Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Economy and strategical purpose of invasion in Iran

Expand Messages
  • jfnewell7
    I think you are right that oil will contribute to future instability in the world, but that could be limited because it would really be easy for a nation to
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I think you are right that oil will contribute to future instability in the world, but that could be limited because it would really be easy for a nation to switch fairly rapidly to wind and solar energy. It is just that nations won't, at the moment, partly due to the political power of the oil companies which don't want the world to rapidly switch to wind and solar power.

      There is a worse possible danger for the future, however. If the population continues to increase, and population increase is not being reduced very fast at present, then we will reach a point where there is not enough food for everyone. There is very little additional land that can be put into agriculture, so unlike oil, we don't have an alternative to growing food.

      If and when we do reach that point, there will be a series of global famines. People in developed nations should not feel sanguine. The way a famine works is that the price of food increases many times, so that the poor are no longer able to afford food. Even in a developed nation, if and when there are world famines, the price of food might suddenly rise ten times. There are many individuals and families in the United States, European nations, etc. who could not afford to pay ten times the present price for their food.

      So we would have even the major nuclear nations with desperate populations clamoring for something to be done, such as threaten to use the nuclear weapons on nations which did not agree to give the nuclear nations some of their food. Probably in the end, one or another of those situations would escalate into a worldwide nuclear war.

      So it is absolutely essential that we quickly bring population growth to approximately zero.

      Jim

      --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "anton" <amalkin@...> wrote:
      >
      > Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see that it has great oil fields aside of main potential military operation areas. This oil will be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But financial perspective is not the only one. It is strategically reasonable to get control over this oil fields prior to shortage of oil. After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources will be in hands of only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which one is going to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?
      >
      > Anton
      >
    • James Bell
      If the US invade Iran all of Iran s countries oil will still be all of Iran s oil. Look to its neighbor Iraq for example. We cannot have a Nuke enabled Iran
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 30, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        If the US invade Iran all of Iran's countries oil will still be all of Iran's oil. Look to its neighbor Iraq for example. We cannot have a Nuke enabled Iran without having tremendous further consternation. If history is our guide we are looking at a biblical type continuation of the Crusades. I hope I am wrong.


        From: anton <amalkin@...>
        To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:08:19 PM
        Subject: [WorldCitizen] Economy and strategical purpose of invasion in Iran

         

        Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see that it has great oil fields aside of main potential military operation areas. This oil will be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But financial perspective is not the only one. It is strategically reasonable to get control over this oil fields prior to shortage of oil. After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources will be in hands of only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which one is going to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?

        Anton


      • anton
        Writing about the oil instability, I meant the perspective of approx. 5-10 years. By the way, it was a part of large text, which I decided to divide. And the
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Writing about the oil instability, I meant the perspective of approx. 5-10 years. By the way, it was a part of large text, which I decided to divide. And the most of parts are lost. Censorship?

          --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
          >
          > I think you are right that oil will contribute to future instability in the world, but that could be limited because it would really be easy for a nation to switch fairly rapidly to wind and solar energy. It is just that nations won't, at the moment, partly due to the political power of the oil companies which don't want the world to rapidly switch to wind and solar power.
          >
          > There is a worse possible danger for the future, however. If the population continues to increase, and population increase is not being reduced very fast at present, then we will reach a point where there is not enough food for everyone. There is very little additional land that can be put into agriculture, so unlike oil, we don't have an alternative to growing food.
          >
          > If and when we do reach that point, there will be a series of global famines. People in developed nations should not feel sanguine. The way a famine works is that the price of food increases many times, so that the poor are no longer able to afford food. Even in a developed nation, if and when there are world famines, the price of food might suddenly rise ten times. There are many individuals and families in the United States, European nations, etc. who could not afford to pay ten times the present price for their food.
          >
          > So we would have even the major nuclear nations with desperate populations clamoring for something to be done, such as threaten to use the nuclear weapons on nations which did not agree to give the nuclear nations some of their food. Probably in the end, one or another of those situations would escalate into a worldwide nuclear war.
          >
          > So it is absolutely essential that we quickly bring population growth to approximately zero.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "anton" <amalkin@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see that it has great oil fields aside of main potential military operation areas. This oil will be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But financial perspective is not the only one. It is strategically reasonable to get control over this oil fields prior to shortage of oil. After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources will be in hands of only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which one is going to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?
          > >
          > > Anton
          > >
          >
        • anton
          Dear James, the oil of Iran is oil of Iran government. After the invasion, it will quickly land in hands of American oil companies. Like in Iraq: it is meant
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear James,

            the oil of Iran is oil of Iran government. After the invasion, it will quickly land in hands of American oil companies. Like in Iraq: it is meant to be all of Iraq oil, but it is pumped by American oil corporations, sold for spot price for America and main taxes are paid in America. So, only virtual property rights remain for Iraq.

