 | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Storm Threat, Current Production, and Other News - and Open Thread 2 | The Oil Drum | Storm Watch, 27 June 2010 |  |
Drumbeat: June 27, 2010
Posted by Leanan on June 27, 2010 - 10:27am
With gas prices so low, will anyone buy a Volt?
Talk about an awkward position: General Motors, under pressure to be profitable and start selling stock again, is benefiting from relatively cheap gasoline.But in a few weeks, the Detroit automaker launches the 40-m.p.g. Chevrolet Cruze, then this fall the electric Chevrolet Volt -- of which ultimate success could easily hinge on high gas prices.
"That's perverse," Joseph Phillippi, a longtime industry consultant, said of the small car situation. "I say perverse in the sense that we want gasoline prices to go up so we can be successful selling a car that we make maybe 25% of the variable gross profit that you make on the Tahoe."
Fuel-saving ideas are all around
The first modern mass-market electric cars will cause a sensation when the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf go on sale later this year, but a quiet revolution in engines and transmissions promises to save vast amounts of oil in the decades before electric vehicles rule the road.
Iran has ‘emergency plans’ to boost gasoline output
TEHERAN - Emergency plans will help Iran boost gasoline output sharply by early 2012, an official said in comments published on Sunday, after the US congress approved a bill to penalise firms supplying the Islamic state with the fuel.Iran is the world’s fifth-largest oil producer but lack of sufficient refining capacity forces it to import up to 40 percent of its gasoline needs — making it potentially vulnerable to punitive measures targeting the trade.
Venezuela says will pay for nationalized H&P rigs
(Reuters) - Venezuela will pay Helmerich and Payne for a fleet of oil rigs it seized from the U.S. company, the oil minister said on Saturday, warning that five drills at a Chevron venture were also at risk of nationalization.
Energy needs to drive future deepwater drilling: Shell CEO
More deep-water drilling is needed to meet growing energy demands despite the Gulf of Mexico spill, but the industry must beef up its disaster readiness, Royal Dutch Shell chief said on Sunday."My expectation is that we will go forward with it but it will need some changes," Peter Voser, Royal Dutch Shell chief executive officer told the CNN Global Forum.
BP evacuates personnel ahead of Tropical Storm Alex
[Updated 10:10 p.m.] BP has begun evacuating non-essential personnel from three of their rigs in the far south of the Gulf of Mexico ahead of Tropical Storm Alex, a spokesman confirmed.The evacuations did not apply to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response, BP spokesman Neil Chapman said.
Alex not aiming at Gulf oil spill area - for now
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A tropical storm slamming into parts of Mexico isn't taking aim at the massive Gulf oil spill - for now - though any system can quickly change course and send cleanup efforts grinding to a halt.The logistics of containing the oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico are mind-boggling even in ideal conditions. Things become even more complicated with the approach of a tropical storm like Alex, which is pelting Belize, northern Guatemala and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula with heavy rain.
Hurricane season triggers planning to evacuate oil spill site
If a storm with gale-force winds comes within five days of reaching the gushing oil well, crews would begin packing up to return to shore, said Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen, who is overseeing the crisis for the government. A full evacuation could stop containment activities for two weeks.
BP relief well drilling ahead of schedule-paper
(Reuters) - BP could plug the leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico in mid-July, two weeks earlier than its current guidance of early August, British newspaper The Sunday Times said.The drilling of relief wells which the company hopes will enable it to finally plug the oil gushing out from the seabed a mile below the surface of the Gulf is progressing faster than expected, sources with knowledge of the operation were reported as telling the newspaper.
Judge in Spill Case Sold Stock This Week
The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling sold stock in Exxon Mobil Corp. on the same day he issued his ruling, according to documents released Friday.Exxon Mobil was among the companies affected by the administration's moratorium. It used one of the 33 rigs that had operations suspended under the May 27 ban, according to Exxon spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman White.
Russia says no Medvedev-BP meeting planned yet
Ontario (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has no meeting planned with BP's Chief Executive Tony Hayward, who is under fire over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Kremlin said on Saturday.The Financial Times reported on June 20 that Hayward was planning to travel to Russia to reassure Medvedev that the oil major was not on the brink of collapse after its spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
7 Things You Should Know About BP and Counterparty Risk
There is a non-trivial risk of BP going bankrupt as a result of ballooning liabilities associated with the Gulf spill. Don’t believe me? Look at the company’s gargantuan CDS spreads.
Brent Coon: tough-talking lawyer going after BP on his Harley
Brent Coon, the Harley-Davidson-riding Texan lawyer – and BP's nemesis in the US courts – has some much-needed good news for the Mimosa Dancing Club, a strip club in a run-down district of New Orleans.Last weekend the Observer reported that the club's owners had made a compensation claim against BP over the Gulf of Mexico disaster because local fishermen are now out of work and can no longer afford to frequent the club.
Shale production unaffected by Gulf oil leak
Surprisingly, the disaster has not been felt in a related industry that has become an essential part of northwest Louisiana. Drilling for natural gas in the Haynesville Shale so far is untouched by what's happening hundreds of miles to the south.
The BP Oil Spill Makes Landfall in Florida
For weeks, the residents of Florida's northwest Panhandle had clung to a belief that the BP oil spill devastating the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would bypass their famous ivory-white beaches. Until now, it had: despite an intermittent spitting of tar balls and the encroachment of a thin petro-sheen on the horizon, charitable winds and currents kept the real mess from washing ashore and threatening the Panhandle's critical summer season — as well as Florida's $60 billion tourism industry.
Protesters target oil spill and U.S. fuel dependence
Chocolate-covered surfer girls may not scream environmental disaster to everyone, but for more than 100 people who gathered at Waikiki Beach yesterday to protest the gulf oil spill and to call for an end to American dependence on foreign oil, the image made sweet, sticky sense.The event, sponsored by the Hawaii Chapter of the Sierra Club in partnership with Blue Planet Foundation, the Surfrider Foundation and others, was staged in conjunction with other Hands Across the Sand demonstrations, in which people from all 50 states linked hands to draw a symbolic "line in the sand" in opposition to what they see as the environmental threat posed by Big Oil.
Clean-energy rally responds to gulf oil leak
Sixty people joined hands beside the Freedom Park lake Saturday as part of clean-energy rallies that were expected to stretch across the country and as far away as Australia.The event, dubbed Hands Across the Sand, was organized in Charlotte by the Sierra Club and patterned after a February offshore drilling protest in Florida. More than 900 similar events, including 15 others in North Carolina, were expected to take place worldwide, the Sierra Club said.
Syria's Assad seeks investment in Latin America
President Bashar Al-Assad will make a rare visit to Latin America aimed at extending Syria's diplomatic reach after emerging from Western isolation, and attracting investment for his country's ageing infrastructure. Assad, who faces a decline in domestic oil production and droughts that have hit agriculture, will be looking to reinforce links with a rich Syrian expatriate community in the region and with economic power Brazil. Official Syrian media said Assad will travel to Brazil, Cuba, Argentina and Venezuela, without giving a timetable. He is expected to arrive in Venezuela later on Friday.
More contracts to explore for oil, gas set
MANILA, Philippines – Contracts for the exploration and development of up 10 prospective oil and gas areas in the country are expected to be auctioned off once the Department of Energy (DOE) gets a new man at the helm.The DOE has already identified 16 prospective sedimentary basins which, according to reports, collectively hold 25 million barrels of oil, 2,135 billion cubic feet of gas and about 54 million barrels of condensate.
Will science or the Second Coming bail us out?
A young woman of our acquaintance recently ran out of cigarettes. It was suggested that if she must smoke, she could walk a couple of blocks to the nearest gas station and buy a pack."No!" she said in horror. "It's a BP."
Rather than contribute some infinitesimal part of the price of a pack of cigarettes to the company that franchises a gas station within walking distance, she drove a few extra blocks to a convenience store.
That'll teach BP to mess up the Gulf of Mexico.
Spanish Government Delays Decision on Solar Prices to Devise Energy Plan
The Spanish government postponed its plan to cut the price earned by renewable power plants after the main opposition party agreed to negotiate a broader accord on energy policy.The government opted to delay the decision so subsidies for solar and wind energy can be included in talks aimed at securing an energy agreement with the People’s Party, an industry ministry spokesman said today in a telephone interview.
Ask just about anyone involved in the effort to start a home-grown ethanol industry in Hawaii and invariably the word "challenging" comes up.Challenging, it turns out, is an understatement.
Power-from-waste project launched in Delhi
In a little over a year from now, some homes in the capital will be lit up with power generated from household waste. The Delhi government on Saturday launched a project to generate clean power from waste.
E.P.A. Lags on Setting Some Air Standards, Report Finds
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is 10 years behind schedule in setting guidelines for a host of toxic air pollutants, according to a report from the agency’s inspector general.The report, which was released last week, found that the agency had failed to develop emissions standards, due in 2000, for some sources of hazardous air pollutants. These included smaller sites often located in urban areas, like dry cleaners and gas stations, but also some chemical manufacturers.
