Re: [-empyre-] unstable ground and opera houses

I'm concerned about this war as well and not at all in
favour, but I've seen very little effort to try to
understand or explain why would the happy couple
Bush/Blair want to fight it. Call me naive, but I
cannot imagine people in that position (and I'm
referring to Blair in particular) would want to
initiate such a disaster for no reason. But Blair is
right on one thing: when in the 30s only a few stood
up against fascism, they went against public opinion.
It was more comfortable to just "do nothing" and wait,
it took courage to react. Saddam is by no mean someone
who deserve the kind of strenuous defense that the
western world has indicated. The Iraqi people do, but
Saddam is keeping the nation in a prehistorical state.

Somewhat simplistic comments follow, but there is much more to say in this direction -- to clarify the principles of engagement currently exhibited... And avoid being swamped in media noise which only serves to confuse the issues!

Thinking about "defense" is part of the problem. Having worked for some years in "Big Oil," it is clear that this is merely one battle in a long-term offensive Oil War. I would suggest a re-read of the classic history of the major oil companies "Seven Sisters." Control of the Gulf area is a key factor in the rise of the post-WWII Military Industrial complex most characterized by the US hegemonic power...

In order to better understand the principles of what is going on -- one can look at/decode/model the situation from a thermo-dynamics point-of-view. A highly structured system (the nexus of global capitalism, the US Military-Industrial-Technology machine, and other developed countries) needs an influx of energy to maintain the degree of order required to 'survive.' Without a constant influx of energy, an ordered system immediately begins to tend to disorder. In the case of the US Military, given the intense level of 'order' needed to project its coordinated heirarchic power, it needs a massive influx of energy. While Oil is not the only energy source, it is the primary source, so, the system is merely seeking to guarantee its own survival by securing its energy source. (Parallel situations: English naval power related to existence of first growth timbers for construction; English Imperial power and control of human energy sources (tea, sugar, coffee, cocoa); Spanish imperial power and gold (a flexible resource convertible into vast quantities of energy)...)

By the turn of the 19th Century, armies no longer 'ran on their stomachs' because of technological advancements that required energy inputs into the system -- coal & iron among other resources -- so that the military machine was forced to extend the range and consumptive power beyond merely killing humans and reaping the traditional spoils of war that satisfied the immediate bodily functions of the foot-soldier -- rape and plunder... Instead, militaristic hegemony had to guarantee stable resources

An obverse condition that arises, which has interesting ramifications -- when energy is drained from one point to 'fill' another point, the overall level of 'organization' drops as there isn't the energy to maintain order -- witness the results in a place like Afghanistan, where decades of draining has rendered a society where order is low, tending to immediate local physical controls. Compare that to a highly structured and controlled society in the US where the controls can be projected over large spaces and distances.

It takes energy.

"They" know it!

While it is 'entertaiing' to read about the personal exploits of these idiot greedheads in power, it is critical to understand the principles that drive not only their thinking, but their lives, their deaths, and their souls!


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.