doctorfrog on 20/6/2006 at 03:30
Pinging old hat search with google video is an exercise in pointlessness.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967)Compelling, if only because I was laughing,
and I was angry! Ha ha! (Go anglo-america!)
Other feelings include skepticism for the idea that doomsday will occur before 2010 because of the inability to transport stuff due to lack of oil, and that major civilizations before us fell due to lack of energy sources (care to elaborate on that a bit more, Newman?).
But, by and large, an interesting collection of reasons for US aggression in the Middle East. By no means, of course, to be taken without a grain of salt. Not quite as conspiratorial as the Loose Change video, but still kinda out there. All in all, worth watching.
From (
http://www.cardhouse.com) Cardhouse (a blog before there were blogs).
D'Juhn Keep on 20/6/2006 at 12:45
That was excellent and very funny.
I have to say it's not really out there in its main point. Everyone should know that the war was to pursue/maintain the US's geopolitical interests. Anyone who claims otherwise really is naive. Oil is the most important thing in the world at the moment bar none. Why is it such a stretch to believe that's what the war was about?
I don't think he was saying that civilisation would end at 2010, merely that that was when peak oil is anticipated to be reached. I get the impression that for some people the phrase "peak oil" has been overused and misunderstood. After the peak oil is reached, we'll still have huge amounts of oil, but just not as much as before. This is without saying that it's pretty unlikely that there will be an accurate calculation of peak oil as there are always more oil deposits being found.
Yes, the "Roman civilisation ended because of lack of fuels" seems a bit dodgy.
Renegen on 20/6/2006 at 18:50
[SPOILER]The nuclear war in Fallout started just after the last drop of oil was used in the World.[/SPOILER]
If I had to gamble, I'd say the same thing will happen to us too.
Renzatic on 20/6/2006 at 19:56
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Yes, the "Roman civilisation ended because of lack of fuels" seems a bit dodgy.
The senate tried to warn Nero about the economic dangers of Peak Horse, but that fucker just wouldn't listen.
Renegen on 20/6/2006 at 20:40
Caligula would of been more appropriate there Ren ;)
Or an Emperor that lived a bit after 100 AD.
Although he only skimmed over it, it is something very interesting to discuss. But there is that constant obsession about comparing the USA to the Roman Empire. OMG it will fallZ! (but not before all converting to Islam)
Also, sometimes I am a bit amazed at how everyone uses oil for everything. When I first heard it some years ago, it was pure comedic science fiction. It's not about the billion of cars, it's about converting oil to electricity, using it in farms, using it in manufacturing plants, using oil to make 'clean energy'. I just keep imagining buying a tub of oil and pouring it down my oven to make it work, and then pouring some in the computer, in the automatic doors. It's used for everything and no one has a problem with it.
Dalai on 20/6/2006 at 21:51
Entertaining vid. :)
So why did the Roman Empire fall?
Renegen on 20/6/2006 at 22:00
I don't know. Their military was not the power it once was, their alliances with the germans crumbled, Rome didn't have as much influence?
When you think about it, their military at that time was cavalry based. Maybe they did reach the 'horse peak'.
SD on 20/6/2006 at 22:15
Quote Posted by Dalai
So why did the Roman Empire fall?
Because they "found God" :eww:
Ducz on 20/6/2006 at 23:47
The Roman Empire fell mostly because of the inability of the government to stimulate the country's economy and its infrastructure. The decurion (I do not know the English term, sorry) municipal city governing system, without central funding, collapsed because of heavy taxation. Cities, being fundamental to the Roman government system, slowly started to depopulate and its people would drift either to become colones (again I do not know the English term) or disperse among the land. Without citizens Roman emperors were forced to allow Germanic tribes to settle in provinces, thus gaining new allies. This, combined with the problem of constant civil wars (in the III century A.D.), the decline of the citizen based military system and the general lack of money (Alfoldy, a brilliant Hungarian researcher called it the problem of the negative trade balance: Rome imported too many goods, which weakening the Roman currency ) caused the Roman Empire to go bankrupt and fall in the end.
I'm sorry if this sounds mixed up: English is my second language and I do not feel fit to elaborate on such a complex matter. I had to write a paper once regarding the fall of the Empire and I saw the need to show that, as nowadays, the reasons of things happening are far more complicated than one might presume.
And to what Strontium Dog wrote: yes, Christianity influenced in a way the fall of one of the core elements of the political system of the Roman Empire: the unifying belief in the Almighty Emperor. Yet even before Constantine the Great's edict of 313 the Empire, especially the Western part, was in decline and on the verge of collapse. It is an overstatement that it fell because it incorporated Christianity.
