daily ad

Friday, November 20, 2015

playing in the sandbox


PLAYING IN THE SANDBOX

NOTE: a guest article will appear tomorrow.  Be there.
*
One would do well to never ascribe too much intelligence to any foreign policy of the US, but rather a pure profit motive.  Whereas the policies of a normal and rational country would reflect geopolitical advantages and strategic considerations, the US sticks pretty much to riches above all else.  Smart rich politicians ride the coattails of strategy but the least intelligent force strategy to ride behind their pot of gold.  And I don’t see too many smart rich guys around this neck of the woods ( Bill Gates might have been talented in coding but I fail to see him as a good businessman ).  What other superpower sends in the Marines to prop up the share prices of a banana seller?  What other country continually pokes a nuclear armed enemy ( who was so armed by us to create a profitable decades long cold war ) for no other reason than to sell new military hardware made obsolete only by the next quarterly share price of a military industrial complex profiteer?  What other country kills hundreds of thousands of its own citizens for banker profit?  Americans have always been overly focused on wealth and money and exploitation and foreign policy reflects that.  So, could we say that it is possible that all the middle east turmoil and chaos had its origins in US meddling for profits?  That while we are there for oil it is only because oil is profitable and so money trumps securing a necessary vital strategic resource?  If this is a correct assessment, I believe it helps explain a lot of baffling behavior on our part over there.

*

Such as why we are barely garrisoning Iraq, which has oil, and focusing on Afghanistan, which does not.  Why we destabilize other countries which produce oil, taking their share off the market.  Why we are focused on Syria and letting the Saudi’s take care of things themselves rather than fortify their interests militarily.  Why the Arab Spring happened.  We intervened in Iraq not so much because we wanted their oil but because they were going to abandon the PetroDollar standard.  Then fighting took a lot of oil fields out of production ( helping US production, especially Gulf deep well expensive production, remain more profitable.  We wanted it both ways, free oil overseas from the PetroDollar and high profit oil at home ).  We have been in Afghanistan even longer, but everyone should know you don’t invade that country to secure a grand strategic spot on the chessboard of Eurasia.  You invade to fight a senseless war you cannot win.  The only reason the US would continue with an Afghan war would be to continually feed military supplies into a force there.  Too hot of a war would definitely not feed the needs of the military industry.  We don’t do mass production any more but overly expensive tech, and not in too much of a hurry. 

*

The ethanol program was not about energy independence because corn is about the worst way to make fuel on a national scale ( on site, single application use it is marvelous, but it never scales up ).  It was about profiting mega-corporations and only incidentally about overthrowing regimes.  I’m sure the Tortilla Crisis in Mexico came as a surprise to most ( when you only see profit, you can’t believe poor people need cheap food to survive ), but once demonstrated it was another reason to continue feeding corn into the ethanol maw.  Food being too dear to most of the middle eastern population just meant more profits to the Big Ag corporations ( as does global drought, so why stop Gore Warming now? ).  And the military response is more profit to the military industry.  The whole mess we have created over there was just about home grown profits for the banks and big corporations, and with normal disregard for long term consequences. 

END

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page.  IF YOU DON’T SEE THE AD, DISABLE AD BLOCK ( go to the Ad Blocker while on my page and scroll down the menu to “disable this site” ). You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year. Or, buy the monthly magazine.  Pay your author-no one works for free.  I’m nice enough to publish for mere Book Money, so do your part.

*  My monthly newsletter: search at Amazon under Kindle “Malthusian Survivalist Newsletter”.  * 
*Contact Information*  Links To Others*  Land In Elko*  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is www.bisonprepper.com
*My books: http://bisonprepper.blogspot.com/2015/04/my-book-links.html
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there

 

11 comments:

  1. It is now as it's always been, all about money/power. In our case, there is almost always a good measure of stupidity added in the mix. I never make any new friends when I say this but I still believe it's true, the US really started down the drain when we gave women the vote. We have steadily been moving to a more pussified society ever since. Women always want safety and to be taken care of and will vote for whoever is promising that. I'll take greed over "feelings" any day at least I can understand it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you have a point, but I'd add that giving too many people the vote, regardless of gender, rewards stupidity. We should have kept the vote to property owners. Of course, now the vote doesn't matter so it is all moot. Hmmm. I wonder if that is an article idea.

      Delete
    2. "We should have kept the vote to property owners. "

      I don't even think that would have worked anymore James, even if you were to exclude our mock voting system?

      My former boss was a hardline socialist that supported every left wing cause under the sun, yet owned scores of valuable real estate; literally a "landlord" if you will.

      The indoctrination simply runs too deep. See "modern educayshun" below. An obvious spoof, but sadly not too far off from reality...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

      Delete
  2. Correct me if I am wrong but I think we wanted Afghanistan because of its proximity to Iran, to keep the poppies growing (Taliban was stopping production and cutting into the CIA' S drug running profits) and because we wanted a pipeline through there (one of Karzai's first acts was to sign a pipeline agreement).

    Syria is also about a pipeline agreement. Russia doesn't want the pipeline because it would cut into their gas monopoly in Europe.

    Idaho Homesteader

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll admit I forgot about the poppy aspect. But I wonder if it is all a bit overblown in importance ( with apologies to Rupport ). As for the pipelines, I fail to see our incentive given nat gas being for all intents un-exportable. A factor? Possibly. But again, overblown.

      Delete
    2. Russia exports about half of all of the energy used in W. Europe as Nat Gas. Pipelines are a cheap way to move NG, compared to LNG on tankers, as long as the route of your pipeline is secure. You don't want to live near an LNG facility, like you don't want to live too near any highly concentrated source of BTU's. I wonder what an LNG tanker burning looks like?

      Delete
    3. Yes, pipelines are important to Europe. But to the US?

      Delete
    4. Not import to the US peasants but remember our energy companies are international. The US military is at the beck and call of international corporations.

      Idaho Homesteader

      Delete
  3. when my great grandfather and great great grandfather were in india with the british east india company the czarist russians and the brits were fighting over afghanistan then.
    apparently they were just trying to get at each other since i can see no earthly reason why anyone wolud want the god forsaken place.
    it seems the conflict has been ongoing ever since, off and on, just with different participants.
    there must be some reason? or is that imputing too much intelligence o the players?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Back then, controlling Afghanistan would have threatened India and India was the source of nitrates for Britain, the gunpowder to control the empire. To Russia, it meant indirect lifting of the Brits involvement in Europe. Perhaps access to the sea, a big deal for Russia ( as evident with Crimea and Syria and such ). Today? If you can control Afghanistan you are then right next to the water supply for India, Pakistan and China, but that seems a "next fifty years strategy". And the US can't think five years ahead, let alone 50.

      Delete

I must moderate-trust me. You don't want to see what happens otherwise. Sometimes it takes awhile to respond as I only check two or three times a day. No N-Bombs, nothing to get me libeled. Otherwise, have at it. If you criticize me, make sure to praise my hair first.