            Sincerely,
            anton

            --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, James Bell <jibell67@...> wrote:
            >
            > If the US invade Iran all of Iran's countries oil will still be all of Iran's
            > oil. Look to its neighbor Iraq for example. We cannot have a Nuke enabled Iran
            > without having tremendous further consternation. If history is our guide we are
            > looking at a biblical type continuation of the Crusades. I hope I am wrong.
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: anton <amalkin@...>
            > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:08:19 PM
            > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Economy and strategical purpose of invasion in Iran
            >
            >
            > Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see that it has
            > great oil fields aside of main potential military operation areas. This oil will
            > be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But financial perspective is not
            > the only one. It is strategically reasonable to get control over this oil fields
            > prior to shortage of oil. After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources
            > will be in hands of only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which
            > one is going to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?
            >
            > Anton
            >
          • Gary Shepherd
            Hi Actually, I think it is going to be very difficult to for the economy to switch away from oil and other fossil fuels to sustainable ones like wind and
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              Hi

              Actually, I think it is going to be very difficult to for the economy to switch away from oil and other fossil fuels to sustainable ones like wind and solar, for a variety of technical and sociological reasons. That is exactly why we need to start making major efforts right away. As far as food and famine go, I think the choke point will not so much be the amount of arable land (although that is limited) as it will be the amount of usable fresh water. Our civilization is heavily dependent upon water for irrigation, power generation, and various industrial processes, as well as for drinking. Both the Colorado River in the U.S. and the Yellow River in China have so much water taken out of them that by the time they reach the sea, in some years, only a muddy trickle remains.

               

              Because the nation-state system encourages a mind-set of ‘every nation for itself and devil take the hindmost’ it cannot be relied upon to solve these kind of world-wide problems. For that, we need a global commonwealth.

               

              World Peace and Unity,
              Gary

               

               

              Gary K. Shepherd

              Editor, United World Magazine

              http://uwcdwg.tripod.com/

               

              From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jfnewell7
              Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:47 AM
              To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Economy and strategical purpose of invasion in Iran

               

               

              I think you are right that oil will contribute to future instability in the world, but that could be limited because it would really be easy for a nation to switch fairly rapidly to wind and solar energy. It is just that nations won't, at the moment, partly due to the political power of the oil companies which don't want the world to rapidly switch to wind and solar power.

              There is a worse possible danger for the future, however. If the population continues to increase, and population increase is not being reduced very fast at present, then we will reach a point where there is not enough food for everyone. There is very little additional land that can be put into agriculture, so unlike oil, we don't have an alternative to growing food.

              If and when we do reach that point, there will be a series of global famines. People in developed nations should not feel sanguine. The way a famine works is that the price of food increases many times, so that the poor are no longer able to afford food. Even in a developed nation, if and when there are world famines, the price of food might suddenly rise ten times. There are many individuals and families in the United States, European nations, etc. who could not afford to pay ten times the present price for their food.

              So we would have even the major nuclear nations with desperate populations clamoring for something to be done, such as threaten to use the nuclear weapons on nations which did not agree to give the nuclear nations some of their food. Probably in the end, one or another of those situations would escalate into a worldwide nuclear war.

              So it is absolutely essential that we quickly bring population growth to approximately zero.

              Jim

              --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "anton" <amalkin@...> wrote:

              >
              > Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see that
              it has great oil fields aside of main potential military operation areas. This oil will be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But financial perspective is not the only one. It is strategically reasonable to get control over this oil fields prior to shortage of oil. After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources will be in hands of only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which one is going to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?
              >
              > Anton
              >

            • jfnewell7
              Yes, I understood. I was only jumping to what should be. Another partial cause is the desire of corporations which make weapons to have wars so that their
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 5, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Yes, I understood. I was only jumping to what should be.

                Another partial cause is the desire of corporations which make weapons to have wars so that their sales will increase. They of course lobby in Washington and to the extent that they can, spread ideas promoting war. Then there are some corporations which are benefiting strongly from military contracts to provide personnel and services to the troops. In Iraq, there were also juicy contracts for the rebuilding work. Those were given to American and some European corporations, even though Iraqi businesses submitted much lower bids.

                Jim

                --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "anton" <amalkin@...> wrote:
                >
                > Writing about the oil instability, I meant the perspective of approx. 5-10 years. By the way, it was a part of large text, which I decided to divide. And the most of parts are lost. Censorship?
                >
                > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I think you are right that oil will contribute to future instability in the world, but that could be limited because it would really be easy for a nation to switch fairly rapidly to wind and solar energy. It is just that nations won't, at the moment, partly due to the political power of the oil companies which don't want the world to rapidly switch to wind and solar power.
                > >
                > > There is a worse possible danger for the future, however. If the population continues to increase, and population increase is not being reduced very fast at present, then we will reach a point where there is not enough food for everyone. There is very little additional land that can be put into agriculture, so unlike oil, we don't have an alternative to growing food.
                > >
                > > If and when we do reach that point, there will be a series of global famines. People in developed nations should not feel sanguine. The way a famine works is that the price of food increases many times, so that the poor are no longer able to afford food. Even in a developed nation, if and when there are world famines, the price of food might suddenly rise ten times. There are many individuals and families in the United States, European nations, etc. who could not afford to pay ten times the present price for their food.
                > >
                > > So we would have even the major nuclear nations with desperate populations clamoring for something to be done, such as threaten to use the nuclear weapons on nations which did not agree to give the nuclear nations some of their food. Probably in the end, one or another of those situations would escalate into a worldwide nuclear war.
                > >
                > > So it is absolutely essential that we quickly bring population growth to approximately zero.
                > >
                > > Jim
                > >
                > > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "anton" <amalkin@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see that it has great oil fields aside of main potential military operation areas. This oil will be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But financial perspective is not the only one. It is strategically reasonable to get control over this oil fields prior to shortage of oil. After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources will be in hands of only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which one is going to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?
                > > >
                > > > Anton
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • jfnewell7
                I agree with most of what you say. However, the idea that it would be too hard to rapidly switch is, I think, a false argument which is promoted in the media
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 5, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree with most of what you say.

