To Greedy Americans…

If you add a “Time/Space Continuum” (apologies to Captain Picard) to your argument you may see our complaints as other than those of “Greedy Americans”.

My brother lives on a lake in Northern California. He commutes 99.0 mi (159.291 km) twice a day… That would be like living in Amsterdam and working in Germany. (Amsterdam, Netherlands to Essen, Germany – 136.0 mi / 218 km.)

I don’t envision the average European worker facing these kinds of commutes but, as my mental image is based more on ignorance than first hand knowledge, you thoughts of the affects of REQUIRED travel would be appreciated.

In this discussion of permanent US bases in Iraq, do the Iraqis have any say in this matter?

Of course not.

“NPR investigated Pace’s statements and found one scenario being considered within the Pentagon would maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq for several decades into the future.

This so-called ‘lily pad’ strategy entails keeping a “series of military installations around Iraq,” with tens of thousands of U.S. troops remaining in the country for as long as a few decades…”

It makes sense to be smaller scale, have a base in Kurdistan and a base, too, in Afghanistan, and if need be in Kuwait (the Saudis are now run by someone more anti-west than in the past). We can then pounce on trouble as well as help contain Iran.

The “lily pad” strategy isn’t limited to Iraq, but exists elsewhere in the world. The idea is to have smaller bases near trouble spots. And the Middle East is a trouble spot, and security of our oil supplies is a vital national interest. Even Carter was ready to go to war if needed to protect it.

…

US forces are repositioning overseas forces, opting for smaller, transitory bases in places like Kyrgyzstan.

“It looks permanent, but it could be unbolted and unwelded if we felt like it,”

Pentagon Making Preparations To Keep Tens Of Thousands Of Troops In Iraq For ‘Decades’

[W]hat it essentially envisions is a series of military installations around Iraq, maybe five or six of them, a total of maybe 30-40 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq for a long period of time, lasting, maybe a few decades. And the idea is that these bases will be somewhat hermetically sealed, that U.S. military forces won’t be leaving them, they won’t be conducting presence patrols and the patrols they conduct now. Ground convoys won’t be driving into them.

Airplanes will be essentially landing in to deliver supplies and these sort of lily pads will be in various strategic areas in Iraq … And that will enable the U.S. military to maintain a presence in the country, perhaps…for a few decades.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/iraq-decades/

> So let me get this straight,
> occupying Iraq and forcing
> the adoption of legislation
> that will give the Iraqi oil
> fields to US/UK aligned
> multinational corporations
> is not considered conquest?

Occupation is not conquest. We will not be there forever. The legislation is not conquest (you might be able to argue it smells colonialist; I favor the real-world assessment that it is merely exploitive), and do you believe this legislation is guaranteed to be passed, and moreover, that if it were passed, things would never change? With different interests wanting that oil, Iran next door, and so on?

> Maybe you’d like to buy
> a “pre-owned” vehicle from
> the “public relations” secretary
> at the Department of “Defense,”
> it has low gas mileage so it
> will help prevent global “climate
> change.” If not, maybe he can
> sell it to an “undocumented
> worker.”

Has Rumsfeld been demoted, rather than fired as I believe?

Maybe you’d like to buy a “pre-owned” vehicle from the “public relations” secretary at the Department of “Defense,” it has low gas mileage so it will help prevent global “climate change.” If not, maybe he can sell it to an “undocumented worker.”

“Canada’s 2001 per capita energy consumption, 402.6 million Btu per person, was the highest in North America, above the U.S. level of 341.8 million Btu per person …”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canenv.html

Consumption of oil per capita

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_cons_per_cap.htm#Consumption%20of%20Oil%20Per%20Capita

“The United States is by far the largest consumer of energy in the G-7. Between 1980 and 2001, U.S. energy consumption grew from 79 quads to 97 quads. Among the rest of the G-7, only Japan’s energy consumption was higher than 20 quads in 2001.”

“The presence of large extractive and natural resource-processing industries help to explain why the United States’ and Canada’s energy intensities are significantly higher than they are elsewhere in the G-7. Such industries consume more energy per unit of economic output than do most other types of activities.”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html

We need to hope against hope that India and China don’t develop an enormous desire for automobiles and aviation, which everyone knows and expects they will do eventually (in fact, the process has already begun).

What would happen if all the underdeveloped nations chose to modernize and advance? Think of all those additional automobiles and petroleum turned to contrails.

> Newsflash, we’re occupying
> Iraq, and have our eyes on
> Iran. We also loom large over
> the oil fields in Saudi Arabia
> and Kuwait.

Occupation is not conquest.

During the 1973 embargo, did we truly conquer, did we seize the oil fields? No. Have we done so in the Middle East or elsewhere? No.