Australia's Gillard May Slow Population Growth to Focus on Sustainability
Julia Gillard, who last week replaced Kevin Rudd as Australian prime minister, may move to slow Australia’s population growth amid concerns about failing infrastructure and the nation’s environment.“The change of direction is to put front and center the sustainability issues,” Gillard said in an interview with the Nine television network today “There are environmental issues about water and about soil. But there are also sustainability issues about planning, about services.”
U.S. agency's action may kill Bucyrus deal, cost 1,000 jobs
Up to 1,000 jobs at Bucyrus International Inc. and its suppliers could be in jeopardy as the result of a decision by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, funded by Congress, to deny several hundred million dollars in loan guarantees to a coal-fired power plant and mine in India. v About 300 of those jobs are at the Bucyrus plant in South Milwaukee, where the company has 1,410 employees and its headquarters. The remaining jobs are spread across 13 states, including Illinois, Minnesota and Indiana.
JPMorgan Refits EcoSecurities for Carbon Takeovers
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is reorganizing EcoSecurities, the carbon-emissions company it bought for $206 million, to pursue further takeovers even as the market for greenhouse gases shrinks.
What Weathermen Know About Climate Change
A study released today study by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication in Fairfax, Va., showed that 27 percent of broadcast meteorologists -- who are, according to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, "often the most visible representatives of science in U.S. households" -- believe that global warming is a scam.
Ben Bova: Humans will have to adapt to the reality of global warming
Like it or not, global warming is changing the world’s climate. If it is caused largely by human actions, then we can slow or even stop the warming — if we want to. If we are willing to pay the price for changing the way we burn fossil fuels.
Little done to prevent polar bear extinction, climate change, feds say
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Polar bear policy in America can be summed up succinctly: The iconic bears are threatened with extinction, and so far nothing much is being done.Two years after they were listed under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has taken no major action in response to their principal threat, the loss of sea ice habitat due to climate change.
Eiris review names Britain as 'dirty man of Europe'
Britain is being accused of being the "dirty man of Europe" after new research showed that, of the world's top 300 companies, more than half of those most engaged in carbon-polluting sectors were based in the UK.
G8 leaders take heat for failing to act on global warming
TORONTO - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other G8 leaders are taking heat for failing to take action on global warming.
If scientists want to educate the public, they should start by listening
The battle over global warming has raged for more than a decade, with experts still stunned by the willingness of their political opponents to distort scientific conclusions. They conclude, not illogically, that they're dealing with a problem of misinformation or downright ignorance -- one that can be fixed only by setting the record straight.Yet a closer look complicates that picture. For one thing, it's political outlook -- not education -- that seems to motivate one's belief on this subject. According to polling performed by the Pew Research Center, Republicans who are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change than those who have less education. These better-educated Republicans probably aren't ignorant; a more likely explanation is that they are politically driven consumers of climate science information. Among Democrats and independents, the relationship between education and beliefs about global warming is precisely the opposite -- more education leads to greater acceptance of the consensus climate science.
In other words, it appears that politics comes first on such a contested subject, and better information is no cure-all -- people are likely to simply strain it through an ideological sieve. In fact, more education probably makes a global warming skeptic more persuasive, and more adept at collecting information and generating arguments sympathetic to his or her point of view.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Iran's Falling Oil Output Means Less Revenue, Clout
It is unlike the IEA to predict significant falling oil production of an OPEC nation but that is exactly what they are doing.
And they are predicting that Iraq will replace Iran as OPEC's second largest producer.
But...
And I am predicting that Iraqi officials are wrong... again. Virtually all of those new contracts were to boost production from their old fields. They hope to do the same thing Saudi Arabia did with their infield drilling, except unlike Saudi, they hope to increase production rather than just mitigate decline. Saudi slowed the decline of their old fields from about 8 percent to almost 2 percent. Iraq actually hopes to multiply their production by more than 5 times, to 12 mb/d, using the same methods.
That is a joke, a hilarious joke. The IEA apparently thinks it is a joke as well because from the above chart you can see they are predicting a far more modest increase. They will increase production only slightly at best and mitigate the decline slightly at worst. Here is a link to their hopes and a list of their old fields which they hope to boost output by an average of 5 times.
Contractual Incentives and Penalites to Motivate Oil Companies Increase Iraq Oil Production to 12 million barrels per day
Note: Stuart Stanfords chart of their old reservoirs are on this page, and the amount of oil they eventually hope to get. Also the current rate of decline is listed, which Stuart mislabels "depletion". The chart is tiny but if you click on it the chart will open up much larger in a new window.
Ron P.
Given Iraq's rate of increase in consumption in recent years, they have to increase their total liquids production at about 2.5%/year, just to maintain constant net oil exports.
i wonder how much of iraq's electricity production is from burning crude oil or diesel, and how much can be converted to ng, ala usa mid '70's.
Iraq's remote villages are powered by diesel generators as there is no network of gas pipelines in the country. They could not be converted to gas unless a grid is developed to connect them to larger gas powered plants.
Though virtually all gas power plants in the Middle East can burn either oil or gas, I doubt seriously that very much crude oil is used to generate electricity in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is currently burning a lot of crude, or bunker fuel, in their power plants because they have a very high demand for electricity and a shortage of natural gas.
I was not aware that any significant amount of electricity in the US was ever generated using crude oil. I am sure some small company or college boilers burned bunker fuel, but not crude. Wiki says 1% of US electricity is generated by "petroleum" but that probably means diesel or in some cases Bunker Fuels.
Ron P.
wrt the usa, and without getting into the details, oil at ~$80/ barrel would put ng at roughly ~$ 13/mmbtu on an energy equivalent basis,yet the price of ng is closer to $5/mmbtu. i doubt the situation is vastly different in iraq.
this market reality will no doubt drive a conversion to ng where feasible. maybe not in the next year or two or five, but longer term.
i know for a fact that some older plants, such as public service company of colorado's commerce city plant operated on 'flex fuel' in the mid '70's with the ability to utilize crude oil, ng, or coal. i doubt if any crude oil has been burned there in the last 10 years, at least.
the utilization of ng is historically dismal and somewhat less so today, but given a depleting supply of crude oil and a relative abundance of ng in the usa and in iraq, i don's see what else can happen.
Iraqi electricity was 98.5% supplied by oil in 2006. They haven't regained 2002 consumption levels yet, according to JODI. US consumption of petroleum for electricity generation peaked in 1978 at 1.74 mb/d. Table 8.5b Consumption of Combustible Fuels for Electricity Generation: Electric Power Sector, 1949-2008 (Subset of Table 8.5a) For volume the US is still the #3 consumer of petroleum for electricity, behind Japan and Saudi Arabia. As a percentage of total electricity generated petroleum still accounted for 4.1% of fossil fuels in 1990. Residual Fuel oil consumption was at about 40% of its peak 1977 value so figure perhaps 10% of US electrical generation from oil at the peak.
thanks for the reply, klr. wrt saudi arabia, we have this:
Saudi Aramco invites bids for Wasit gas plant
http://arabnews.com/economy/article74630.ece
and,
Aramco Adds 13 Trillion Feet of Non-Associated Gas.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-16/aramco-adds-13-trillion-feet...
that article claims aramco plans to increase ng production by 4.6 bcf/day by 2014, which equates to more than 750,000 bpd on an energy equivalent basis.
the price imbalance in ng -vs- oil doesn't happen in a vacuum, the point of my previous post.
5 tcf annual discoveries, minimum. Makes you wonder why they did all that poking around in the Empty Quarter, which yielded little gas but did give rise to an urban legend of a discovery of a giant skeleton (cool pic herein!)
From above (IEA):
From EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
I have personally been through 5 major hurricane eyes. The majority, if not all the eyes appeared suddenly and the wind virtually stood still. I could always see the stars or a blue sky. The more defined the eye was and the more abrupt the change, the more I got my ass kicked by the other side. Tin.
Been there a couple of times myself, quite an amazing experience.
""That's perverse," Joseph Phillippi, a longtime industry consultant, said of the small car situation. "I say perverse in the sense that we want gasoline prices to go up so we can be successful selling a car that we make maybe 25% of the variable gross profit that you make on the Tahoe.""
Profit, money, so we can make more money, to buy more things!
It makes me a bit sad to think about this and realize that these people don't care that electric cars have a smaller carbon footprint, that they conserve oil...
Nope it's money...
~Dawn
This "instant gratification" attribute of the market economy is what will prevent enough of a response to the looming energy crisis. Something that is several years removed and not widely accepted (since we all know that things last forever) will not drive a market response. Much like the oil price is driven by idiotic considerations about US stocks and not the production capacity of the world.
But the sustained high gasoline price signal, once the production decline passes the discretionary use threshold, will come when it is too late to retool since the economy will be in free fall. The market will not fix peak oil just like it won't fix global warming since it has no ability to respond to long term trends (changes over the decades are not evidence of this ability). Unfortunately these days the government is too afraid of and beholden to corporate interests to steer the economy in the right direction.
My son-in-law is a car salesman. To sell a new economy car, such as the Ford Fiesta, he makes $150 before taxes, social security deductions, etc. No incentive there at all to sell new economy cars. He makes plenty on a top-of-line SUV or full-size truck. Guess what he mostly sells . . . .
