quote:

Feudalism term that emerged in the 17th century and has been used to describe European economic, legal, political, and social relationships that existed in the Middle Ages. Derived from the Latin word feudum (fief) but unknown to people of the Middle Ages, the term feudalism has been used most broadly to refer to medieval society as a whole and most narrowly to describe relations between lords and vassals. It also has been applied, often inappropriately, to non-Western societies where institutions similar to those of medieval Europe are thought to have existed. The many ways feudalism has been used have drained it of specific meaning, however, and caused some scholars to reject it as a useful concept for understanding medieval society.

Feudalism in its broadest sense has been understood as the entire interwoven fabric of medieval society. As described by Karl Marx and subsequent Marxist scholars, it is the stage in history that preceded capitalism and, as such, involved the entire social and economic structure of medieval Europe. Also known as manorialism or seignorialism, feudalism in this sense is a mode of agricultural production based on the relation between lords and the peasants who worked their own land and that of the lord. The peasants owed labour service to the lords, who provided military protection and also had extensive police, judicial, and other rights over the peasants. In this view, feudalism came to encompass all aspects of social organization and was characterized as a system that was both oppressive and hierarchical.

According to a narrower and more technical definition that is, nonetheless, more widely used, feudalism involves the exchange of allegiance for a grant of land (fief) between two people, usually men, of noble status. Although its roots have been traced to practices that existed in the Roman Empire and during the age of Charlemagne (742–814), feudalism thus defined may be said to have emerged in the 11th century. At that time, public authority broke down, traditional institutions were unable to maintain order, and private castles were built. During this so-called feudal anarchy, private relationships were established among the nobility in which weaker nobles attached themselves to stronger ones. To forge an alliance or settle a dispute, a fief was granted to the lesser noble in exchange for a vow of homage and service, often military. Feudalism was therefore a means to restore social order or at least limit the excesses that resulted from the collapse of public authority.

Source: "Feudalism." Encyclopedia Britannica, Standard Edition. Chicago: 2008.

quote:

Originally posted by TGWlll:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,178688,00.html

Jeff Huber article has mentioned the unmentionable, albeit somewhat tangentially.....Its the subject NO-ONE dare talk! It is the "conspiracy" of "special interests" to run the foreign policy of the USA to benefit THEM! E.G. Iraq! It was NO threat.... The Bush team wanted it for its oil with activist neocon complicity.... Co=ordinated and choreographed by AIPAC's indicted top officials (Keith Wiessman and Steve Roden with convicted SPY Larry Franklin [Top aide of Vice President Cheney] big oil's best friend.....but as we can see so clearly now as we are being shown the door in Iraq...... It was NOT in the best interests of the average American..... The U.S. military should not be the "step and fetch it" for oil or Israel. It should be the protector of America and America's interests.

quote:

Originally posted by 61Deacon64:
Huber has been and always will be an Anus. Misanthrope2...You are going to just love BO's Chief of Staff.

quote:

Originally posted by 61Deacon64:
Huber has been and always will be an Anus. Misanthrope2...You are going to just love BO's Chief of Staff.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:
Once again, this is "IN THE NEWS", NOT "IN THE OPINIONS"...
NEW ARTICLES PEOPLE, NEWS ARTICLES!...
THERE ARE SEVERAL "OPINION" SITES AROUND, GO THERE PLEASE!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by doc_block:
TGWIII,

America runs on oil, did you forget that? Our entire existence revolves around, our economy, our heat, hell... even to print money like we are doing now takes energy. If you believe we went into Iraq for the oil, where is our cut? So what if we did, the President is the CEO of the world's largest company and in order to prosper we need to protect our lifeblood (oil). The politicians will never or can't say the real deal, we can't survive without it. Look at what tripling the gas price did to the world economy. Corporations who were too deeply leveraged into real estate begin to fail. Home owners who margined too much on home equity loans and the never ending increase in values were dealt a blow and a reality check. Credit has been overused and abused. This is a normal correction that takes place after decades of growth. Provided we don't create unsustainable entitlement programs, America and the World will weather this storm. Don't blame Neo-cons, Bush, or any other boogey-men for this. It will correct itself even with Obama in office.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847

Hey Doc-

I garuntee that if gas was around $1.00-1.25 a gallon this whole time not a damn person would be complaining about "Bush's War for Oil". Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war. Resources have always been a great motivator to go to war, not every war, but many notables. That's what the Civil War was about, the almighty dollar.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
An Israeli citizen, no less.


[URL=http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/11/emanuels-father-let-arabs-clean-the-white-house-floors-rahms-all-over-israel-policy.html]www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/11/emanuels-father-...r-israel- Link disabled by Mainedawg

You know better than to post Hot Links. 30 day warning.

Mainedawg
Moderator

quote:

Originally posted by Misanthrope2:

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847

Hey Doc-

I garuntee that if gas was around $1.00-1.25 a gallon this whole time not a damn person would be complaining about "Bush's War for Oil". Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war. Resources have always been a great motivator to go to war, not every war, but many notables. That's what the Civil War was about, the almighty dollar.

