And even if our masters told us explicitly why they wage wars now [and in the past] it still wldn’t be factual knowledge; it wld be still inferential knowledge.

Damn it, it is not pleasant starting to talk ab causative factors and rationalizations for warfare from a guess.
It cld be compared to a doctor treating a patient from his/her intuition, guess, etc.

My guess is that the world plutos, most of which one finds in christian lands, want to obtain the planet and everything that is in it or on it; it may not include some of ist people.
Regarding oil and how warfare [again going from a guess] have affected price of gas, we arrive at the fact that prices jumped once US/allies invaded iraq.
And now we can spin an endless guseses whether the invasion was a main or partial cause for price rise.
And here i alight from the topics.

As an aside, i don’t like to read posts that attack people and what they say. It does not matter how wrong a or all statements are to a reader.It wld be better to fill the space with own facts, conclusions, wishes, etc.
Let the free speech flow! Just apply own censure!
That’s what i do. And please let us stop being meritocratic. That, too, to me, is an iniquity as we will ?always have ‘smart’ and not ‘smart’ people. So if a nature and environment has hurt an individual, we do not need to add to his/her misery!

So peak oil is a Capitalist’s ploy? Or is it a Zionist ploy? Or a Chomsky ploy? (You know Chomsky thinks breathing air is good for you…now everyone hold your breath….here comes another Chomsky ploy.)

dan e then goes on to say that there is no government interest except private firms. Perhaps dan e there is no government at all!!! But you are kinda saying that there are just government flunkies, not the real power. Reagan was just a figment of his B-movies.

Ok, let’s just see what you’re saying. Things are run by private interests, but big oil (according to Petras, et al) did not want to go into Iraq, but the US/GWB did anyway and soooooooo, it is not private firms but here we gooooooo…Zionists who got the US military into Iraq.

But your last post, dan e NEVER mentions Zionism. It says it’s all controlled by private firms. Now maybe your rejoinder is that all private firms are Zionists owned and run(?)!!!

Here’s the deal dan e, while you and your buds are chomping at the bit to have at it with some Big Private firms – oil is being sucked out by the millions every day. Sometimes you have to concede that the human invention is not the only game in town. Wake up and smell the roses…they’re not there because of capitalism or private firms or Zionists.

For for sheer fantacy, dan e, you weave one helluva incomprehensible narrative.

These are government head-to-head strategies to secure energy sources the world over.

Deadbeat you are fixated on Zionism. YOU are the bait and switcher who denies what has become more and more accepted as a strong and perilous trend toward global peak oil. Here you simply marginalize it so you can have your rant about Zionism.

Other than the obvious Zionist-apologists that visit DV, no one else here seems to make any case for Zionism. You are the one arguing with yourself; it is not enough that most here agree on the evils that have created the human destruction brought on by Zionism/Israel. But it is not ALL about Zionism. Zionists don’t make us consume. Such accusations begin to make your arguments more about a boogey man than facing our real problems, which are deep, complex, broad, cultural, and predatorial. Calling the American Imperial Empire (and what it needs to do in the world to sustain its thirst for energy) the tool of Zionists is a major red herring.

However when I read an article that promotes “Peak Oil” and “Climate Change” and IGNORES Zionism it begs the question whether “Peak Oil” is a bait and switch to get the public from being aware of Zionism as a major force in the rise of the consumption of oil since WARS have to be fought and militarism inflated in order for this RACIST ideology to achieve its goals.

Yeah Hue. I’ll be more careful as apparently Chomsky has a huge fan base.

Don’t you mean “climate change”. The issue surrounding “climate change” is whether it cause is due our Capitalist mode of production or whether it is due to the Earth’s natural cycle. The context that I’m raising the issue is whether climate change and “Peak Oil” are being used as a foil to obsure Middle East policy especially since the author used the same Chomskyite rhetroic to argue Middle East policy.

Apparently lichen you are incapable of distinguishing a nuanced argument so you rather distort it and use that distortion to make nonsensical ad hominem attacks.

Thanks kalidas. At least other here understands nuance.