Are you implying that American buy full sized SUVs and such because of the persuasive power of the salesmen, rather than their own economic conditions and decisions based on what they need or want?
Certainly your son-in-law can't cause me to buy an SUV if I do not wish it, and if the fuel costs were sufficient to discourage me from wanting one, I would refuse to buy altogether rather than cough up that kind of capital expenditure for something I couldn't drive very much because of its operating cost.
RG, if you think the persuasive power of salespeople have no effect on what gets sold then you are living in La-La Land. That is how they make their money, selling stuff. And the stuff they push is the stuff that gets sole. A good salesman can very easily talk the uninformed, which is the vast majority of people, into buying a larger automobile.
Yes, yes, yes, I would imply that many Americans buy full sized SUVs because of the persuasive power of salesmen.
Ron P.
I didn't say that. But the original implication appeared to be that some dingleberry consumer would rush to buy an SUV at no more than the convincing of a salesman. Certainly I don't go in to a car dealership to buy whatever a salesmen might suggest. Certainly when I go to buy a hybrid I don't change my mind and get a 13mpg pickup truck instead. Are you seriously suggesting that such a change is driven by what the salesman wants to sell?
Sure...if they went in looking for a 4 door pickup. Or something cross-overish which, when the point was made by the salesmen that "look, it only gets 3 mpg les but it has more room!", that I understand. But the idea that the salesman drives what the consumers want...no....that falls into the basic ridiculous premise that consumers are just idiots, all the time, that they don't want anything specific, they just mill around waiting for a salesman to pidgeon hole them and convince them to spend their life savings on something they neither want nor need.
You're making a big assumption that everyone goes into a car dealership with a clear idea of what they want already.
Someone who is unsure of what kind of vehicle to buy, or who has a preference but not a strong one, is an easy target for a salesperson.
Someone like you (or me for that matter) is not, because we know what we want and we don't need a salesperson to help us figure it out.
No...I'm making the assumption that people aren't mindless lemmings who will snap up $40G SUV's rather than $20G sedans based on the recommendation of a stranger with a financial motivation to influence the decision. Such a ridiculous scenario is possible I admit, but I would submit its not as common as the original posters statement seemed to imply.
Certainly I provided myself as an example of why the original concept of "buy what the salesman sells me" as a starting point. For full disclosure, I acquire new cars regularly and am quite familiar with the process.
Quite possibly. No one is saying that the last person who should be influencing a capital investment of that size does, only that it strikes me as ridiculous that they are the final arbiter in a majority of the cases. I know of only one person myself who falls into this category, and the only reason I know of them is because they asked me to help purchase their next car exactly so they WOULDN'T fall victim to these types of shenanigans. Some people do have a difficult time saying no.
I happen to excel at it. :>)
I gotta agree with Ron here. "What would you really get if you could buy the vehicle of your dreams?...I'll make it possible (promotes high cost financing with little down payment)..."
For those customers who know what they want, and what a reasonable price is, the salesman is an ordertaker. For the other half (or three quarter), real sales skills are involved.
Sales data show very clearly that many people base their purchasing decision based on the present price of gasoline, even though they plan to keep the car for 5 to 10 years.
Some people really are stupid and in need of a spanking from the nanny state.
How many times can I say it: What America really needs is $5/gallon gasoline! (That may be up to $8 now.)
If he was implying it, I'll state it outright:
Yes, Americans buy more car than they need because of persuasive salesmen (and marketers).
Most people don't bother to do the economic math, those that do the math are persuadable by a large number of non-economic factors such as perceived safety and social benefits.
I worked as the tech assistant to a salesman for some time, I have watched it happen, do not underestimate the skill of an experienced salesman or the gullibility of their marks.
I have friends in various sales positions. I don't recognize them at their places of employment. They are not the same people in their lair as they are outside of it.
No reasonable car purchaser does. But basic economics easily get in the way of this scheme reaching its logical conclusion. People who are interested in a $20G sedan may only be able to afford a $20G sedan, so no degree of pressure or scheming on the part of an excellent salesmen will allow him to sell this person a $40G SUV. Maybe a $25G cross over instead?
Myself, I value honest sales people, those who recognize that you know the game, are comfortable with what you can spend and want to spend, have played it before, and appreciate a straight up deal (knowing in advance what that means when a trade is involved) rather than someone who pulls the "what can I do to get you to deal today" routine 10 seconds after you walk into the dealership. I've used the same sales person, at the same dealership, for 4 purchases in the past 3 years.
You are an exception, obviously.
Do not extrapolate your experience and merchantile skills to the population as a whole, many people have gotten very wealthy taking the opposite position from yourself.
Perhaps they know something you do not, or are unwilling to accept.
If you can honestly say you never spent more than you wanted to for something you didn't really need because of the wiles of a fast talking salesman you are truly a better man than I, so much better that I would tend to doubt the truth of your claim.
Not when it comes to car buying.
I never said I haven't spent more than I wanted to. How do you think you learn anything in this world? You do it wrong...and you learn your lesson. I can enumerate the hows and why's on every time a salesman got me. And if I fell for the same trick the next time. You don't seriously suggest that people are born with pre-cognitive knowledge on something like buying new cars are you? Its called learning. Everyone should try it.
Now, imagine that half of the country can't learn what you and I have, and half of those who can haven't had the chance to learn it yet.
There you have a massive sales trend favoring whatever gives the salesmen the highest margin.
You've never worked with an ad agency, have you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4iMwEZ8_-s&feature=related
Should you still have any doubts, Try Googling "Oil Spill"
I am a technical specialist, I despise the idea that a rational decision can be interfered with by the Jedi mind tricks gang. So no, never worked with an ad agency, and I mute all commercials on tv as well.
I consider Utube videos to be a root evil in the modern world, substituted as some poor excuse for thought by those who cannot present an argument utilizing numbers, footnotes or proper documentation as to why their idea might be better than someone elses.
I plugged oil spill into my browser and got the wiki for it, and something on the Exxon Valdez. Gulf Coast Oil news was the 4th item down.
What was your point? That I need to read a Wiki to understand oilspills? I'm created them (accidently and on purpose), cleaned them up on land and water, and am glad I don't have to any more.
Thank you for your dispatches from the land of lollipops and moonbeams. Confessions of a Car Salesman
You could trawl through Google Scholar for something more rigorous if so inclined.
Jedi mind tricks gangs run the world...get over it. Human's psyches are ultimately malleable and influenced by emotional stimuli -- which is what has driven them to bigger and bigger automobiles, trucks SUVs etc.. It's no coincidence that these vehicles are also more profitable. Marketing researchers have been studying this for years. They believe that 99% of purchase decisions have zero to do with rationality and everything to do with emotion and subconscious "reptilian brain" triggers.
More evil -- PBS special," The Persuaders"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2L4ZGnjAQw
That there is an industry that is built on top of long term research on how to sell things to people who wouldn't otherwise need them.
So you want to kill the messenger? You are truly living in the past if you can't grasp that there is real and valuable content to be found in many places including YouTube videos, it is just one more medium for transmitting information. Have you never watched a documentary or science or technical lecture in video format?
BTW the YouTube link I provided, assuming you take the time to watch the two parts, might be worth the educational experience.
As for googling "Oil Spill" the first hit is BPs propaganda site for disseminating disinformation about how well they are doing to make things right and to present themselves as the good guys. They are using precisely the same kind of knowledge that all advertisers use to persuade consumers to believe something that isn't necessarily the truth or what they need.
So do I!
Though I'd much rather be well versed in those trick so that I might recognize them when someone tries to use them on me.
For the record I haven't watched TV since 2005 but I have worked in sales and advertising. Currently I run a business and don't use those techniques on my customers, even though I could.
So I'm not all that far from your disgust at manipulating the innocent. Life ain't fair, and it doesn't hurt to know the enemy... your choice if you wan't to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality, go for it!
Yes. But after having seen the Utube version used as a substitute for thinking during peak oil arguments, I basically have just given up completely on them. Nature programs on discovery channel sometimes, I don't figure I'm being lied to that much there. Or that it matters if they are.
Learning by doing doesn't strike me as sticking my head in the sand. One of the nice things about buying cars is that it involves numbers. I'm hell on wheels with a calculator.
I rarely bother with videos either, from simply being impatient; generally their content could as easily be summarized in a paragraph, instead of imposing on the viewer the burden of watching 10+ minutes of whatever.
Still, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the majority of car purchases are made by informed buyers wholly in control of what they are doing. You have so far provided the single data point of yourself.
Not at all. I did not provide anything more than a personal anecdote as an example as to why salesmen cannot cause an informed buyer to buy one vehicle over another if the buyer has 3 functioning neurons to rub together. If you wish to allow yourself to be "sold" to claim otherwise, fine, go buy a $40G SUV instead of a $20G honda hybrid, come back and tell us how wonderful it worked out for you. Others here obviously understand the difference between buying what you need versus walking in to the dealership looking for a Chevy and coming out with a Mercedes, so it is hardly a foreign concept. I object to the general assumption that all people are just stupid all the time as a matter of course, particularly when ground truthing that I am aware of goes in the opposite direction.
