankruptcy. Their top "executives are a accused of doing almost the same things Enron's executives did. Then their uncle chaney's old company. You know the one that has overcharged the U.S. more then 40 million dollars for fuel in Iraq. Again no bids just give it to our good friends so we get the campaign contributions. Their all corrupted Dumocrap's and Republican'ts alike. [/b] :toast:

NYH1 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2004, 08:06:37 AM »

Quote from: BamBams

Now, before you jump all over me, let me state that I DO believe it was a good idea to invade both Afganistan and Iraq. I support Bush 100% in those two wars, but I still believe that oil is a huge factor in this equation. And saying this, doesn't in any way, diminish the huge sacrifices we have made as a country to ensure our freedom, power, and way of life here.

BamBam, I agree with you 100% on everything you said, especially what I quoted above. Thank you sir and good job!!!