Please note that the term "Civil War" is a misnomer. In Frank Conner's The South Under Siege 1830 - 2000, Mr. Conner correctly defines "Civil War" as a war between two factions within a country for control of the government of that country. Conner goes on to state "The Confederate States of America - a separate nation - never had the slightest desire to take control of the U.S. government; it wished merely to coexist peacefully with the United States." A more appropriate name for the war is "The War of Northern Aggression" or "The War for Southern Independence".

quote:

Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war. Resources have always been a great motivator to go to war, not every war, but many notables. That's what the Civil War was about, the almighty dollar.

quote:

Originally posted by Little_Paul:

quote:

Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war. Resources have always been a great motivator to go to war, not every war, but many notables. That's what the Civil War was about, the almighty dollar.

Asinine. Taking others resources? Our gentle Lord had a name for that, what was it?

I am sure that the hundreds of thousands who died in the Civil war rest easier knowing it was all about the dollar, and not ending slavery, or preserving the Union.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847:
Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war.

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847:
Oil is a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war.

Then, I suppose you won't mind offering up the lives of your sons and daughters in the name of cheap gas? Or, is that a sacrifice someone else should make?

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Stop being disingenuous, this nation will go to war over "oil" and the free passage of the same through the worlds oceans...
It is possible to collapse a nation's economy and thus the nation by preventing that nation or a group of allied nations from receiving oil...
It's not about "cheap gas" and you d@mned well know it!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Stop being disingenuous, this nation will go to war over "oil" and the free passage of the same through the worlds oceans...
It is possible to collapse a nation's economy and thus the nation by preventing that nation or a group of allied nations from receiving oil...
It's not about "cheap gas" and you d@mned well know it!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I'm not be disingenious. YOU said oil is a legitmate reason for war and I asked if you'd be willing to give up the lives of YOUR sons and daughters for cheap gas.

That's a straight foward question. What's your answer? Yes, or no?

(ps: And quit throwing in other issues, such as free passage of the high seas. That's a different issue altogether as it involves much more than the transit of oil.)

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Stop being disingenuous, this nation will go to war over "oil" and the free passage of the same through the worlds oceans...
It is possible to collapse a nation's economy and thus the nation by preventing that nation or a group of allied nations from receiving oil...
It's not about "cheap gas" and you d@mned well know it!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I'm not be disingenious. YOU said oil is a legitmate reason for war and I asked if you'd be willing to give up the lives of YOUR sons and daughters for cheap gas.

That's a straight foward question. What's your answer? Yes, or no?

(ps: And quit throwing in other issues, such as free passage of the high seas. That's a different issue altogether as it involves much more than the transit of oil.)

YES!...
And not for "cheap gas" you intellectually vapid clod!...
You know damned well it is about the energy that is derived form that oil, to provide such basic necessities as lights, water, then fuel to produce farm products, i.e. food and the means to get it to the stores, transportation for you to get to and from work to earn money to purchase the "food"...
Now, I answered your question, YOU answer this one...
How many will you let die from cold, starvation, lack of medical treatment, because there was no "cheap gas" as you put it?...
How many, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million, what is YOUR "cut off point" in your intellectually vapid point?!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Stop being disingenuous, this nation will go to war over "oil" and the free passage of the same through the worlds oceans...
It is possible to collapse a nation's economy and thus the nation by preventing that nation or a group of allied nations from receiving oil...
It's not about "cheap gas" and you d@mned well know it!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I'm not be disingenious. YOU said oil is a legitmate reason for war and I asked if you'd be willing to give up the lives of YOUR sons and daughters for cheap gas.

That's a straight foward question. What's your answer? Yes, or no?

(ps: And quit throwing in other issues, such as free passage of the high seas. That's a different issue altogether as it involves much more than the transit of oil.)

YES!...
And not for "cheap gas" you intellectually vapid clod!...
You know damned well it is about the energy that is derived form that oil, to provide such basic necessities as lights, water, then fuel to produce farm products, i.e. food and the means to get it to the stores, transportation for you to get to and from work to earn money to purchase the "food"...
Now, I answered your question, YOU answer this one...
How many will you let die from cold, starvation, lack of medical treatment, because there was no "cheap gas" as you put it?...
How many, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million, what is YOUR "cut off point" in your intellectually vapid point?!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Are you asking that question based upon the assumption that oil is cut off to us completely, or that its price rises so high that it affects our economy?

The answer to that question will determine how I answer yours.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Either one but, let's take the total loss of foreign oil, how many would you let die because of the loss of it?!...
Give a number!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by stillkit:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Either one but, let's take the total loss of foreign oil, how many would you let die because of the loss of it?!...
Give a number!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

A total shut off of foreign oil?

I MIGHT be willing to risk the lives of my children over that, but since it's so unlikely as to be not worth considering, it's a meaningless discussion. We get most of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico, so I just don't see it happening, do you? Additionally, a total cutoff would have severe ramifications for the producing state as well, so severe that it's even less likely.

So, let's consider war for oil when the price goes up as that's the most likely scenario.

Would you be willing to offer up your children if the price goes "too high?" How high is too high? What's the point at which you'll value oil more than the lives of your children? $140 a bbl? $300? $1000?