Iran and the Bomb

[Shapley]

Bignaf,

I understand your point, but the issue here is that we buy much less of our oil from the Middle East than is popularly believed.

The claim by some is that we need to end our dependence on Middle East Oil - and I would say we have done so.

The claim by others is that we need to end our dependence on foreign oil - fine, but to do so we need to be able to drill where the oil is: ANWR, The Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coast...

The claim by still others is that we need to end our dependence on oil - but they offer no solutions. As I see it there are only two ways of doing so - cut our consumption (and the GDP it produces) or find alternative sources of energy. There is a limit to how much we can cut consumption without harming the economy. We are researching alternative sources of energy, but so far most are far more expensive than oil. When that changes we'll change. For now, however, oil is the bargain energy source.

V/R
Shapley

[bignaf]

Bignaf,

I understand your point, but the issue here is that we buy much less of our oil from the Middle East than is popularly believed.

why is that an issue? that's a insignificant surface detail. the effect is the same.

[Shapley]

Not entirely. The point was made that 'our' dollars are supporting our enemies. As Haggis noted, that may be the case indirectly, but we are not buying Iranian Oil, someone else is, so someone elses dollars are supporting them.

I understand your point that our consumption is driving up the price elsewhere, so that Iranians are getting $60/bbl because that is the going the rate, and that rate is largely influenced by the level of our consuption. But it is also not true that our purchase of Canadian and Mexican oil means that that oil is not available for others. Many of these sources have been developed or expanded specifically to meet our demands, largely since the oil embargo of 1970s. The development of these markets was a leading contributor to reducing the power of OPEC in controlling the oil market. So I would say it is hardly immaterial.

V/R
Shapley

[bignaf]

doesn't matter.

[OperaTenor]

” I haven't heard anyone in the Democratic party espouse this as a policy. Show me where someone said it.”

Jeez, are you going to make me look up all the Murtha quotes espousing total U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?

I didn't say Iraq, I said the whole Middle East, including Israel. And I don't mean just pull troops out, but all forms of aid. Period. Riddle me where the Dems are saying that, Batman.

[Haggis@wk]

" didn't say Iraq, I said the whole Middle East, including Israel. And I don't mean just pull troops out, but all forms of aid."

Oh, my bad. Well, since the Democrats are the one who initially recognized Israel as a country I'd have to say that the chances of that happening are nil. As it should be, Israel might survive if we cut off aid but Egypt wouldn't and the results would let slip the dogs of war.

In essence your preference would lead to a regional war, possibly (probably?) nuclear. Without access to Egypt we would have no access to Africa or even the Persian Gulf since any government (probably Islamic, similar to Iran) that replaces the current Egyptian government would deny U.S. ships access to the Suez Canal without easy access to the Persian Gulf would encourage Iran into committing some mischief, like blocking the straits of Hormuz

Beside, it seem that a Democratic Administration would consider increasing the aid if elected into office.

” Of greatest importance, America should be willing to increase its aid to Egypt beyond the current level of $2.1 billion per year, as long as Egypt moves along a progressive path, and decrease it if Egypt fails to do so.”

No, cutting and running from the Middle East would make it infinitely worse than it is now and would cause serious economic hardship for the region as well as for the U.S.

[GreatCarouser]

Israeli expert claims peace with Muslims is 'impossible'

"Sharon has in the past insisted that the Western world was engaging in great folly by differentiating between radical and peaceful Islam. “All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the Western world,” he wrote sarcastically. “They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These Western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two - except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.”....

If what this fellow has to say is true, then non Islamics are in for a rough ride.

Another source also addresses Sharon's statements:
Ynetnews.com on the same subject
I find the differences in the articles interesting. Ynet's doesn't carry the portion quoted above and the first does not carry Sharon's conclusions at the end of the Ynet article.

There is also a link on this page to a story about the re-establisment of the caliphate in Jerusalem.

[GreatCarouser]

In line with the last two. This is a loooooong article but if it's true?

Matthias Kuentzel on Iran's suicide militia and the 12 Imam

[OperaTenor]

" didn't say Iraq, I said the whole Middle East, including Israel. And I don't mean just pull troops out, but all forms of aid."

Oh, my bad. Well, since the Democrats are the one who initially recognized Israel as a country I'd have to say that the chances of that happening are nil. As it should be, Israel might survive if we cut off aid but Egypt wouldn't and the results would let slip the dogs of war.

In essence your preference would lead to a regional war, possibly (probably?) nuclear. Without access to Egypt we would have no access to Africa or even the Persian Gulf since any government (probably Islamic, similar to Iran) that replaces the current Egyptian government would deny U.S. ships access to the Suez Canal without easy access to the Persian Gulf would encourage Iran into committing some mischief, like blocking the straits of Hormuz

Beside, it seem that a Democratic Administration would consider increasing the aid if elected into office.

” Of greatest importance, America should be willing to increase its aid to Egypt beyond the current level of $2.1 billion per year, as long as Egypt moves along a progressive path, and decrease it if Egypt fails to do so.”

No, cutting and running from the Middle East would make it infinitely worse than it is now and would cause serious economic hardship for the region as well as for the U.S.

For everything up to the last sentence, so what?

As for the last sentence, see platform #1:

1) Get off our dependence on Middle East oil.

[piqaboo]

I would also like to see oil-rich Muslim countries set up some kind of "Marshall Plan" to stand their Palestinian (including 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation "refugees") and Lebanese brothers on their feet and give them the opportunity for economic and social stability

You want them to give up their chief weapon against the West?
Me too, but it aint gonna happen. If the Palestinians werent a weapon, they'd have become immigrants lo these many years since, instead of permanent refugees.

[Haggis@wk]

"1) Get off our dependence on Middle East oil"

I can't see how 15% make us dependent

[Haggis@wk]

As far as I can tell, none of the MSM reported Ahmadinejad appeal for the quick arrival of the Hidden or Twelfth Imam during his UN address.

Here is what Ahmadinejad said, according to the UN translator speaking as the speech was delivered:

"I emphatically declare that today's world more than ever before longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity, and above all longs for the perfect, righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet. Oh Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirst for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers among those who strive for his return and his cause."

When the fanatical president of a country that is researching - or might already have - nuclear weapons delivers a speech declaring the U.N. to be illegitimate (only thing he said that made any sense), the war against Israel by Hezbollah was a creation of the U.S., alerts Christians that Jesus was just a prophet, and then closes with an apocalypse-welcoming appeal to God, that should be a clear signal that the process of "diplomacy" leading to a "better deal" isn't on his mind. He wants nukes and I’m beginning to believe he wants the apocalypse.

[Nicole Marie]

I just heard Chavez's (Venezuela) speech at the UN.... That guy is a true nut and he just signed a $5 million weapons deal with Russia. The US needs to pay attention to this guy... he is calling for the destruction of the US and now he's got the weapon.

[BenODen]

Ok, so let's count hot spots:

1) Afghanistan - looking shakey, that Taliban has pretty good staying power, even though we 'won.'

2) Iraq - We need more troops here if anything; The miscalculations of Iraqi and foreign resistance are proving to be very hard to recover from, but the current situation seems to be a very effective Militant Islamist recruiting point, and has to be solved somehow.

3) Iran - Ahmadinejad sounds like a big proponent of the downfall of the US and the west and is gathering the tools to try to do it.

4) Israel - Palestine - Lebanon - Syria - This conflict is the rallying cry of the Islamists'. If this were resolved, some how, some way, with great crying and gnashing of teeth, the Islamists would loose perhaps their second most influential recruiting tool.

5) Venezuela - Chavez is gathering quite a few central and South American countries to his side for our disgressions in the past.

6) North Korea - Ok, so he has nukes. And he has a missle that could hit our west coast. And he's crazy as a loon with plenty of ground troops to boot. And he doesn't want to talk about it!

