Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: B.Bumbleberry
"... The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran."

Er, did the author mean the 'Teheran' that just a paragraph earlier he claimed the Israelis turned into a glowing crater lined with smoked glass?

Hot tip to budding Apocalyptic fiction spinners: After a nuclear exchange, there's not going to be anyone in the receiving government to negotiate with.

Perhaps the revised ending ought to be 'The West and China agreed to divide up the oil supplies of the former Arab states'.

6 posted on 01/16/2006 9:38:30 AM PST by The KG9 Kid (Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: The KG9 Kid

China doesn't need Arab oil. They are going to take the Spratleys.


15 posted on 01/16/2006 9:47:22 AM PST by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: The KG9 Kid
Perhaps the revised ending ought to be 'The West and China agreed to divide up the oil supplies of the former Arab states'.

Other than self-imposed restraint, there is no reason for this scenario not to play out. The primitive mass murderers are only accidental owners of the world's oil suppy. It was given to them by the very countries who then turned around and bought the stuff from them, instead of simply taking the territory back; mistake number one.

Other than the suicidal impulse to "do the right thing" There is no reason whatsoever why Great Britain, and the US did not take back the rich oil fields, once their importance was clear.
How long have those fields been in sandmaggot hands? Eighty years? Out of a world history of 6000 years?

The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that a rational solution is not possible. There are an infinite number of permutations, in all of which the overreaching muslims are the permanent losers: among them, China, Europe, and the U.S. jointly take over the oil fields, permanently, and divide production (and the cost of recovering it) among themselves in proportion to population.
Since Russia has a more or less independent source of oil, I don't see them taking on the rest of the civilized world for a piece of the action (even if they could).

30 posted on 01/16/2006 10:32:49 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: The KG9 Kid

Hot tip to KG9 -- in a "nuclear exchange," BOTH sides are on the receiving end.


35 posted on 01/16/2006 10:46:16 AM PST by MajorityOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson