peak oil my bottom, page 4

Have you even looked at the methods available to produce hydrogen? They do NOT require precious metals to produce them. Look at Teledyne H2 generators for example, and many others - that is a bogus argument you've put forward. A Shell Hydrogen study estimates the cost to be about $19 billion for the delivery of hydrogen to 1/4 of the fuel stations in the United States.
The war in Iraq has already cost more than TEN TIMES that amount!! From news reports: With approval of the latest spending bill, taxpayers will have been forced to cough up more than $300 billion for the war to date – above and beyond the annual $400 billion Pentagon budget – and tens of billions for a bungled reconstruction. Even if the U.S. can lower its troop commitment to 40,000 troops in Iraq by 2010, as some Pentagon strategists optimistically anticipate, the war could still end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $646 billion by 2015,If insurgency, corruption and incompetence continue to plague the U.S. occupation as they have steadily for the last two years, however, the number could surge to $1 trillion dollars or more.
Do you not see how ridiculous the peak oil theory is in the bigger picture? It should be a NON-ISSUE but Bush and the oil gluttons have NO INTENTION of letting that happen. By pretending oil is the only game in town, you are foolishly playing along with them, just like they want. Look outside the box and see how we are being manipulated into a bogus issue!!

Originally posted by Capo Rip
Regarding post id: 1394961

Ok, the US government has spent hundreds of billions on war in the last few years, and from any traditional economical perspective it appears to be a colossal waste of money.

But you need to look at it from a new perspective. It is NOT a waste of capital (as I understand the concept).

The government can say "yep, we'll pay for it all in US$, you'll all get your wages and hazard pay and we'll pay for all the materiel" and print the cash to pay for it. But in the mean time they have secured an enormous amount of land, the ULTIMATE basis of all currency (bear with me here). And this is particularly valuable land for the obvious reason - because it is full, relatively, of the resource upon which western economics functions: a profitable source of energy - oil! Considering how valuable THIS resource is already starting to become, I'd say all that paper money they've spent is a pretty good investment from their standpoint.

Money is ultimately energy in diguise. It is an (inefficient) method of trading energy. Oil is the world's best source of energy and always will be, baring some sort of fusion miracle which is looking less and less likely (less and less cheap energy (i.e. oil) available to invest in its development). And behind all this is control of land. Those who control the best land will be best off as we start sliding down the curve.

I see your point - in a nutshell, if the US Gov't usurps a country by force, assumes lawful ownership of all the land and then plunders its resources faster than a frat party empties a beer keg, it's a pretty good bang for the buck!! From that viewpoint, you might be on to something!

Seriously, though..first off, the government doesn't print US currency, the Federal Reserve does. They are a private, mostly foreign owned corporation that lends money (as bonds) to the gov't with INTEREST. That is why the US is TRILLIONS in debt! That fact isn't changing with the various hundreds of military bases around the world either. Resources (or ownership of the land with resources) won't make up for the debt either. Unless the US lower Congress regains control of the issuance of money, we will continue down the debt tube.