View Full Version : The coming Pax Americana
http://www.economist.com/images/20040731/3104SA1.jpgThis is written by Efraim Halevy, head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, from 1998 to 2002.
It confirms some things i've been thinking such as us military intervention in saudi arabia, the draft, and long term US presence in the area.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/568076.html
Nodbugger
02-05-2005, 11:17 PM
You guys still haven't realized this.
You guys post these bullshit articles and you believe them. Then they sink out of the news never to be heard from and they are never confirmed. Yet you still believe them. Everything I post is 100% true and confirmed.
Everything you post is bullshit from some Anti-American jumping onto something that may make the US look bad.
Pagey
02-05-2005, 11:31 PM
...
http://forums.zgeek.com/gallery/data/media/1/Noddy_2.jpg
Up_All_Night
03-05-2005, 12:41 AM
im sorry noddy, please explain to me why you are claiming that article is bullshit?
s3raph
03-05-2005, 12:50 AM
You guys still haven't realized this.
You guys post these bullshit articles and you believe them. Then they sink out of the news never to be heard from and they are never confirmed. Yet you still believe them. Everything I post is 100% true and confirmed.
Everything you post is bullshit from some Anti-American jumping onto something that may make the US look bad.
Noddy, while I agree with you in some respects here, the dude who wrote this is the ex-head of Mossad. If anyone in the world is going to be biased in favour of the US, its going to be this guy.
Asmodeus
03-05-2005, 01:06 AM
um noddy... have you looked around here lately?
oh wait, from your posts i would take you as a rather hardcore agenda pushing christian anyways. nevermind then, carry on. you probably don't see a thing at that point.
What a small world you must live in.
beowulf437
03-05-2005, 01:13 AM
The article, though sprinkled with historical facts, is in essence an opinion piece. It is what this guy thinks may happen, and moreover, what he wants to happen. Face it, many Isreali want the US to have a greater region wide presence in the middle east and the would be more than happy if the major arab nations were torn by internal strife.
Thyraeus
03-05-2005, 01:14 AM
*EDIT* post deleted by self....decided not to inflame the Noddy situation.
s3raph
03-05-2005, 01:15 AM
The article, though sprinkled with historical facts, is in essence an opinion piece. It is what this guy thinks may happen, and moreover, what he wants to happen. Face it, many Isreali want the US to have a greater region wide presence in the middle east and the would be more than happy if the major arab nations were torn by internal strife.
Fair point, but theres still no way this dude was writing this piece as part of a bias against the US, I mean the head of Mossad ffs.
Directed
03-05-2005, 01:39 AM
The article seems reasonable to me. Why is this anti-american? It just states the USA recognizes its national security depends on the flow of oil and the status of the Middle-East. As such its going to be a major presence there. Where is the controversy again?
The Cunt
03-05-2005, 01:40 AM
Everything I post is 100% true and confirmed.
Except for the bits that were misleading and unconfirmed.
But we (Bush) didn't know better, that's what he was told, so therefore it was reported as truth and we believed it as such and it means we/he wasn't lying.
Or words to that effect.
Up_All_Night
03-05-2005, 01:43 AM
directed, ill let you in on a secret, noddy doesnt actually read posts, links, articles, opinion pieces, etc, before he dismisses them as being crap.
s3raph
03-05-2005, 02:02 AM
Yeah, this one isn't even anti-american, its just the poster is. As directed said, all this guy is saying in 20 pages or so, is that the oil must flow. America can;t afford to have any weird regimes popping up and interrupting oil production, extremists need to be brought under control, and everyone needs to be happy in the area so that oil can be shipped to the US, and American soccer mums can continue driving SUV's.
God you'd think it'd be easier to just get some alternative fuel sources going already, I mean it'd be cheaper than perpetrating a trillion dollar war.
Asmodeus
03-05-2005, 02:07 AM
God you'd think it'd be easier to just get some alternative fuel sources going already, I mean it'd be cheaper than perpetrating a trillion dollar war.
Thats becuase only hippy dippy fruitbags want to use 'alternative' fuel supplies. thats faggot shit man. then we can all sit around and have a group hug and some light group buttfucking while we sit around singing kumbyya and talk about budda.
and if someone sees past that and gives you one of the scarce grants available for this sort of thing, i'm sure the texaco/mobil/amaco/dp/opec guys will be paying you a visit very soon if they don't just buy your work outright, take all prototypes and such and bury them out in teh desert somewhere hile they bury you in red tape and gag orders and other litigation so what you create never sees the light of day.
s3raph
03-05-2005, 02:10 AM
Yes, well as I said, I still think it'd be easier and cheaper for him to build more nuclear power stations, and start encouraging people to buy small electric cars. China is on the right track, they're encouraging alternative fuel right from the get go, I mean with a middle class thats growing at the rate of theirs, they can't afford not to.