> If that’s news to you,
> maybe you’ve at least
> heard about our carrier
> groups in the Persian
> Gulf.

And I and the rest of the world also know as you do all about the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran threatens along with the oil infrastructures of any nation aiding an attack against it.

> We represent (Americans)
> only 4.6% of the world’s
> population yet consume
> 24+% of its oil…something
> isn’t right there. Sorry.

Collective guilt by Americans is not merited. Most other nations aren’t as highly developed as we are, and those that are, are typically smaller and don’t need as much energy for their transportation. Canada is actually a higher energy consumer per capita than we are, given its effective much larger distances in the population belt near the border and between that belt and the North.

Americans do not need and do not want taxes on engine displacement or output, Americans do not need and do not want “fee-bate” schemes of taxes and rebates that charge large-vehicle purchasers and owners while subsidizing and effectively transfer income to purchases and owners of smaller vehicles, or other taxes that are forms of social engineering rather than allocating costs to usage (as would be true for a tax on weight). Correct taxes on automobiles, free of leftist taint, would solely consist of levies on vehicle weight and distance traveled. Fuel taxes, which already exist, are a practical surrogate for this.

We must make a distinction between having to make adjustments ourselves and the insinuation that Europe is a model for the USA. Often it is not. We aren’t as crowded or as small when it comes to transportation, which is why we’ll probably never see the nation completely covered by high-speed rail (something I happen to like). We may see some regional or intra-state high speed rail, but that’s it — no money-losing connection routes between regional systems that would enable us to travel coast to coast on high-speed trains if we wanted (the ideal for those of us who like those fast trains).

It will be Europe and Japan that continue to lead (with Korea and China also in the news) as service speeds are increased (at much higher energy costs) to 360 kph (100 meters per second).

Incidentally, I’ve read at least one anti-car screed (that wants auto travel in cities restricted to walking speed, truly far-left activism of the most radical and lunatic kind) that decries high-speed trains for the higher speeds (and thus for the higher productivity of the system) even more than for the energy cost and environmental destruction.

Remember, in Germany some high-speed lines had their construction delayed by decades due to leftist activism. At various times, Greens and other environmental activists (and NIMBYs, too, I suspect) have hated and opposed the trains.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901020603-237001,00.html

“The energy-devouring high-speed train is symptomatic of France’s relationship to railway technology, which is shaped less by an ecological conscience than by sheer faith in technological progress.” [Vive la France!]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,475641,00.html

If that’s news to you, maybe you’ve at least heard about our carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.

> The price of gas at the
> pump does not reflect
> the extra money we’re
> paying in taxes to finance
> our conquests of oil rich
> territory.

Conquests? That’s news to those of us in the real world.

On the other hand, Chavez is a low-life thief. *stare*

To finance the war in Iraq, meant among other things to protect the security of petroleum supplies, yes, more taxes, provided they were used only for that purpose, would be in order.

> Our current taxes also
> don’t reflect how much
> our government is actually
> spending. Remember, the
> United States is technically
> bankrupt.

No, it is not, though it has vast unfunded liabilities. Social Security and Medicare already are monsters and in the next 10-20+ years are going to eat this country alive, even without the additions to Medicare that everyone anticipates in the future.

“When the statutory SMI general fund revenue requirements are added in, the projected combined Social Security and Medicare general fund revenues needed in 2081 equal 10.1 percent of GDP. A similar burden today would require nearly all Federal income tax revenues, which amounted to 10.8 percent of GDP in 2006.

To put these magnitudes into historical perspective, in 2006 the combined annual cost of HI, SMI, and OASDI amounted to 40 percent of total Federal revenues, or about 7 percent of GDP. That cost (as a percentage of GDP) is projected to double by 2042, and then to increase further to nearly 18 percent of GDP in 2081. It is noteworthy that over the past four decades, the average amount of total Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP has also been 18 percent, and has never exceeded 21 percent in a given year. Assuming the continued need to fund a wide range of other government functions, the projected growth in Social Security and Medicare costs would require that the total Federal revenue share of GDP increase to wholly unprecedented levels.”

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

What’s needed here is much reduced spending, not higher taxes and more social spending programs.

I think for everyone over 50 in the U.S., we’re just waiting to wake up and find out this whole OPEC, energy crisis, unleaded gas, Honda Civic thing is just one loooong bad dream. All we need to do is find the Shah of Iran and get him back in charge! (LOL!)

Said more seriously, the Europeans have had a longer period of time to adjust their lifestyles and mindsets to less abundant natural resources.

Over time, Americans will become more “adjusted” as well……..as soon as I am gone.