New bill would reinstate Draft in US

[c double]

Congressman Charles Rangel and others have introduced a new bill in congress that would reinstate the draft to replenish the country's military and aid the war on terror.

I didn't notice any news of this online or on television, and still haven't. An article by Rangel was printed on the editorial page in today's Dallas Morning News.

Good thing for you guys it's sponsored by a Democrat and thus has a low chance of recieving significant support in Congress, but who knows.

[Adam D]

Fuck that noise.

yeah no worries it'll never happen...

[c double]

never happen?

it will happen, it's just a matter of when.

the next fifty years, as oil reserves dwindle, will be filled with war after war after war. Are you honestly saying you don't think if China or Russia tried to invade our country or even attack our forces in Iraq, they wouldn't be drafting American kids tomorrow? I know that's not immediately likely but 20 years from now nothing's out of the question.

Especially if neocons remain in control...

Now that you mention it Warlord, I seem to remember Rangel talking on Fox news about the draft a couple years ago, though I was not aware that he actually introduced a bill. Though I don't doubt your statement in the least, his rationale in the DMN and the simple fact his letter was printed in a major conservative paper indicates that he's trying to drum up support from a wider faction that likely includes war hawks and neocons, and that he's been at least marginally successful.

Rangel tried to argue that minorities were over represented in combat positions and therefore disproportionately effected by war.

It was pointed out that while minorities are disproportionately represented in the military they are underrepresented in combat positions and therefore actually insulated from risk at a higher rate than non-minorities.

One argument for this disparity, which is neither intentional or a good/bad thing, is that while minority recruits enlist due to the carrot offered in education and GI Bill benefits, non-minorities enlist due to the "life of adventure" sale's pitch. Said another way - minorities see it as a stepping stone out of poverty and into a real career - - white guys see it as an opportuniy to go shoot somebody. Think about it next time you see an armed services recruiting commercial.

Originally posted by c double
never happen?

it will happen, it's just a matter of when.

the next fifty years, as oil reserves dwindle, will be filled with war after war after war. Are you honestly saying you don't think if China or Russia tried to invade our country or even attack our forces in Iraq, they wouldn't be drafting American kids tomorrow? I know that's not immediately likely but 20 years from now nothing's out of the question.

Especially if neocons remain in control...

Now that you mention it Warlord, I seem to remember Rangel talking on Fox news about the draft a couple years ago, though I was not aware that he actually introduced a bill. Though I don't doubt your statement in the least, his rationale in the DMN and the simple fact his letter was printed in a major conservative paper indicates that he's trying to drum up support from a wider faction that likely includes war hawks and neocons, and that he's been at least marginally successful.

WOAH WOAH WOAH - Russia or China invading America or our forces in Iraq? what are you talking about?

Originally posted by WarLord
It's not going to happen for the forseeable future. In fifty years, who knows? But right here and now, neither China nor Russia have the ability to project their manpower half way across the globe as we do. The Chinese can barely move troops around their own nation, let alone the globe.

Let's hope that while they are developing their infrastructure, someone is coming up with something to replace oil.

Neither has a blue water Navy - Russia's is mostly rusting in port

[digitalraver]

Originally posted by c double
if China or Russia tried to invade our country or even attack our forces in Iraq, they wouldn't be drafting American kids tomorrow? I know that's not immediately likely but 20 years from now nothing's out of the question.

I don't think Russia is that much of a threat anymore. If anything North Korea and China are the ones that we have to be cautious of. Why is it that the North Korans flaunt their WMDs and publicly admit that they have nuclear weapons but we don't do anything about it? We attacked Iraq on a supposition that they had WMDs and so far we have found nothing. If we were to invade North Korea, China would see this as a threat, would attack Taiwan and go into North Korea to help them fight off the intruders. China has no concept of a voluntary army, they make, yes MAKE, people join the armed forces and would do it to battle Americans. We have the technology but the Chinese have the manpower. Not to mention that both Korea and China have interballistic missiles systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads that can reach the West Coast. IMHO China and North Korea are our biggest threats. It is very likely that the draft will be reestablished sometime in the near future as we keep stretching out our military resources.

[c double]

no one is much of a threat anymore. those were examples, really. i don't really see the rest of the world letting us walk all over them forever though... and as long as we have buckaroos like boy George in the white house, the US will continue on that road, trying to grab the remaining oil, and i don't see the rest of the world letting us have it without a fight.

with soldiers bolting from leave from Iraq, and several other hostile situations developing, who in their right mind would join the army now? I know, some cats will, but will it be enough? What about when they see big bro and big sis come back from Iraq with weird gulf war syndrome diseases caused by depleted uranium?

our government will continue to do as it pleases, and if they decide they need a draft, they'll get it. the media will drum up support, and a huge majority here could probably be talked into supporting it. if it happens, most of us will probably be old enough to avoid it by then, but not our kids...

say we had another attack like 9/11 then, if that's more realistic right now than an invasion. Say this time the government can't cover up the Saudi connection as well, people all over the US would call for a war just like last time. Or say the Syrians start bombing Israel. That could happen tomorrow, and if it did, US forces would be right there to protect our little jewish partners in crime. If we don't have a draft, our global hegemony is at risk, and our leaders won't risk that.

[digitalraver]

couldn't have said it better myself

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by c double
never happen?

it will happen, it's just a matter of when.

the next fifty years, as oil reserves dwindle, will be filled with war after war after war.

*sigh*

I really don't feel like dredging up the graphs *again*, but I'll give you the basic facts I've dug up on my own research as reported by various UN agencies & the US Department of Energy.

Current global known reserves of petroleum: ~1 trillion barrels
Currently accessible reserves of petroleum: ~400 billion barrels
Current global yearly consumption rate: ~1 billion barrels

That means that at our current consumption rate and with no advances in oil recovery technology, we have ~400 years of oil left. Even if our consumption rate doubled(which isn't even close to the current increases of ~5%) we would still have enough oil reserves for the next 2 centuries. This doesn't even take into account the increasing use of natural gas or the emergence in the next decade of fuel cells to stabilize or reduce demand for petroleum either.

But by all means, keep believing that we're 20 years from the last drop of oil. It's convenient fodder that everyone likes to hear, even if it it patently wrong.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by WarLord
Maybe they would if they were not bombarded daily with reports on the dwindling oil supplies and the need for their "expanded" accessibility?

Yes, and those reports are invariably wrong. There are reports by the DoE dating as far back as 1939 that say we only have 13 years of oil left AS OF 1939. I can show you a report that came out in the 1860s reporting that the world was about to run out of coal. The problem with these reports is that they're based on the known reserves at the time. Back in 1950 we knew about 50 billion barrels of oil, as of 2000 we knew about 1 trillion barrels. Also, the press loves to report gloom'n'doom scenarios because it means better ratings. That's why you rarely hear about anything else. There's an old saying in the newspaper industry, "If it bleeds, it leads". Bad news always outsells good news, even if it's wrong.

Originally posted by WarLord
Flip it:
Do we really want to be the last nation on earth in as little as three generations violently hoarding this precious effluvium made up of dead dinosaurs that will remain? Three generations would be your grandchildren more or less.....granting you the benefit of the doubt that you will ever breed.

Where did you get 3 generations out of 400 years? Putting that aside, let's say for the sake of argument that there was actually only 50 years worth of crude left on the planet. As we get nearer that point, the price of crude oil will invariably rise. Once it hits a certain price, other energy sources that weren't commercially viable before become profitable, such as shale oil. We currently have a known reserves of shale oil that's 50x as expansive as crude oil, the only reason it isn't being widely used is because it's more expensive to produce(~$10/barrel compared to Saudi Arabia's $1-2/barrel for crude). As the price of crude oil rises, it passes a point in which shale oil becomes a commercially viable option and shale oil production begins to increase. Eventually shale oil production will take over the market that crude oil once dominated. It boils down to profitability, the companies that drill for crude oil will shift their attention fully to an alternative(such as shale oil) as it becomes economically plausible. There's already a small amount of shale oil on the market that's being produced by Canada, and it's increasing because shale oil is getting cheaper to produce(~$10/barrel as compared to $40/barrel 25 years ago) thanks to technology advancements.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by WarLord
From here.....


