Promoting National Addiction To, & Enforcing Use of the Dollar to Buy, an Obsolete Foreign Resource: Sound Geostrategic Policy, or Protestant Folly?
First, I was astounded to hear Nixon proclaim, in one of his post-presidency books, that the government of the USA, should get the USA hooked on, or addicted to, middle eastern oil, so as to ensure that the USA does not become apathetic and isolationist with regards to the middle east.
Secondly, I was surprised to hear about the suppression, in the USA, of new technologies (neo-teks) able to provide domestically produced energy for things oil is used for, at a much lower financial and environmental cost than oil.
Thirdly, given the existence of these new alternatives to oil, it has been mind-boggling for me to hear, USA "leaders" talk about how control of foreign oil is vital to the USA national security, and how the war in Iraq was all about securing USA access to the vital resource, oil.
Even if the new alternatives to oil cost as much or a little more than oil, the promotion of US addiction to foreign oil so as to avoid US apathy and isolationism, the promotion of crusades to secure US access to foreign oil, would not seem to me, to be obviously good policy moves. Given the new info that these new suppressed alternatives to oil are cheaper than oil, the promotion of US addiction to oil and Crusades to secure US access to foreign oil, makes little sense to me.
Crusades to secure access to an obsolete resource, promoting addiction to an obsolete foreign resource so as to avoid isolationism and apathy in the US, what's the sense in it?
The USA might be able to suppress new alternatives to oil at home; that does not mean it will be able to suppress such new alternatives to oil in every place on earth.
Imagine Russian and Chinese cars and aeroplanes running on water, whilst the USA cars and aeroplanes run on oil. Is that what is called a "geo-strategic" victory? Imagine the USA enforcing dollars as the medium used to buy oil, when the world's cars boats and planes run on water. Again, "geo-strategic" victory?
Promoting USA addiction to an obsolete foreign energy resource, does not seem to me to be sound geostrategic policy. Rather, it seems to be a way of promoting the selfish financial interests of a small clique of unethical persons.
As usual what is missing in the arguments is a sense of cost-benefit, which is replaced with a laundry list of the positive outcomes of a given policy. There might be some advantages, advantages X Y and Z, to getting the USA hooked on an obsolete foreign resource; but that is not the point. The point is, looking at the cost of getting the USA hooked on an obsolete foreign resource compared to the benefit of such, and then looking at the cost of developing the new technologies that replace the foreign resource, compared to the benefits of such, how does one policy compare to another?
This has nothing to do with any maliciousness with regards to the foreign oil producing nations. If I was king, I would do what was in my power to promote health wealth and happiness in such nations. As a matter of fact, the obsession with oil could end up doing more harm to such nations than the develpment of alternatives to oil. For example, if oil were to be replaced with water, these nations would have a cheap energy resource to take advantage of, and so would nations that they trade with.
We hear alot about the "geo-strategic" cleverness of forcing the world to prop up the value of the dollar, by forcing the world to use dollars when it buys oil. What about all the examples of nations that have succeeded economically, even though their currency was not required in order to buy oil? One would think the only path to national prosperity, is a nation's currency being the medium of exchange used to buy oil.
It is hard for me to see the sanity in pursuing prosperity, by forcing nations to use the dollar to buy an obsolete resource, when the alternative could be, the USA and other nations using new less expensive, more efficient resources. As opposed to a laundry list of the advantages of a given policy such as enforcing the use of the dollar when an obsolete foreign resource is purchased, the real issue, is the advantages/disadvantages of such forced use of a currency, compared to the advantages/disadvantages of alternatives such as using new technologies.
On the one hand, you have the crusade to force nations to use the dollar to buy oil, a crusade that seems doomed to fail. We hear talk about forcing Iran, to abandon its plan to create an exchange where oil is bought and sold using currencies other than the dollar. Then we hear about Russia planning to create an exchange where currencies other than the dollar are used to buy and sell oil. What are we going to do, attack Russia to force Russia to abandon its planned new non-dollar oil exchange? What if China decides to set up an exchange where oil is bought and sold using some currency other than the dollar? What are they planning on doing, attacking every nation that decides to use some currency other than the dollar to buy oil? Where is the proof that the cost/benefit of such attempts to force nations to use the dollar to buy oil, outweigh the cost/benefit of alternatives such as developing the new technologies? All the billions of dollars that are put into wars, could be put into something else instead.
Seems as if various special interest groups, have over the years gotten all invested in and geared up to acquire control of oil, to force the use of the dollar for oil transactions, and now that new technologies (which these special interest groups foolishly failed to anticipate) have been devised which can replace oil, these special interest groups are pretending that this obsession with oil serves the national and the international interest, when in fact it serves only the narrow selfish interests of certain immoral/amoral/unethical special interest groups.
