It is at this point that the importance of Russia having a nuclear deterrent becomes clear, because it actually does act - in extremis - as an effective veto against mad US military resource - grabbing options.
The US is no longer in the global driving seat, and will essentially, have to do what their creditors tell them. They haven't yet woken up to this unpleasant reality, but as the current credit meltdown worsens through the winter, they will.....
I believe that the solution lies in a cartel of oil consuming (China, US, EU, Japan etc) nations sitting down with a cartel (OPEC plus Russia, Norway) of oil producing nations to agree a new partnership-based oil allocation / market process.
The Wade Formula was an interesting, and generally disregarded, approach to oil allocation by the Senegalese president.
But I would start with gas/LNG, since that is newer, more discrete (ie Norway, Russia and Qatar could call the shots), without a settled market structure, and involves a much more homogeneous energy product.
I disagree with Jerome's view that oil and credit intermediaries can ever be part of the solution: their toxic partnership in the last fifty years has been the direct cause of the problem.
This pre-supposes that the Chinese, Russians etc would have nothing whatever to say on the subject of oil allocation.
Not at all- consider the scenario in which the US presents itself as the voice of sweet reason in the face of a world oil crisis. Even if we generated it. Granted, "voice of reason" is a bad joke today- but in the next administration? I see no evidence that any likely future administration has any intention to adopt a different strategic policy vis. energy. And there is that old saw about the law and possession. I suggest it is equally likely that the scramble would be to curry favor. And all the real diplomats didn't die over there- they're just hiding. Another, better approach for them might be to do this structure by proxy.
We just did one of those "mad military resource ops". Would the above situation qualify as a nuclear extreme? Against what targets,employing what strategy would the Russian nuke be useful to roll back such a development?
Perhaps logically you are right, but I've said all along that the burning question is what will be the response of the Empire to the knowledge that they are screwed? History does not offer a lot of hope for rational behavior under those circumstances. This administration is not known for it's ability to perceive reality.
I believe that the solution lies in a cartel of oil consuming (China, US, EU, Japan etc) nations sitting down with a cartel (OPEC plus Russia, Norway) of oil producing nations to agree a new partnership-based oil allocation / market process. The Wade Formula was an interesting, and generally disregarded, approach to oil allocation by the Senegalese president. But I would start with gas/LNG, since that is newer, more discrete (ie Norway, Russia and Qatar could call the shots), without a settled market structure, and involves a much more homogeneous energy product.
Sounds good to me. Now the problem is to get the empire to sweetly capitulate on a project that has been going on since 1941, and has deep ideological and emotional roots--not to mention trillions of dollars invested. Because to participate in such a structure without dominating it is anathema to all that. And without US participation it would be stillborn. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
If, as I suspect, partnership mechanisms are emerging because "they work" (and it's in the commercial sector they are emerging), then those governments and corporations who do not use the model will be at a disadvantage to those who do. The system will eat itself essentially.
They don't yet know they are screwed, and they will be looking around for a market solution that makes sense, and from which they do not lose. That's what I am proposing: win/win.
Intermediaries, domination, competition and all that shit are so last century....
Those countries and companies with oil assets will reap the profits. Wars will increasingly break out to gain access to those diminishing resources. The Iraq war was the first of these, aimed at securing access to Iraqi oil for favoured U.S. corporations.
In this it has been largely successful. The Iraqis will be paying for their own occupation for many years to come. So will the American taxpayer and car owner of course, but hey, it's a free country, and it is they who elected Cheney/Bush. Vote McCain for war without gain
From my point of view, it's a lot better story than that. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
Not at all- consider the scenario in which the US presents itself as the voice of sweet reason in the face of a world oil crisis.
Given the Bush years, this seems unlikely, except perhaps as an ironic comedy skit.
I'm torn between suspecting there's some as-yet unrecognised genius-level global masterplan, and accepting that these people are utterly incapable of imagining a strategy more sophisticated than swaggering around like macho losers and blowing shit up for the sake of it.
you are the media you consume.
the real structure of government consists of the 95% career civil servants who really comprise the "works", and who make day to day policy- and have a powerful say in the real strategy.
However, Bushco has systematically destroyed and dismantled that model, installing its sycophants in bureaus and agencies, for several layers down, well into the mundane workings. Read any of the pieces written about how the intellectual lightweights of Liberty University were installed by Rove/Bush/Gonzales and have pretty well ruined the credibility of the justice department.