                  However, the idea that it would be too hard to rapidly switch is, I think, a false argument which is promoted in the media in many ways by the oil, gas, and coal producing corporations.

                  Note that we could burn some fossil fuel. We only need to get fossil fuel burning down to a level such that the amount of carbon dioxide produced would be less than what the natural sinks can absorb. The last time I looked at this, a few years ago, the natural sinks could absorb about half of the carbon dioxide we were putting into the atmosphere then. So several years ago, we would only have needed to cut our fossil fuel burning to about 50% of what it was then. Therefore, the oil, gas, and coal companies could still have made some profits from oil, gas, and coal, while adding new divisions to produce and earn profits from energy from renewable sources. It would only be a small sacrifice for the oil, gas, and coal companies, and they would probably end up in the long run earning more profits from renewable energy than they are earning now from fossil fuel.

                  Jim



                  --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi
                  >
                  > Actually, I think it is going to be very difficult to for the economy to
                  > switch away from oil and other fossil fuels to sustainable ones like
                  > wind and solar, for a variety of technical and sociological reasons.
                  > That is exactly why we need to start making major efforts right away. As
                  > far as food and famine go, I think the choke point will not so much be
                  > the amount of arable land (although that is limited) as it will be the
                  > amount of usable fresh water. Our civilization is heavily dependent upon
                  > water for irrigation, power generation, and various industrial
                  > processes, as well as for drinking. Both the Colorado River in the U.S.
                  > and the Yellow River in China have so much water taken out of them that
                  > by the time they reach the sea, in some years, only a muddy trickle
                  > remains.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Because the nation-state system encourages a mind-set of 'every nation
                  > for itself and devil take the hindmost' it cannot be relied upon to
                  > solve these kind of world-wide problems. For that, we need a global
                  > commonwealth.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > World Peace and Unity,
                  > Gary
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Gary K. Shepherd
                  >
                  > Editor, United World Magazine
                  >
                  > http://uwcdwg.tripod.com/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com]
                  > On Behalf Of jfnewell7
                  > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:47 AM
                  > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Economy and strategical purpose of invasion
                  > in Iran
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I think you are right that oil will contribute to future instability in
                  > the world, but that could be limited because it would really be easy for
                  > a nation to switch fairly rapidly to wind and solar energy. It is just
                  > that nations won't, at the moment, partly due to the political power of
                  > the oil companies which don't want the world to rapidly switch to wind
                  > and solar power.
                  >
                  > There is a worse possible danger for the future, however. If the
                  > population continues to increase, and population increase is not being
                  > reduced very fast at present, then we will reach a point where there is
                  > not enough food for everyone. There is very little additional land that
                  > can be put into agriculture, so unlike oil, we don't have an alternative
                  > to growing food.
                  >
                  > If and when we do reach that point, there will be a series of global
                  > famines. People in developed nations should not feel sanguine. The way a
                  > famine works is that the price of food increases many times, so that the
                  > poor are no longer able to afford food. Even in a developed nation, if
                  > and when there are world famines, the price of food might suddenly rise
                  > ten times. There are many individuals and families in the United States,
                  > European nations, etc. who could not afford to pay ten times the present
                  > price for their food.
                  >
                  > So we would have even the major nuclear nations with desperate
                  > populations clamoring for something to be done, such as threaten to use
                  > the nuclear weapons on nations which did not agree to give the nuclear
                  > nations some of their food. Probably in the end, one or another of those
                  > situations would escalate into a worldwide nuclear war.
                  >
                  > So it is absolutely essential that we quickly bring population growth to
                  > approximately zero.
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                  > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , "anton" <amalkin@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Looking at the economical perspectives of war in Iran, we should see
                  > that it has great oil fields aside of main potential military operation
                  > areas. This oil will be, contrary to Iraq, used on from the day one. But
                  > financial perspective is not the only one. It is strategically
                  > reasonable to get control over this oil fields prior to shortage of oil.
                  > After the invasion in Iran, the main oil resources will be in hands of
                  > only 3 states: US, Arab region and Russia. And guess, which one is going
                  > to dominate. Or - what about the next cold war?
                  > >
                  > > Anton
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.