By way of contrast to the situation in the Protestant United States, look at Catholic Brazil, which is on its way to energy independence, based on the use of fuel derived from domestically produced sugar cane.
Seems all over the world, nations that are not protestant, are forging ahead, bringing justice to their peoples, managing their economies wisely, while protestant nations like the UK and the USA sink themselves. Seems protestantism, in combination with a few other factors ends up up destroying the nation that it infects.
But what do you expect? Protestants manage to twist their religious scriptures (scriptures intentionally obfuscated in a climate of persecution) into doctrines such as, what a man does or says has no effect on the man's fate in the afterlife; where a person goes after death, is predestined for all, regardless of what individuals may say or do. By way of contrast, even the adherents of many non-Christian belief systems, do not believe in universal predestination, and do believe a man's fate in the afterlife, and a man's spiritual condition in this life, is effected by his words and by his actions. I remember as a child, looking at a museum exhibit in Chicago, which showed all the tortures Chinese religion expected to be visited upon Chinese sinners in the afterlife.
But what do you expect from nations that adhere to such irresponsibility-promoting doctrines? Have these Satanism-infected Protestant nations forgotten all about conscience? They glibly, smugly, think of themselves as wisely selfish. I have news for them: there is nothing wise or selfish, about ending up being fried alive, like a fish in a fish fry, forever, which is the fate, it now seems to me, that awaits so many of them. Nor is there anything wise or selfish about ending up being tortured for a few hundred or a few thousand years in purgatory.
Those who believe in the possibility of temporary punishments in the afterlife, tend to be careful about their conduct. But irresponsible Protestants, carefree and footloose, deny that there is anything in scripture that points to a purgatory. In answer to them, I say, does the fact something is not mentioned in scripture, mean it does not exist? The Bible itself, declares in at least three different places, that most of God's thoughts words and actions are not recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, note the following scriptures:
"Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" -- Mt 18:32-34.
"Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" -- 1 Co 3:12-15.
My feeling now is, that amongst that minority of Americans lucky enough to escape eternal damnation, alot of them in the afterlife will nevertheless spend alot of time being tortured. If these Americans were truly as wisely selfish as they arrogantly pretend to be, they would start putting their nose to the grindstone, start putting some real time energy and money into good deeds. Yet all we hear, is faith without works, faith without works.
Americans should come to realize what is meant by faith without works. What is meant, is that no man is able to to perfectly keep the Old Testament laws (works), yet despite this, through faith, men are able to find salvation. The faith without works stuff does not mean that men can forget about conscience, forget about doing good deeds, and expect to waltz into heaven.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
Secondly, I was surprised to hear about the suppression, in the USA, of new technologies (neo-teks) able to provide domestically produced energy for things oil is used for, at a much lower financial and environmental cost than oil.
Thirdly, given the existence of these new alternatives to oil, it has been mind-boggling for me to hear, USA "leaders" talk about how control of foreign oil is vital to the USA national security, and how the war in Iraq was all about securing USA access to the vital resource, oil.
Even if the new alternatives to oil cost as much or a little more than oil, the promotion of US addiction to foreign oil so as to avoid US apathy and isolationism, the promotion of crusades to secure US access to foreign oil, would not seem to me, to be obviously good policy moves. Given the new info that these new suppressed alternatives to oil are cheaper than oil, the promotion of US addiction to oil and Crusades to secure US access to foreign oil, makes little sense to me.
Crusades to secure access to an obsolete resource, promoting addiction to an obsolete foreign resource so as to avoid isolationism and apathy in the US, what's the sense in it?
The USA might be able to suppress new alternatives to oil at home; that does not mean it will be able to suppress such new alternatives to oil in every place on earth.
Imagine Russian and Chinese cars and aeroplanes running on water, whilst the USA cars and aeroplanes run on oil. Is that what is called a "geo-strategic" victory? Imagine the USA enforcing dollars as the medium used to buy oil, when the world's cars boats and planes run on water. Again, "geo-strategic" victory?
Promoting USA addiction to an obsolete foreign energy resource, does not seem to me to be sound geostrategic policy. Rather, it seems to be a way of promoting the selfish financial interests of a small clique of unethical persons.
As usual what is missing in the arguments is a sense of cost-benefit, which is replaced with a laundry list of the positive outcomes of a given policy. There might be some advantages, advantages X Y and Z, to getting the USA hooked on an obsolete foreign resource; but that is not the point. The point is, looking at the cost of getting the USA hooked on an obsolete foreign resource compared to the benefit of such, and then looking at the cost of developing the new technologies that replace the foreign resource, compared to the benefits of such, how does one policy compare to another?