That completely miss the point. The point is, long before you get to a show room, or start to negotiate a price you have already been sold a bill of goods that you're not even aware of.
Your emotional levers and buttons have been pushed and pulled and you have been strung along.
Parasitic memes of power and virility and status have been inserted into your psyche. You are like a mouse that has been parasitized by Toxoplasmosis. You are an easy mark. You have been set up long before you pick up the calculator that gives you the illusion of control.
A bit off topic but at least it's not a YouTube video.
http://www.economist.com/node/16271339
Of course the cats are also being manipulated but that's whole another chapter...
Your assumption appears to be that I have been "sold" by the very culture I was born into, confusing cars with desirable objects, that sort of thing. As a philosophical point, it is difficult for anyone to completely separate themselves from the culture they are born and immersed in, a point which has as much to do with Romans, Islam and american car buyers.
My normal response to such a point is, America is enough of a free country that you can do something about it, if you don't like who you are, where you were born, or the system you are in, or philosophically disagree with the culture you THINK you are inside, leave. Find another. Live in the woods and eat roots and tubers. Go find another way to be happy. Free will is a wonderful thing, utilize it. I will do the same.
LOL! Free will?! Love it or leave it? Have you run out of rational arguments or something?
Let me quote for you from PZ Myers' post over at Phyaryngula today about reality, I don't think I could say it much better than he, He is talking about religious delusion but it also works for the brand you seem to be suffering from... Free country? ROFLMAO! Perhaps you are part of the ruling class. Let me guess you believe in free market capitalism too?
Sunday Sacrilege: So alone "Reality is harsh man!"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/sunday_sacrilege_so_alone.php
Free will my arse!
Culture is culture. Advertising is advertising. Religion is religion. I certainly do not claim wisdom on any of these topics.
I'm not even certain I would use the word "rational" in relation to any of those topics either.
For an honest discussion of these types of topics, you should probably look elsewhere, I really am not qualified to debate the number of angels which can dance on a pin, the existential difference between culture and advertising or the moral advantage to being, say, an African bushman versus the average American consumer.
deleted double post.
However I leave you with a link to Daniel Dennett's lecture on science disproving free will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E
A gift!
I had the pleasure of seeing Dennett speak at the Portland, Maine library years ago. What struck me: His warm personality, an amalgam of Santa Claus and John Cleese.
Whew! What a revealing thread.
and part of the reason us carmakers must sell high end vehicles to a gullible public is because of the imbedded health care costs us auto makers have to pick up. it makes it difficult to compete with foreign auto makers with a more sane and sound health care system.
your son-in-law is lucky, he has a product the oh so sophisticated dumbed down public is eager to buy, but is it sustainable ?
Of course BAU is unsustainable: That is one point on which the great majority of TOD members agree. Indeed, if I thought BAU was sustainable, I wouldn't be reading or making comments on TOD. My son-in-law sees the handwriting on the wall for the car industry--but selling cars is the only way he knows to make $70,000 to 100,000 per year, as a sales manager.
Yep. I know that my 'industry' won't last forever either...but it what I am qualified to do thanks to my prior 20+ year experiences...so I can make pretty good coin for as long as I can...I am a debt slave with a family with expectations...I would love to make money, even taking a modest pay cut, to install solar and/or wind systems or some such, but that is not where the jobs are for me now...
Reminds me of real estate brokers.
In 2006, my broker tried everything to get me into an ARM (even no-money-down-interest-only) when I bought my house. The broker incentives, apparently, were better than for fixed-rate.
I insisted, however, on the fixed rate mortgage, at a slightly higher interest rate. I was reading the "crash alerts" at that time. Believe me, they were out there...
She was pretty upset with me - the cash incentives at the time, for ARMs, were pretty substantial, as I understand it. That pesky little risk-reward ratio...
And, as they say, the rest is history...
Salespeople, for the most part, don't sell you the product that is best for you, they sell you the one they get the best incentives to sell.
Unless you are a particularly well-researched, knowledgeable and stubborn buyer.
As far as big SUVs go, I would expect incentives for selling them to increase, so dealers don't get stuck with obsolete inventory on their lots.
and to some extent the same principle may apply to your doctor, he/she may prescribe what works for them. increasing the dosage of a drug that isn't working is an example.
Yes it gets down to "everyone has an angle", the what's in it for me syndrome. Even if it's good for the boss, ultimately that means you are still looking after number one.
With vehicle sales though. The profit is in the options and extras, after sales, trade vehicle and vehicle service.
There is not a great margin to move on price. Most people research on the internet prior to purchasing. They know what the price is, what options they need and the color. They research the price of the vehicle they are trading, simply by looking at private sales on the many websites devoted to that industry.
I've purchased many new cars and I think I've been influenced far more by advertising, glossy brochures and word or mouth more than any wet behind the ears salesperson. The day of those jokers hooking people in is well and truly over, they've been killed by the internet and competition. I think it's the salespersons' job is ensure the buyer doesn't get into LESS than they can afford.
Maybe GM should just sell the plans and tooling and technology and marketing rights for the Cruze and the Volt and anything else they have on the drawing board that gets more than 18 MPG to the Japanese car companies.
That way they can focus on their longer-term strategy - going out of business.
In '97 i bought a Honda Civic DX Hatchback from a dealer. I did my homework and knew what I wanted and what the dealer paid for the vehicle. They almost refused to show me the car, instead trying to push me into a larger SUV type vehicle, implying that I was a pussy and that my girlfriend would like the bigger car better. To make matters worse, I was paying cash. Regardless, I got what I wanted but I really hate fighting with pushy car sales folk. Yuk. Oh, and by the way, that Honda model got 40 mpg in 97 - fantastic car!
Then, when I went to get a new vehicle in '02, guess what? Honda stopped selling that model in the US. They still sold them all over the world, but not in the US. They only had larger, beefier, low mileage models available for the US.
This is true for all of the car companies - they make better, more fuel efficient vehicles and sell them in other countries but not in the US. Two big examples are the VW Polo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Polo and Ford Ka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ka
To add insult to injury, while producing these products overseas, they lobby the congress to avoid higher mileage standards and lie to the US public that they can't produce these products. They really play the US population for suckers - which we are.
What I have never understood is why people go for these large cars - they cost more, are less safe, and get lower mileage - so they cost more to buy and to keep on the road. WTF? It's like a caveman with the biggest stick - very primitive.
There's another painful myth that is used to sell the larger cars - that they are more safe. What a joke. We used to live in the mountains in Colorado, and it was always the SUV's driving off the side of the road in storms. Because of the false sense of security those vehicles engender, people get all cavalier on the roads - they think it's like the ads they see on TV. They also have poor visibility and overpowered engines making them more difficult to drive, as well as too high a center of gravity which makes them less stable.
As far as the business model of the SUV, my understanding is that the miracle of the SUV is that they could take their cheapest vehicle - a pickup truck - add $50 of shiny plastic to it, and then sell it for $10,000+ more. Now that's an economic miracle.
I also had the good fortune to work with the GM EV-1 marketing team (I have worked in advertising - and if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be the massive industry it is). GM never planned to successfully market the EV-1. The goal was to put it out there and have it fail - to prove that people didn't want it so they could continue BAU.
Ditto all of the above for the US housing market - so many suckers buying huge houses they can't afford and don't need. Massive energy waste at every level.
I like big cars and used to drive them: Perhaps my alltime favorite car was a 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis station wagon, that got good gas mileage at 55 to 60 miles per hour but much less at the 80 m.p.h. I drive on the freeways. It's hereditary: My father liked to drive at 80 m.p.h. in his last car, a most excellent 1949 Rocket 88 Hydramatic woody station wagon from Oldsmobile. I say, bring back the woodies!
Currently I like luxury cars and drive a 1993 Audi CS 100 station wagon that I bought for $4,000 cash about seven or eight years ago. It has 237,000 miles on it, and I plan to keep it at least until 250,000 miles. Why buy a new Ford Fiesta when an old Audi is a much better car and much cheaper (considering depreciation as an expense) to drive. So it takes premium gas--so what? Gasoline is cheap and may get cheaper for a few years--especially if the economy stagnates or takes a dive due to debt deflation.
i have no beef with folks that buy used cars, maintain them properly, and get lots of value out of them. it's with the auto companies that use deceptive marketing to sell inferior products at over-inflated prices, and lie to the public about their ability to improve gas mileage.
here's a chart of historical fuel efficiency from 1990 to 2009: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/...
efficiency went up - slightly - from 20.3 mpg in 1990 to 22.5 mpg in 2009.
now think about the computer you are using to read this blog, and compare that to the computer you were using in 1990. in 1990, my computer ran at a blazing 40mhz and cost almost $5000. today, my computer runs at over 2ghz - a 50x increase - and costs under $1000. if you want to get really nutty, look at the price of data storage per megabyte over the same period.
why haven't we seen similar major advances in vehicle performance?
Brian,
Surely you jest in your last question. A car is nothing like a computer. Improvements in internal combustion engines have been slow, and marginal ones at best. The main material used in 1910 for cars was steel (though some wood and fabric was used, and of course some lead, some copper, etc.) The main material used in 2010 is steel, though we do use more and more plastic and aluminum--and practically no wood or fabric anymore, except maybe in convertible tops. In other words, cars have maybe doubled in quality since the Model T, but that is about all. Packards had air conditioning back around 1938, and in my opinion, air conditioning was the last major improvement made to cars. We don't really need automatic transmissions and GPS devices and fancy sound systems in our cars. Most of the "changes" made to cars nowadays are really minor things, though I will admit that the cars of today are much safer than the cars of even 1960. Compulsory seat belt use has greatly increased safety, window glass is better now, and brakes are better than they used to be, so there have been some significant improvements in autos, but these improvements have been slow and incremental.
I would not mind driving today my father's 1937 Buick; it was a fine car and cost only $800 when new, but of course that was a lifetime ago, when the dollar still had its traditional value that held from about 1800 to 1940. It was a more comfortable car, with better seats and more head and shoulder room than any car I know of that is made today. Also, the engine could be started with a crank, so you never had to worry about a dead battery.
Ask yourself if you'd be willing to cut the size of your car in half every two years, and there's your answer.
Autonomous vehicle advances have been amazing.
Yes, America has the infrastructure for only cars, so the citizens are a captive market and can`t choose not to buy a car. But in Japan that is not the case. If people want to ride their bikes, wait a bit for the bus, take the train or walk, they can get pretty much anywhere they want. So the car makers have to offer products that compete with public transportation and bicycles......not an easy feat! Just ask me, I travel everywhere on my 12 year old Miyata 3 speed bicycle. What a pleasure this is,by the way, and so economical. I think the alternatives to autos are even more convenient and less expensive in "less developed" countries. Having no car is really a huge advantage now----that is why the less developed economies are "growing". Spend your money on food, not metal and petroleum.
I wish there could be a huge anti-car movement that would find its biggest voice and presence in the US first. Sort of like the anti-smoking thing. You know: bad for the planet, bad for your body, bad for your pocketbook, bad for the GOMexico....We need to turn against these machines before they utterly destroy what little is left of our natural world.
Now there is and ad campaign I could wholeheartedly support!
I could easily imagine a warning sign on all new cars in the showroom and on the dashboard much like the one on a pack of cigarettes...
In Australia since March 1, 2006, graphic images depicting the effects of smoking cigarettes have been required to be displayed on cigarette packets. Warnings must cover 30% of the front and 90% of the back of the box.[1] The 10% of the back not occupied by a warning is used for the message "Sale to underage persons prohibited".
How about pictures of oil soaked birds on the price sticker of a new car!
Or: using this car kills this much of the environment per mile driven...
Then make an appropriate list and change "Smoking Causes" from the list below to "Using Oil in an ICE Causes"
For cigarette packets, warnings include:
* Smoking causes peripheral vascular disease
* Smoking causes emphysema
* Smoking causes mouth and throat cancer
* Smoking clogs your arteries
* Don't let children breathe your smoke
* Smoking - A leading cause of death
* Quitting will improve your health
* Smoking harms unborn babies
* Smoking causes blindness
* Smoking causes lung cancer
* Smoking causes heart disease
* Smoking doubles your risk of stroke
* Smoking is addictive
* Tobacco smoke is toxic
* Smoking worsens asthma.
With each warning is an accompanying graphic of the consequences of global warming, obesity, oil spills etc...
NB Power is a financial basket case -- the utility is drowning in a sea of debt; electricity rates in the province are on the rise; domestic load growth is faltering due to a decline in the industrial base and competition from other energy sources; and its export opportunities have been severely curtailed due to weak markets south of the border, unfavourable currency exchange rates and aggressive competition from Hydro-Québec. To boot, one of its major hydro-electric dams will require rebuilding due to serious structural deficiencies, and the refurbishment of its Point Lepeau nuclear reactor is three years behind schedule and each day it is out of service costs the utility another $1,000,000.00 in replacement power. The solution? Build another nuclear power plant !
Areva official confirms meeting on Lepreau 2
See: http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/1110946
Best hope for a strong dose of sanity.
Cheers,
Paul
Re: What Weathermen Know About Climate Change
As noted in the link, many people who are called "weathermen" don't have much educational background in the atmospheric sciences. They may be good technicians, but they don't understand the underlying science. Worse, their focus is on "weather", which usually means "storms", not on the causes of the storms. One often hears comments such as "the storm PULLED moisture (or cold air or ?) from A to B", which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the underlying processes. Simply put, a fluid can not PULL on anything, except by the viscous forces as the fluid velocity is different from that said to be pulled. As such, the claim that moisture is PULLED from the Gulf of Mexico to the north over the SE US in a storm system or the claim that a storm PULLS cold air to the US from Canada is incorrect.
In such cases, the large air mass movements of the atmospheric circulation are the cause of the storms. Warm air flows toward the poles due to the fact that the atmosphere is thicker over the tropics than over the poles. This flow of warm air must be balanced by a return flow of colder air that is denser than the warm air. The Coriolis Effect causes these air masses to rotate as the result of their motion. The collision of warm and cold airmasses along fronts results in the creation of cyclonic circulations called "storms". Weather people, such as one finds on The Weather Channel, often get this exactly backwards and their repeated presentations to the public result in the public's continued lack of understanding of the basics of weather.
E. Swanson
Well, given that a low pressure area surrounded by higher pressure air results in forces pointed at the center of the low pressure area, and that most storms are low pressure areas, do you have a better word than pull for what is happening?
In addition to being technicians they are also translators, and need to present information in a form that the less sophisticated members of their audience can understand.
Yes, their presentations of what is happening wouldn't pass muster in an academic or professional setting, but for what they are doing it is exactly right.
I like to use an analogy, comparing pulling with a fluid to trying to push on an outstretched rope. Neither one works that way...
The air does not flow into the center of the low pressure cell or vortex. It flows around the center. The centrifugal force of the vortex produces the lower pressure in the center. If the air actually pushed into the center of the vortex, the vortex would rapidly be filled and the pressure would be equalized. As a result, the storm would disappear in minutes. Vortexes in a fluid are somewhat like gyroscopes, once formed, they tend to continue to spin until friction slows them down thru dissipation of their energy...
E. Swanson
More accurately the fluid is initially accelerated towards lower pressure, corriolis forces and any preexisting vorticity cause some component that is parrallel to the lines of equal pressure. When the centripetal forces balance the pressure difference infilling of the low presure ends. Because of dissapational loses, it never gets that far. More friction means lower wind speeds, and ironically faster infilling. Generally it is the latent heat represented by water vapor condensing into clouds that drives the system.
But, I have to agree, the weathermans job is to dumb it down so much that the dumbasses who are dumb enough to buy the products advertised on the show don't feel intellectualy challenged. Antropomorphising the storms is one way of doing that, and it leads to pushing and pulling type psuedo explanations.
Unfortunately educated people have proven (on average) no better at filtering the good information from the bad and let political gut biases control what information they believe and what they reject. We see that with TV weathermen, they don't have the skills to objectivly evaluate climate science, so they let their political biases control their thinking.
Yes, your description would apply to typical convective storms such as the thunder storms in the Plains which pop up at the end of a day of solar heating or the Tropical Cyclones (hurricanes) formed over the warm waters of the tropics. The warm/wet air mass near the surface tends to rise as the cooler, denser air near by is pulled below it. As the air mass rises, the pressure and temperature drops and when the dew point is reached, the moisture begins to condense. That releases energy, which keeps the air mass warm and continues the tendency for the air mass to be displaced by the cooler air and to gain more altitude, continuing the process.
I think there's little circulation in small storms, but the larger "super cell" storms do produce violent circulation, such as tornadoes. Hurricanes form near the Equator, where there is little Coriolis Effect, which may be why there are so few in the South Atlantic.
Since the a storm over the Yucatan, Alex, is attracting lots of attention, I think it's interesting that there appears to be something forming just east of the Bahamas, roughly 25N67W . If it develops closed circulation, things could get interesting for Florida in a couple of days...
E. Swanson
I agree with BD. The weatherman dumb the explanations down so much and they repeat it so often that they then likely use that as their intuitive basis for most of what they see. And then their intuition completely fails them when confronted with AGW. They simply have not kept their analytical and reasoning skills sharp, so we should never use weathermen as a bellweather (so to speak) to judge AGW.
My absolute favourite evidence in all this discussion is that weathermen always refer to a normal temperature for today. They will never ever say mean or average unless you find an iconoclastic weatherman. Since they are dumbing down for an audience, I know they want to use "normal" to mean the one temperature that it should be today instead of some average value with a variance. Don't snow me that normal is short for Normal as in Gaussian, because the audience wouldn't understand that either. A large fraction of the audience wants a black&white prediction because that is what their theological outlook accepts, and the commercial weathermen oblige, knowing that the educated portion of their audience will sigh, and accept this intentional dumbing down.
In this case normal means what it should be and anything else is abnormal. And then this also explains why weatherman are always blamed for their inaccurate forecasts. They always chuckle along with this because they realize they brought it on themselves! The customer is always right and the weatherman play along and become irrelevant for making pronouncements on science.
Weather forcasting is for a max of ten days, but more usually 3-5 days. A one percent change in the energy balance is irrelevant on this time scale, so it is not surprising that weathermen would ignore GW, as the total forcing is only around 1% of the solar input and outgoing energy. So simple intuition probably says that since at a typical temperate lattitude solar radiation varies by roughly 3times summer to winter so a 1% change is too small to worry about.
Wind speed is completely predictable in any specific region. I could forecast wind and be 100% right all the time. All I would do day after day is say is say that wind will follow the Rayleigh probability distribution with a mean speed. I would be exactly right because every wind speed would have its own probability that we can account for.
And you wonder why there is a lack of regard for--indeed, hostility toward--the sciences with the public-at-large?
You combine spelling errors--illiteracy, really--with a condescending attitude and a preference for jargon over plain English.
As Big Daddy said: "If you've got to use language like that about a thing, it's ninety-proof bull, and I ain't buying any!"
The techies and nerds have tons to learn about dealing with the "dumbasses" whose taxes sometimes fund their research.
(I took meteorology, climatology, and geology at college level and happen to know that there are simple ways of describing things.)
The "techies and nerds" use jargon because they need terms with precise and well-understood definitions in order to accurately and precisely communicate information. Hand-waving terms won't do; you can't pin down what you mean or do useful analysis with it. The "nerds" have even taken common words like "work" and, in context, understand them to mean "the integral of force over distance". Energy is "the ability to do work". All can be precisely quantified and (most importantly) defined.
If you don't understand the language of the "techies and nerds" of a given field, you can't understand the issues of that field. The post-modernists baffle with b***s*** using terms which have no firm definition; "nailing jello to a tree" is a common analogy for trying to pin a PoMo down to specifics. Physics, chemistry, engineering, fluid dynamics and all the rest are more precise than you can possibly grasp. Not because it's impossible, but because the intellectual laziness which produces comments like the above replaces understanding with confirming of prejudices.
Many of them are good on TV but not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. One can be too pedantic, though. My brother gets enraged at the expression "dew fall." Shouts "Dew doesn't fall; it condenses!"
I'm more worried about blatant disinfo or misinfo on History Channel, Discovery, even public TV. Their graphics are even worse; they will splash a completely wrong diagram on screen, unable to comprehend their own material.
It can be pretty irritating. Generally it appears to me to be more editorial ignorance than agenda driven. At least we can hope that acidental disinformation will in the long run average out (i.e. act as noise), whereas agenda driven misinformation is more dangerous as it is less likely to be countered.
I always wondered about this. It's touted as an efficient use as far as that goes. Certainly different fuel or power is needed in the future. But, anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_steam_system
Times of London recants "climategate" emails story, months later:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/25/climategate_retra...
Well, I hope this is off topic but it does include the spectra of low gasoline prices.
What everyone forgets in this country is the geopolitical perspective in the world that can change everything in an instant. One of these situations is in the the gulf region of the Middle East. Iran as you know, has been developing nuclear technology in violation of U.N. resolutions. Of course, Israel can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, period. The Sunni Muslims don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either since it would give them absolute control in the region. Saudi Arabia and Egypt has made it clear, they do not want a nuclear arms race in the region. So what does this mean?
Saudi Arabia has given permission for Israel to fly over their airspace and have been conducting exercises with their air defense and missile system to stand down when large numbers of Israeli aircraft fly over even though they deny it. Israel has already moved their nuclear submarines in the Gulf. They do not believe that sanctions on Iran will work and out of self preservation are preparing to attack.
Ahmadinejad has already announced many times that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and is using proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to be prepared and has been supplying them with missiles through Syria. They are now stronger then before the war with Israel.
What you don't hear about is the fact that Ahmadinejad believes he is anointed by God to usher in the 12th Imam, the Madhi or Messiah who will spread Islam throughout the world. Actually, he's quite mad. He believes that he cannot lose any war since God is on his side. The Revolutionary Guard is the real power base in control of Iran not the politicians or clergy which is quite evident from their suppression of the Green or Reform movement after their elections. If you read Ahmadinejad speeches, you swear that he is the reincarnation of Hitler. He wants an Islamic flag flying from every capital in the world.
What people don't know is the fact that if Israel or America attacks Iran, Ahmadinejad has stated he will launch his missiles which he has, thanks to North Korea, to take out every oil refinery, oil field and port in the entire Gulf region. In addition he has the power to close down the Straits of Hormuz with sea mines. He has the capability and capacity to do so.
So if people want to purchase 13mpg SUV's and Trucks then go ahead as there will be a shortage in the very near future.
I have the documentation to back this up.
Sometimes what men say they believe, and what they actually believe, are different.
Seems like we have been expecting the US to attack Iran, or Israel to attack Iran or Iran to attack everyone for years. But from what I have read I agree that Ahmadinejad is probably quite mad, so who knows.
In any case, even without the End of the World starting in the Middle East, IMO the auto centric suburban way of life in the US started dying in 2005.
Over the past four years and twenty-two weeks I think I have seen more than 100 comments to the effect that the U.S. is imminently planning to attack Iran. All twaddle and nonsense, as I said a few years ago in another comment of mine (which I'm tempted to look up and repost). There have been perhaps 50 comments to the effect that Israel is about to attack Iran, which will then build up to a third world war.
Now I'm not saying Israel won't attack Iran someday--being repeatedly provoked will lead Israel to retaliate sooner or later. My guess is that they will fly in commandos rather than try to bomb Iran's nuclear capability, as they did so effectively against Iraq, some thirty years ago or thereabouts, if memory serves. Note that the Arab states hate and fear Iran, just as much as Israel does. Thus it is plausible that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will facilitate Israel's eventual attack on Iran, which will take place with the blessing of the U.S., and, indeed, a great sigh of relief by U.S. officials. (Thus everybody will blame Israel for attacking a Muslim country instead of the U.S. having to attack, invade, and occupy Iran.)
No need to fear that all the oilfields and refineries will go up in smoke. Iran has few if any accurate cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles are not accurate enough to do the job. If Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz, then the U.S., Britain, Denmark, and I think the Dutch and some other European countries will bring in quite a flotilla of minesweepers to dispose of the mines--hence, not a big deal.
I tend to agree with your last paragraph. I would estimate that we might have some Patriot PAC-3 batteries on the Gulf coast, and I wouldn't be surprised in we have some THAAD batteries in there as well...and of course USN Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class DDGs have AN/SPY-1 phased array radar/battle-management systems directing Standard SM-2/3 missiles, all these are ABM-capable. In addition, there are more than enough advanced U.S. and KSA etc. fighters to fend off Iranian aircraft.
And any BMD, ASM, and/or mine attack by Iran, regardless of prior provocation, would result in a whole lot of Iranian aim-points exploding, IMHO.
As far as the rest, for better or for worse, unless Iran changes course, it will be attacked in some manner with the goal of disabling its nuclear program. If success isn't initially achieved, things will likely escalate until we have another U.S.-led invasion and multiyear occupation on our hands.
Pakistan and India and NK joining the club are one thing, and that is bad enough. The line will be held at Iran. Not fair, since it is widely assumed that Israel is packing? Life isn't fair. It is widely believed that Israel isn't going to unless the fires unless its existence is threatened. That warm fuzzy doesn't exist in the case of Iran. Simple as that.
This is will probably get me in trouble*, but here goes:
The dustup over Iran's nuclear program is a bit overblown. There are several Nations with Nuclear weapons capability who choose not to advertise the fact. (Specifically Israel, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa to name a few.) Nuclear weapons capability is well understood, and is only inhibited by possession of fissile-grade plutonium. With enough money, nothing can stop a Nation-state from developing organic Nuclear weapons.
Iran has to stay integrated into the world economy by virtue of it's export-dependent economy. This alone provides enough incentive to keep them from going rogue. On the other hand, I'm more concerned about a nation like North Korea, which by it's economic isolation has much less to lose by throwing Nukes around.
*No, I cannot provide empirical proof my assertions. Nor would I care to reveal I had such proof, which I don't...
Hmmm...in one case you perhaps you are behind the times...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/index.html
In another case, you suspicions perhaps may be warranted, but I personally would be surprised if the deal has been sealed yet, but what do I know?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/index.html
In the third case, well, here is one organization's estimate....
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
NorthtoAlaska wrote:
Are you suggesting that conflict with Iran would result in:
a) Fewer SUV's and PU's being manufactured, since there won't be enough fuel around to run them, therefore Detroit will stop making them? or,
b) The demand for those gas guzzlers will skyrocket as society slips rapidly into chaos and disorder??
As for the rest of it, I think we've heard it all before from the neocons, the Zionist hawks and the likes of Palin and Beck. Not that it might not play out that way, but there are several problems with the scenario, such as what would happen in Saudi Arabia if their sales of crude were cut off and their income crashes or what might happen to US support for Israel if they get the blame for an attack and subsequent war with Iran. Then too, what if the US Navy were to find that Iran really could take out our ships, particularly, aircraft carriers, like they claim? BTW, Iran doesn't need to mine the Straits to stop the tanker traffic, just shoot a missile at one, by mistake of course...