The forecasts do not take into account the potentially explosive growth of fossil fuels usage by developing nations. They instead assume a smooth steady pace. You want to gamble like that, go for it. I won't be here.

Actually, the ones I've read do. There's an estimate of 2-2.5 trillion barrels of oil total on the earth, but as we've seen in the past those estimates should be taken lightly. Setting that aside, given the known reserves of 1 trillion barrels it would take a 10% growth in consumption every year for us to run out of our known reserves in 50 years. 10% growth is 5 times what the current growth rate is. 2% is and has been the growth rate for the better part of this century, world wars & OPEC production cut-offs notwithstanding. Given our current growth rate of 2%, after 100 years we will have used 318 billion barrels of oil. On the flip side given our current rate of increase in available oil due to technological gains - and discounting the decrease in price of shale oil entirely - in 100 years we will have access to 200-300 billion more barrels of oil.

Oil is not scarce.

i think one thing that we tend to overlook on the debate on oil, is its other uses,

yes it is a fuel, but it also a key lubricant in machinery.
oil is also a key ingrediant to lots of inustrial processes.
many forms of plastic and other synthetic products are made from petroleum.
some of these products cannot be made without petroleum, and when it runs out, they too will have to be replaced.

this is why oil is key to the global economy, its more than a fuel source, its also an industrial ingrediant to production.

we need to protect this resource by finding alternative fuels and saving the oil for more important uses.

[c double]

Originally posted by RosebudProd
*sigh*

I really don't feel like dredging up the graphs *again*, but I'll give you the basic facts I've dug up on my own research as reported by various UN agencies & the US Department of Energy.

Current global known reserves of petroleum: ~1 trillion barrels
Currently accessible reserves of petroleum: ~400 billion barrels
Current global yearly consumption rate: ~1 billion barrels

That means that at our current consumption rate and with no advances in oil recovery technology, we have ~400 years of oil left. Even if our consumption rate doubled(which isn't even close to the current increases of ~5%) we would still have enough oil reserves for the next 2 centuries. This doesn't even take into account the increasing use of natural gas or the emergence in the next decade of fuel cells to stabilize or reduce demand for petroleum either.

But by all means, keep believing that we're 20 years from the last drop of oil. It's convenient fodder that everyone likes to hear, even if it it patently wrong.

Experts agree that we will probably never actually run out of crude oil. But if it costs 20$ a gallon, and is significantly lower in quality than what we're burning now, life on earth would change drastically and fossil fuel would likely only be used by the wealthy.

It's not about when the oil well dries up, it's about the peak of production, basically when it becomes half full. After the peak occurs, quality of the oil declines sharply and extraction becomes more and more expensive, until eventually it is basically require more energy to produce than it could provide by being burned. Production has already peaked in Russia and the US and that's why these countries, though they still have oil, are quickly turning from exporters to importers.

As you know, the world's largest reserve lie in Saudi Arabia, and the second largest is Iraq. These two countries will be the last to reach their production peak, and thus whoever is in control of these countries will have a firm grasp of the world's fossil fuel based economy.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/eu...ing/index.html

This CNN story which confirms problems created by Peak Oil is not just propaganda. Peak Oil is real. The story is based on findings of a team of Swedish geologists.

"Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say.

At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050. "

Dr. Colin Campbell, a famous geologist, is the founder of ASPO, the Association for Study of Peak Oil and Gas. I encourage you to check out some of his research, which contains graphs of his own, atwww.peakoil.net/iwood2003/paper/campbellpaper.doc
It's kind of heavy reading, and results of Campbell's study are not exactly exciting.

I've never heard anyone even suggest that we could maintain the current oil industry for another 400 years. If that was the case, why would the US have chosen to alienate itself from the world in order to control Iraq? Bush and co. decided the invasion was essential enough to justify lying about it, using forged documents, overriding the UN, and making enemies worldwide. Though the multibillion dollar Iraq oil industry is lucrative, it would be hard to use it to justify all the effort and capital put into the war and the effect it's having on US foreign relations. However, as oil production peaks and the value of the world's highest quality Persian Gulf oil skyrockets, the chess game our leaders are playing might make a little more sense, and if the 'coalition' can manage to control Arabia and Iraq, it could just be checkmate.

And that's the real objective in the War on Terror after all...