This has nothing to do with any maliciousness with regards to the foreign oil producing nations. If I was king, I would do what was in my power to promote health wealth and happiness in such nations. As a matter of fact, the obsession with oil could end up doing more harm to such nations than the develpment of alternatives to oil. For example, if oil were to be replaced with water, these nations would have a cheap energy resource to take advantage of, and so would nations that they trade with.
We hear alot about the "geo-strategic" cleverness of forcing the world to prop up the value of the dollar, by forcing the world to use dollars when it buys oil. What about all the examples of nations that have succeeded economically, even though their currency was not required in order to buy oil? One would think the only path to national prosperity, is a nation's currency being the medium of exchange used to buy oil.
It is hard for me to see the sanity in pursuing prosperity, by forcing nations to use the dollar to buy an obsolete resource, when the alternative could be, the USA and other nations using new less expensive, more efficient resources. As opposed to a laundry list of the advantages of a given policy such as enforcing the use of the dollar when an obsolete foreign resource is purchased, the real issue, is the advantages/disadvantages of such forced use of a currency, compared to the advantages/disadvantages of alternatives such as using new technologies.
On the one hand, you have the crusade to force nations to use the dollar to buy oil, a crusade that seems doomed to fail. We hear talk about forcing Iran, to abandon its plan to create an exchange where oil is bought and sold using currencies other than the dollar. Then we hear about Russia planning to create an exchange where currencies other than the dollar are used to buy and sell oil. What are we going to do, attack Russia to force Russia to abandon its planned new non-dollar oil exchange? What if China decides to set up an exchange where oil is bought and sold using some currency other than the dollar? What are they planning on doing, attacking every nation that decides to use some currency other than the dollar to buy oil? Where is the proof that the cost/benefit of such attempts to force nations to use the dollar to buy oil, outweigh the cost/benefit of alternatives such as developing the new technologies? All the billions of dollars that are put into wars, could be put into something else instead.
Seems as if various special interest groups, have over the years gotten all invested in and geared up to acquire control of oil, to force the use of the dollar for oil transactions, and now that new technologies (which these special interest groups foolishly failed to anticipate) have been devised which can replace oil, these special interest groups are pretending that this obsession with oil serves the national and the international interest, when in fact it serves only the narrow selfish interests of certain immoral/amoral/unethical special interest groups.
By way of contrast to the situation in the Protestant United States, look at Catholic Brazil, which is on its way to energy independence, based on the use of fuel derived from domestically produced sugar cane.
Seems all over the world, nations that are not protestant, are forging ahead, bringing justice to their peoples, managing their economies wisely, while protestant nations like the UK and the USA sink themselves. Seems protestantism, in combination with a few other factors ends up up destroying the nation that it infects.
But what do you expect? Protestants manage to twist their religious scriptures (scriptures intentionally obfuscated in a climate of persecution) into doctrines such as, what a man does or says has no effect on the man's fate in the afterlife; where a person goes after death, is predestined for all, regardless of what individuals may say or do. By way of contrast, even the adherents of many non-Christian belief systems, do not believe in universal predestination, and do believe a man's fate in the afterlife, and a man's spiritual condition in this life, is effected by his words and by his actions. I remember as a child, looking at a museum exhibit in Chicago, which showed all the tortures Chinese religion expected to be visited upon Chinese sinners in the afterlife.
But what do you expect from nations that adhere to such irresponsibility-promoting doctrines? Have these Satanism-infected Protestant nations forgotten all about conscience? They glibly, smugly, think of themselves as wisely selfish. I have news for them: there is nothing wise or selfish, about ending up being fried alive, like a fish in a fish fry, forever, which is the fate, it now seems to me, that awaits so many of them. Nor is there anything wise or selfish about ending up being tortured for a few hundred or a few thousand years in purgatory.
Those who believe in the possibility of temporary punishments in the afterlife, tend to be careful about their conduct. But irresponsible Protestants, carefree and footloose, deny that there is anything in scripture that points to a purgatory. In answer to them, I say, does the fact something is not mentioned in scripture, mean it does not exist? The Bible itself, declares in at least three different places, that most of God's thoughts words and actions are not recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, note the following scriptures:
"Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" -- Mt 18:32-34.
"Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" -- 1 Co 3:12-15.
My feeling now is, that amongst that minority of Americans lucky enough to escape eternal damnation, alot of them in the afterlife will nevertheless spend alot of time being tortured. If these Americans were truly as wisely selfish as they arrogantly pretend to be, they would start putting their nose to the grindstone, start putting some real time energy and money into good deeds. Yet all we hear, is faith without works, faith without works.
Americans should come to realize what is meant by faith without works. What is meant, is that no man is able to to perfectly keep the Old Testament laws (works), yet despite this, through faith, men are able to find salvation. The faith without works stuff does not mean that men can forget about conscience, forget about doing good deeds, and expect to waltz into heaven.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 6:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home