E. Swanson
I think it is a bit questionable to take the claim that Amedinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map at face value. That was taken out of context, the real context was he wanted to replace the government of Israel with one less hostile to the Palestinians. But lots of people with agendas have deliberately or otherwise misconstrued that. No doubt we cannot be sure of his motivations, and the military mind believes in "expecting the worst", and that sort of thinking might prevail in Tel Aviv and Washington, but it is only one possibile interpretation among many. Same with the Israels and Saudi cooperation issue. At this point it is an unconfirmed rumour denied by either party.
I think the Amedinejad wants to conquer the world for Islam makes no more sense than the fact that some Christians want to conquer the world for their own religion. Shiism is a minority sect of Islam and Iran would have great difficulty controling other Islamic (Sunni) states, let alone nonIslamic ones.
Would Iran plus Nukes be able to diminate the region? Does Pakistan dominate central asia, now that she has Nukes? Can Chine push Korea, Japan, and/or Vietnam around? she has a far more capable nuclear arsenal than Iran ever would.
Nevertheless, your point, that something could go horrible wrong, and within a few heartbeats the geoploitical situation could seriously deteriorate is a correct one. The most likely cause would seem to be:
(1) North Korea/South Korea getting out of control.
and
(2) Overblown fears of Iran leading to an Israeli strike on Iran.
I think an unbiased assesment will give either of these scenarios well under 50% odds of happening. But, that doesn't mean the possibility can be ignored.
I apologize for all the links but there is so much evidence on this topic all one has to do is read these reports which are too lengthy in detail too many links to list but here are a few.
Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi
http://www.meforum.org/1985/ahmadinejad-and-the-mahdi
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/05/07/49515.html
A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html?test=latestnews
Jesus, Mahdi both coming,says Iran's Ahmadinejad
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53430
Ahmadinejad & Israel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR200608...
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=119024§ionid=3510303
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/23/revolutionary-guard-hold...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6371EY20100408
Iran has also warned against any military steps against its nuclear program.
After several warnings that it would hit back at Israel if attacked from there, Iran's military chief said Thursday he would target U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East if Washington attacked.
"If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.
U.S. troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a military ceremony, Firouzabadi said a strike on Iran would also put oil supplies at risk.
"If America wants to have the region's oil and its markets then the region's markets would be taken away from America and the Muslims' control over oil would increase," he said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.
'Devastating response'if Iran nukes attacked
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40346
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece
From the Woodrow Wilson Foundation
Iran's small Navy has a potent force of anti-ship missiles such as the Russian built SS-N-22 Sunburn or Chinese built C-802, and could sink any oil tankers headed for the U.S. and help cut our oil supply in the narrow Strait Of Hormuz. And Iran could launch missile attacks on their mainly Sunni religious rival, Saudi Arabia. Using improved GPS tracking and their satellites in orbit, Iran could also aim missiles at the American forces in Iraq and make our ground bases very vulnerable to such lethal missile attacks. With a big population of about 65.4 million persons, Iran could quickly respond with massive ground force to invade Iraq and attempt a ground push on towards Israel as well.
I didn't want to get into an Iranian vs. Israel discussion but just to emphasize the fact that few people consider the geopolitical landscape concerning the availability of oil.
Once again, Ahmadinejad has not many times announced that he wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. He has expressed the opinion that Israel will disappear, a victim of its contradictions and misdeeds. Further Ahmadinejad is only President of Iran, not Supreme Leader, who is Ali Khamenei. His mouth is bigger than his power.
And Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as Israel does. Iran isn't a nice country, but it hasn't attacked another country recently. Instead, it has been the victim of a CIA coup and aggression by Iraq (sponsored by the West).
mudduck,
With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Every day Iran actively attacks Israel through its proxies in Syria and in the Gaza strip. I am surprised that the Israelis have shown the remarkable restraint that they have. Their patience is worn thin, and may well be near the breaking point. Iran's nuclear capability will be destroyed, just as assuredly as Iraq's was.
Israel will only use its nuclear weapons in retaliation for a strike against it with weapons of mass destruction. Anybody who has genuinely studied the history of the Middle East knows that.
Don, your comment suggests that you think the Palestinians have no grievance against Israel.
That same sort of logic was applied in the 1950's to the North Vietnamese, i.e., that they were fighting a proxy war for the Chinese (or the Soviets) after the Chinese took over mainland China and later sent troops into North Korea. At the time, the Viet Cong were fighting to unify their country and to expel the colonial French. After the US backed away from the elections promised in the Geneva conference, which was to settle the war after the defeat of the French, the situation eventually led to the direct involvement of US troops in the 1960's.
I think the Palestinians would be fighting the Israelis even if there were no support from Iran or Syria. The Israelis were the aggressors, repeatedly taking land from the Palestinians over decades of insults. I find no sympathy for them...
E. Swanson
No doubt about it, Israel did commit aggression against the Palestineans, just as the U.S. committed 300 years of genocides, relocations, and wars against Native Americans. Most Native Americans have given up revanchist claims, and I think it is only a matter of time before the oil money runs out and the Palestineans can no longer suck at the teat of Arab oil. The Palestineans will fade away and be forgotten, just as (very largely) the Native Americans have.
Israel is in a far better position to survive declining oil production than are any of the Arab oil states. The Palestineans have never had a state, and probably they never will.
Aren't you attempting to force Arab culture and history into a Western version of civilization? The people in Palestine lived for generations on land passed down thru family ownership. That they did not have a Western style system of surveying and recordation of land ownership does not imply that they didn't own the land. As I recall, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until after WW I, thus there was no separate state. There was no Iraq or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia either. These too were Western constructs created by the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after WW I.
As for what will happen as oil production declines, consider that there will still be oil available from the Persian Gulf after Peak Oil. The price of that oil is likely to be much greater and might include a demand that the US shift it's support away from Israel. Could Israel really continue to do well if it loses its status as a US ally/proxy in the region and then must go it alone?
E. Swanson
The U.S. alliance with Israel is a two-way street, with the U.S. benefiting from the alliance just as much as Israel does. For example, Israeli intelligence in the Middle East discovers important facts that were overlooked by U.S. intelligence agencies; the Israelis have more and better agents in place in Arab countries than does the U.S. When the U.S. was running out of 5.56 m.m. ammunition for its assault rifles in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel helped to supply this ammunition to prevent our troops from running out of ammo for the basic infantry weapon. But mainly, the U.S. relies on Israel to do its dirty work: In particular, the U.S. is standing by and waiting for Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities--probably at a significant cost in casualties--so the U.S. will not have to attack, invade, and occupy Iran. In other words, Israel is saving the U.S. from getting involved in a third war--a war it does not have the resources (men, money, machines) to fight at this time.
Yup, that sort of activity would make Israel a US proxy state. So, why is it then wrong for the Palestinians to act similarly in regards to Iran?
E. Swanson
Black Dog,everybody
Nature doesn't recognize such terms as right and wrong.
The proper descriptive terminology is "us" and "them".
Don't forget your Darwin. ;)
We may or may not have made some bad decisions in this part of the world;my opinion is that we have ,but at the time and under the circumstances, mzybe they were good decisions, hindsight and all that bother you know all about.
But for now we have no choice but to play the cards in our hand, we can't just get up and walk away from the game.
"Aren't you attempting to force Arab culture and history into a Western version of civilization? The people in Palestine lived for generations on land passed down thru family ownership. That they did not have a Western style system of surveying and recordation of land ownership does not imply that they didn't own the land."
Oh, yes they did. The Ottoman Empire surveyed the region thoroughly in the 1850s. The Ottomans were well aware of the "Western constructs" that they needed to adopt if they wanted their empire to survive, and they tried, in earnest. When Lawrence of Arabia took Damascus, he took a city with working railroads, electricity, telephones, access to a refinery on the coast. Obsession with the propriety or impropriety of applying "Western constructs" outside the West is itself, well, a "Western construct."
"As for what will happen as oil production declines, consider that there will still be oil available from the Persian Gulf after Peak Oil. The price of that oil is likely to be much greater and might include a demand that the US shift it's support away from Israel. Could Israel really continue to do well if it loses its status as a US ally/proxy in the region and then must go it alone?"
Maybe, maybe not. But if Israel goes it alone, it will no longer be hindered by Uncle Sam keeping it on a leash. Should be fun....
The thing I can never figure out is, why is it OK for Israel to discrimiate against people for their religions, skin color, or ethnicity, but not OK if we do the exact same thing in the US, or if South Africa does it, or Yugoslavia, or Somalia, or China w/ Tibet, or, or, or...
All this talk about a two-state "solution" and walling off Israel from Palestinian lands, and then moving the wall to capture more terrritory, etc. make zero sense to me.
How about if Israel protected the rights of everyone who lived in the country/region... compensated people for some of the atrocities of war that occured (instead of: sorry you lost (or we took) your house bub, but thats war... sucks to be you). No ineffective checkpoints, no second class citizens, no preferential treatment based on religion, just a free and holy land where Christians, Muslims and Jews are all free to worship as they see fit. Add the Muslim half-moon and the Christian Cross to the Israeli flag, combine/mesh with the colors of the Palastinian flag and work towards a better future together. Looking back today, its hard to imagine that even schools were segregated in the US 50-odd years ago, and racism was official US government policy. There is no reason that 50 years from now, people shouldn't look back and be dumbstruck that Palastinians and Israelis didn't go to school together, live in the same neighborhoods, etc. One has to wonder what God would think about the way people in the "Holy Land" treat one another right now.