The next president, assuming a Democrat is allowed to win, will have a LOT of housecleaning to do, from the bottom up.
-How deep is the infection? I think the patient still has levels of resistance. Hansen, at NASA is a good example. The focus was on politically useful slots- the rest seem to have been muzzled, but not "liquidated". If that were not the case, it would be a terminal disease. It may still be:
-Do the democratic doctors truly want to do the surgery needed?
I worry more about that-- I don't see it. Hillary will keep the bases in Iraq, --and the stolen oil. If she does, she must keep the empire, and empire and a democratic republic are mutually exclusive. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
As to your other question, je ne sais pas.
I fear that the bases in Iraq will stay, just as a function of inertia. Once the massive machinery lumbers into activity, it's very hard to turn it aside or, especially, to undo what's been done. That will/would require massive amounts of change, and barring externally-imposed disaster, I'm not sure the comfortable American body politic is up to confronting that.
I do not think the strategy is to respond with nuclear weapons: They will do that if and only if they are attacked.
Given that they have starting arming Iran for real with some decent (conventional) missiles, I suspect their scenerio for an open US attack on Iran is to savage the US Air Force--now a possibility--and send the US Fleet to the bottom--now a likelihood. In this scenerio US control of the Middle East collapses--though who then lobs what at whom is an open question.
Obviously they will not provoke this scenerio, but they do seem to be preparing for it, as the US is likely to provoke it.
Chris' scenerio would be rational, but that is the whole problem with it: In six years of misgovernance, the Bush administration and the backers behind it have exuded a total stink of panic over losing global hegemony. They do not seek wealth; they seek domination, and this precludes all co-operative solutions.
Narcissistic control freaks and macho losers--the Brit Guy's image gets it about right.
the Russians and the Chinese have a strategy. The problem is: What is it? I do not think the strategy is to respond with nuclear weapons: They will do that if and only if they are attacked.
I think the Chinese have a very full domestic plate right now- they may have a strategy, but I'd bet they will diddle away the opportunity to employ it effectively. Russia- a different kettle of fish. A smart diplomatic approach might be to share power there. They may see their best interests as grabbing major authority in the structure. Empires often share power- one of the safer ways to deal with them is to be nasty enough to motivate some healthy fear,-- and then deal. Pure speculation, true.
Nukes have no utility in this process, as I said in my reply to Chris cook. No rational targeting options.
The allocation mechanism will happen, because it is essential--it's only a question of the right opportunity- the right "shock therapy" moment. From a totally Machiavellian point of view, the coming Iran event could be the perfect moment. Look what they did with 9/11. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
The economic shock therapy is happening as we speak.
I liked Jerome's car crash analogy, what's happened so far is the driver hitting the screen and dashboard as he slams the brakes on without a belt: the crash itself is about to happen...
A US Suez moment.
Co-operation will then be the only way out: domination is no longer an option.
The current power structure that drives the empire is composed of fabulously wealthy, isolated and privileged men, with political views that Mussolini would feel comfortable with. In Cheney's case, the work of his lifetimes is crumbling before this eyes, he is dying and he will not get another chance. The motivation to engage in draconian action as well as reality modification is powerful-and so are they. You and Jerome (and many others) think that the bill has finally come due, and the ship of state is broke. I think you're both wrong- I think they are not out of options yet, and the level of barbarity that could emerge as the great beast scrapes the bottom of the barrel, and flails it's last could be really nasty. The death throes could take a long time, and drag the world down with it.
Apocalyptic? Yes. Admitted. I think Bush is a weak man and a "believer", and that Cheney and the Neocons would rather die than admit. Bad combo.
If any (or all) of us had written a piece that, based on careful analysis and historic precedent, had predicted the actions of the empire over the last 7 years, we'd have been committed for treatment. Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.
To me, the "Epiphany" was the realisation that a 19 year old - by inventing music file sharing - had single-handedly destroyed the business model of the global music industry.
The same - through instant money/value messaging and decentralised linked "clearing" of obligations - will apply to global payments within five years at the outside.
This process is outside anyone's control. Those currently at the top of the heap are just going to have to make do with a smaller piece of a bigger pie.
As John Gilmore almost said - he spoke of censorship:
"The Internet interprets Banks as damage and routes around them."
There is a "Telluric" change taking place beneath our feet, and IMHO the "Napsterisation" of Society will change the world for the better - and just in time.
fratboyocracy... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