...while they happily keep the oil price up to rake in the $$$ before it runs out and they suddenly diversify into water control. Now would be a good time to find out who these people are and what they look like so you can deal with them when the water wars start.
Asmodeus
03-05-2005, 02:19 AM
Yes, well as I said, I still think it'd be easier and cheaper for him to build more nuclear power stations, and start encouraging people to buy small electric cars. China is on the right track, they're encouraging alternative fuel right from the get go, I mean with a middle class thats growing at the rate of theirs, they can't afford not to.
ya, i hear ya.. BUT...
nuclear power stations. theres a whole 'not in my back yard' attitude about that. given corporate america's habit of cost cutting around the corners and doing as much as they can to save a buck while screwing th e public, I can understand that view.
All that waste has to go somewhere for storage, unless we can develop more technology to process this waste into either a non dangerous form or as yet another form of energy.
its easy to do this from teh start, its nearly impossible when you've built a very complex and interrelated world (more or less) based on oil. too much money to change over.
going ove rto technologies that make for vastly more efficiant fuel use with mostly the same amount of (felt) power AND affordable is the only way to help it seems.
thats the big factor.. "AND affordable"
i'm sorry, but i need to drive to work, i can't spend another $5000 to save on a bit of environmental strain. that a few house payments right there.
s3raph
03-05-2005, 02:28 AM
Well thats my point, the government taxes the oil companies more heavily in order to subsidise research, and the cost of environmentally friendly alternatives.
And in regards to the "not in my backyard thing" I advise you all read this: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61088,00.html
Nuclear power has gotten very advanced since most of the worlds power stations were built, in regards to cutting down on waste produced, maximising efficiency, storing waste, and preventing meltdowns. Plus considering that coal power stations produce just as many toxins as a nuclear power station, I think nuclear power deserves a very serious look, especially when coal power vents its radioactive toxins into the atmosphere, whereas nuclear waste is stored in bunkers under armed guard for the next million years.
Asmodeus
03-05-2005, 02:40 AM
Well thats my point, the government taxes the oil companies more heavily in order to subsidise research, and the cost of environmentally friendly alternatives.
You're alking about big oil here, which translates to 'unlimited funds'. You could tax them until the national debt was paid off within a year and have a surplus for the next. Thats not much to them and besides, guess who really foots the bill.
the consumer.
That means less money to go to college
That means less money to spend on environmentally friendly products
That means less grant moneys in general
it just goes round and round in one big pile of garbage.
It was easy to pick on the tobacco industry from a litigation POV, theres no fear of retaliation.
s3raph
03-05-2005, 02:45 AM
Well that really depends on how you write the laws. If you by some miracle managed to pass a law that fixed the price of fuel, and then taxed the fuel companies an amount determined by their net sales, and the price of crude per barrel I could see the price of crude oil dropping like a stone, no increase in petrol prices, and plenty of money to encourage alternative fuel sources.
Aardvark
03-05-2005, 03:33 AM
America will fall apart in a few years time, anyway. Just think, a few more years of this crap and the only music/movies coming from america will rely heavily on the sound of gunfire and get played on the 6:00 news
Asmodeus
03-05-2005, 03:46 AM
Well that really depends on how you write the laws. If you by some miracle managed to pass a law that fixed the price of fuel, and then taxed the fuel companies an amount determined by their net sales, and the price of crude per barrel I could see the price of crude oil dropping like a stone, no increase in petrol prices, and plenty of money to encourage alternative fuel sources.
actually, i like robin williams method of this of all things.
since we are their biggest buyer. We will dictate teh prices.
Hi opec, we're only going ot pay this amount or we go and get our oil from elsewhere and go into alternate fuels. effective now.
opec might be ballsy but if you see the prospect of losing half your income and the armies guarding your assets, might be a big negotiating block.
Asmodeus
03-05-2005, 03:47 AM
America will fall apart in a few years time, anyway. Just think, a few more years of this crap and the only music/movies coming from america will rely heavily on the sound of gunfire and get played on the 6:00 news
a romantic notion but theres too much money and people here for that to happen.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.