7. China - It has somewhat isolated itself from the world and could well turn up to be the wild card in some of these other situations. They have a large, but idle military, what are they planning, if anything? It deserves to be on this list of trouble spots if only for the lack of involvement on the side of peace in these areas. The sleeping giant...

8. Mexico - May as well add this on for good measure... The government of Mexico seems to think that we should be letting all their motivated citizens come work for us, never mind that it causes downward wage pressures on jobs that can't otherwise be exported. This one is a somewhat thorny one, though, since I'm not sure I want to pay twice as much for my vegis and housing because the wages went up.

9) Sudanese region of Darfur - Yeah, it's a war zone and a genocide, but the world is too busy elsewhere to charge in with all guns blazing.

Did I miss any? This is quite the list. If the us, or even the US and europe were to need to take all of these on militarily, it would require us to spend a bigger piece of our GNP on the military, and if it were just the US and we did it all at once would turn out to be impossible. I think we probably spend too much on millitary related items already, so spending more isn't appealing to me. (reconstruction after wars are included in related) Going at it without the support of 6 of the 8 largest nations isn't cheap, and we're still not able to get our arms around these. Isolation isn't the solution, certainly, but going around inflaming situations is also not a good idea if you don't have the might to take on all comers. I see a big mess, and people seem to be loving Bush's hard line on Iran, but where it's leading seems insane... It's not pretty, and I don't think that the Republicans have a strategy that will keep us out of another world war. They may even say "Bring it on!" Currently it is our very actions that cause the dissatisfaction, but we could be doing things to make these power brokers the vilains, not ourselves. I hate to play the World War card, but it certainly seems like we have two sides squarring off for a stand off here, and it's the US, not Europe in the cross hairs this time. The killer is that it doesn't have to be this way. Part of the problem is that we are misstating our aims. We have defined "democracy" to be a synonym of "Freedom" with a capital F. This mixed definition puts us in a huge pinch when the people fairly elect leaders who won't stand up for Freedom. We can't be the only advocate for Freedom, we may be powerful, but not that powerful. Add up the power of those who are the run of the mill power brokers who keep their power by denying Freedom and you end up with a heck of a lot of power, and by being the lead voice on it, albeit a confusing, inconsistent voice, we become the nation to be dealt with. Not cool. Iran is the country officially stirring things up in the middle east, but they're not alone in their ability to rally support against the USA.

[piqaboo]

15% can be enough to create quite a dependency yes.
What would you have to cut from your lives, if you and the MRHYN took a 15% income cut?
What would the military lose if it took a 15% cut in budget?
(ok, nothing, because it would get that replaced in special appropriations. But lets play "lets pretend" for a moment....)

BenODen....thanks a lot bud. Bye bye sleep!

[BenODen]

Piq, don't worry, the nukes don't fit on the missles currently.. One less thing to worry about.

[OperaTenor]

"1) Get off our dependence on Middle East oil"

I can't see how 15% make us dependent

Then why have we been entangling ourselves there in such a half-assed manner for lo these many years, if it ain't for the oil, or to appease oil interests?

You know darn good and well that's exactly why we're not in Africa.

[Haggis@wk]

Oh THAT liberal MSM

New York Sun

35,000 people marched against Ahmadinejad at the UN yesterday. Can you find a news source other that the New York Sun? Hint it wasn’t on the AP, Reuters, or Google News.

But Two thousand march against the Iraq war the day before, oh yeah, that made the news

[Haggis@wk]

OT,

"You know darn good and well that's exactly why we're not in Africa."

Why do you make this so easy?

We get as much and sometimes more oil from Nigeria, Angola and Algeria as we do from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.

[url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html]
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries[/url]


So, following your theory that everything we do is about the oil and that's why we have the military in Iraq, doesn't the fact that we don't have military in Africa disprove your theory?

[barfle]

35,000 people marched against Ahmadinejad at the UN yesterday. Can you find a news source other that the New York Sun? Hint it wasn’t on the AP, Reuters, or Google News.

But Two thousand march against the Iraq war the day before, oh yeah, that made the news

Where did you get the numbers? Not from the articles you linked to.