Then people like Deadbeat won’t have to worry about this complex world and its fuzzy truths.
It’s simply a matter of keep their mouths shut. (or else)

Perhaps lichen the basis of your dubious perspectives is based on your own lack of insight. If you want to absorb and not question the facts as being presented by this author that is your own problem. The fact of the matter is that U.S. policy in the Middle East is not solely based on oil and “energy” demands. The Chomskyite Left has used “oil” as a foil to obscure Zionism. Your riducule and distorting of the argument being presented here will not be able to cover up that fact.

What it does do however is TAINT your promotion of climate change / Peak Oil because the Chomskyite Left has been dishonest in its rants against the oil companies.

Your statement above contradicts what you just (and I responded to earlier). You suggest a “bait and switch”. You think that Zionism is the “real” reason for our recent invasion(s) and that Peak oil and so-called war for oil (your phrase not the author’s) are just used to subvert the real cause – Zionism and Capitalism. If you are not saying that than you are mis-using the English language.

If this was your first mention, one could almost be suckered by your feigning a distortion of what you’re “saying” or trying to say.

But you are on record, more times than one can count, in terms of your denigration notion of peak oil. How you view anyone one who uses oil in the same article with US wars is predictable. You see any such explanation a “cover-up” or a “leftist” blind eye, all contrived by Noam Chomsky and foisted on the mindless left who read Chomsky in a genuflected position, repeating his chants.

It is you, Deadbeat who is arguing with yourself. You distort all to conform to a view that the writer of the above article clearly did not intend. She makes no reference to Chomsky. You do. She makes no reference to Capitalism because Capitalism does not have a monoply on energy. Besides, who are the capitalists now? Is China socialistic, Marxists? How about Russia, or India? They all have Communist/Socialist parties; hell France does as well.

The world may just be a little too fuzzy for you Deadbeat for a clear understanding of what is happening.

The arguments that have been made about climate change or warming are varied – such as Is it not occurring at all? or Is it really do to human activity vs ecological cycles?

But climate change and peak oil have some common denominators.

Peak oil, as I’ve said, is a complex consideration. It is both observable and non-linear. It happens in bursts. There is a powerful expotential effect created by consumption. Wars can effect reserves such that more oil stays in the ground (as is the case in Iraq), keeping reserves stable, but worthless. Once the oil is available for extraction it moves quickly and steadily toward peak.

Climate change similarly is governed by a non-linear trajection. If humans do impact it, through the unleashing of fossil into the atmosphere (remember fossil is buried for millions of years), than there is a nexus between energy peak/climate change. If our consumption of fossil drives peak, it likewise drives atmospheric changes.

Fossil is finite. It is non-renewable. Energy companies DON’T make it; they extract and refine it for use. That’s a fact beyond refute.

Max you are looking to argue with yourself. I haven’ t changed my tune. I still have doubts and question about “Peak Oil” but that is not my critique it about. What I am saying once again because YOU are determine to distort the point, is that the author’s promotion of “War for Oil” as the premier purpose of U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East cast DOUBTS to her entire and subsequent arguments.

Because she uses the same Chomskyite miscasting of the Middle East policy it bug the question of motive and opens the door to ask question about her entire agenda regarding “Big Oil”. Is her rank against “Big Oil” a ruse to obscure in the Chomskyite mode Zionism or does her arguments have merit.

Now that you’re here interjecting your “green” B.S. I’m inclined to think not. I think that the “Peak Oil” issue is a RUSE. I have heard other opinions that refute the “Peak Oil” arguments. Regardless I have no hard evidence to back up my suspicion other than my experience dealing with the “War for Oil” canard and other dishonesties of Chomskyite Left.

But to reiterate my argument is that the author desire to obscure Zionism’s influence and role in shaping U.S. policy cast serious doubt and taints her entire article.

This is NEWS!!

As far as War for Oil (and you did refer to it as Big Oil – not the author), while you may feel that more should be said about a Zionist role in the invasion of Iraq and the occupation of US bases in the Middle East, there is little doubt that the US is preoccupied with the Middle East because of the energy (oil) that is extracted from that region, not just in Iraq, but throughout the region. The US cannot exist without it; and it is in a head-to-head, fight to the death struggle with its competition (China, to a lessor degree India, and Russia, and even the EU and Japan). This fact makes Zionism look like a grain of sand on the Sahara Desert.

It is clear that if there is an AX to grind it is with Mr. Shields who has pretty much lacks credible arguments with his “green” rhetoric.