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

[Cristiano Bianchi <cristianobianchi@yahoo.com>]

Thanks John. I've heard this interpretation before,
but I still cannot make sense of it. It is somohow
natural (although not ethical fair) that most
political actions are driven by economical factors. If
we think how much money does it take for a US
President to get elected, I think it's kind of natural
that founder will want something back. The market
drives politics (I'm simplifying a lot, please forgive
me).

Until I did some reserach, I was convinced that the US
were close to be self-sufficient in their oil
production. Instead, in 2001, they imported 55% of the
oil they consummed. This is of course higher for all
European countries (except France, which is largely
powered by nuclear plants). Despite being allowed to
produce 3.5M barrel/day from UN, Iraq (and its
nationalised oil companies, produce about 2M, with a
sensible effect on oil prices and a policy of favour
towards certain coutries (e.g. India).

By introducing a more "friendly" regime, and allow
privatisation of oil companies, of course US and UK
aim at influencing the market.

But it is also true that part of the agreement after
the 1991 gulf war was for Saddam to disarm, which he
never complied to. I hardly belive that Iraq poses a
treat to western countries, but diplomacy didn't
succeed that much, of was just lazy.

Another trouble is that the green beret has also to
respond to the weapon industry, who paid (some of) his
election bill...

Let's hope it doesn't get too sanguinary.

Cristiano

PS Good summary on
http://in.news.yahoo.com/020923/43/1viab.html


 --- John Hopkins <jhopkins@uiah.fi> wrote: > >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!
> 
> jh
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com