You're full of how, how shall we say it? SHA*DE
The French people have a country that they wish to keep distinctly "French". And they do so every chance they get.
The German people have a country that they wish to keep distinctly "German" --and past history indicates they don't take kindly to having even a small minority of "Yoodin" in their midst.
Good luck emigrating to Japan if you are not Japanese.
And you think you can call yourself a citizen of Norway if you are not a true blond Norwegian?
Persians hate Arabs and Arabs hate Persians.
And nobody likes the Jews.
But you have a special rule for the Jewish people.
We don't here you saying anything about the Germans, the Poles, the French, the Japanese. Just the Jews. Interesting.
First off, personally I like Jewish people. I've had plenty of Jewish friends, none of them have ever tried to "convert" or preach or change my own religious beliefs. You can't say that about many other religions... most Jewish people would probably be extatic about just being left alone. I get that.
All of the Jewish folks that I know are hard working, taxpaying folks. I'm proud they are my friends, or my neighbors, in short, they are good people. Personally, as someone who considers themself non-religious, I could really care less how a person chooses to express their personally spirituality. As a general rule, I prefer the personal spirituality of the Jewish faith to the more "In your face - I'm a Christian!" crowd.
So, the long and the short of it is... being against some of the policies of the COUNTRY of Israel, does not automatically mean that a person hates Jews, or desputes the historical authenticity of the Holocaust, etc. Not everyone who thinks Israel needs to find a new direction is by definition an anti-semite. For instance, did you agree with the decision to storm the "aid flotila"? Do you agree with the boycott of cement to Gaza? Do you think the decision to raid the boat was a wise one? In fact, I find it very easy to sympatize with the Jewish plight throughout history.
This is true in the same way that a US citizen can be critizing, say, the war in Iraq, and at the same time not be "anti-American". The US has made plenty of poor, racist, unethical, inhumane, etc. choices in the course of its history. However, we have tried to learn from our history and make better choices as time goes on. White America once considered African Americans slaves, or animals... then they considered them inferior, or 2nd class citizens, then they changed to consider them equal citizens under the law, and now they consider African Americans as friends, neighbors, co-workers, classmates, and one is even president of the country. Have we always been right? Hell No! At least we are making some changes though.
When I consider Israel, I see a country in full defense mode, and considering the history of the region, thats fair. However, what I fail to see is, any acknowledgement of any internal actions that have made the situation worse, or any attempt at ending the status quo and making life better for everyone. The idea of a state based on ANY one religion, or ethnicity, is an aberration. The very concept inevitably leads to ethnic cleansing, as is very evident historically all over the world. As you pointed out, the Jews themselves suffered tremendously from the German policy of "ethnic purifying".
My whole point is that Israel needs to find a new direction, because what it is doing isn't working. All these years later, it neighbors still hate them, and they still feel besieged. Why not shake up the mix a bit, treat everyone equally, not just in name, but in spirit? A simple acknowledgement that "hey, we understand that you feel vicitimized, and we're sorry things turned out this way, but how can we improve the situation at this point considering that we're here to stay?" would go a long way towards moving in the right direction. You can't honestly believe that Jews and Palisinians are treated equally by the state of Israel, can you? Not too many Israelis are overly inconvienced by security checkpoins for example... Palestinians, on the other hand, are considered guilty until proven innocent. When "the man" continally puts you down, the natural instinct is to feel resentment, which starts and restarts the cycle to violent confrontation.
Open you mind to true peace in Israel... if the US can change for the better, why can't Israel? Imagine the future in Israel under 1) the status quo... 2)Increased conflict with neighbors or 3) An open society where Jews and Palastinians were next door neighbors, a Palastinian could be elected Prime minister, and no one worried whether some moron would be bombing a bus, because half of that bus would be filled with other Palastinians. Which future would you choose?
The difference is that all those other categories are nationalities. Judaism, last I checked, is a religion. There aren't too many other modern theocratic states that I know of, outside of the Vatican.
In fact, that is a good comparison. What if the Vatican decided to locate itself in the middle of Tel Aviv or (more likely given its religious importance) Jerusalem, displacing all the Jews that are there now and making them live in relocation camps and disallowing them any rights in their former city. Then what if they regularly went into these camps and bombed the hell out of them, or walled them off and prevented any aid from going in or anyone from going out?
Oh, never mind. I'm sure the nice Jewish folks would just be fine with that and consider it completely legitimate. Riiiiiiight.
Many Jews, both in Israel and abroad, are rightly sharply critical of the historical an current policies of that state toward Palestinians and their neighbors. Ever read any Chomsky?
What discrimination? Israel took the people who remained inside the 1948 armistice lines and made them citizens. Israel lets them remain citizens even if they support Hamas and Hezbollah, which want Israel obliterated and the Jews killed. This is remarkably tolerant of them, especially since Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Judenrein.
Israel doesn't admit non-citizens unless it wants to, and does its best to keep out enemies who want to do things like blow themselves up in pizza parlors and wedding receptions. If you have a problem with a nation defending itself against murderers, you're sick.
How big of Israel to allow the few who risked their lives to stay in their own homes (when forces they considered the enemy, or at least hostile to them, occupied their streets and towns) to become citizens of the new country that was created around them, but in fact doesn't want them at all and wishes they would just go away. If you, as a private citizen/non-combatant fled your home in the middle of a freaking war in your hometown though, well then, sucks to be you. Enjoy your refugee status and sorry about your house and all. Just because it was war, or someone else started it doesn't justify atrocities or injustices... on EITHER side.
Step back for just a half-second and imagine yourself in the other guys shoes. Consider what your life would be like if you were Palastinian... Watch the action at a checkpoint and see how the average Palastinian citizen is treated every day on their way to work or school. Is it any wonder that they are angry? What would you personally do with your life if you were Palasinian... what bright future do you see in front of you?
Now, take a deep breath and think... what could be done to improve the situation, how can we get to a world where people aren't interested in blowing themselves up at wedding celebrations or pizza parlors. Where Jews and Muslims live on the same street and act like neighbors instead of enemies. I don't justify the behavior one bit... murder is murder, and blowing people up in the name of anything is pure evil. But... "if you always do, what you've always done, you'll always get, what you always got." Find a new path, get a new result. Forcing Palastinians into more and more marginal land, and continally treating them as second class citizens isn't getting the result that you would hope for. Maybe its time for a new direction eh?
You forget that a huge amount of the area was either too dry or too swampy to be useful for anything, until the Zionists applied themselves to it. Read Twain on the emptiness of what is now Israel.
Also much of the pre-1948 Arab population was attracted to the area by the economic growth created by the Zionists. It's sad and ironic that the Arabs could come overland, but Jews arriving by ship were turned away by the British. So much would be different today.
There wasn't any area designated "Palestine" until the San Remo conference of 1920. It's strange that the "Palestinian people" didn't exist while the West Bank was controlled by Jordan, and the Gaza strip by Egypt. They miraculously popped into existence when the Arabs started, and lost, another war of attempted genocide in which Israel pushed the invading armies to and beyond the bounds of the 1948 Mandate. You might almost think they were a creation of propaganda.
Oh, wait, they were, according to one of their own:
There's a reason that the "refugee" camps populated by the Arabs who fled the war zone in 1948 were still there when Israel took the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. There's a reason the "refugee" camps in Lebanon, never under Israeli control, exist 62 years later. It's all for propaganda, and to extract cash via the corrupt UNWRA.
Don't be fooled.
Yeah, don't be fooled. Here's a few details on the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after WW I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_%28mandate%29
It was all part of the plan:
The Palestinians would be those peoples descended from the inhabitants of the area called Palestine after WW I, which includes the area now known as Israel...
E. Swanson
Inhabitants for how long? Those designated "refugees" from the 1948 war included Arabs who had moved to the area as little as (IIRC) 2 years beforehand. (They were herded into "refugee camps" which exist to this day, to be used as political pawns. The Jews who fled Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo immediately became full citizens of Israel. Whose position is more humanitarian, and deserves our sympathy and support?)
In other words, Israel is only a part (a minority) of that area (which included modern-day Jordan as well), yet the "Palestinians" aren't satisfied.
This isn't about "peace" or "rights" or any of the other Western buttons the propagandists have learned to push. This is about Muslim enmity toward non-Muslims in general, and Jews in particular.
Someone I met once attended a certain 7-week military leadership school in one of the military services sometime in the mid-1990s.
The culmination of the school was a wargame fought over distributed computer monitors in various classroom between the different student sections.
The war game was called: Operation Atlantis
The scenario was a large-scale U.S. air strike campaign against Venezuela.
Somebody had their eye on the Orinoco Belt even back then...planting the seed into the heads of their good junior officers, some of whom are Generals now.
Heisenberg,
I do get your point, and what we have done in the past may be only a very poor guide tro what we may do in the future under changed circumstances.
That said, I have been told by military pros that the Pentagon does actually have a plan for every imaginable scenario,and a lot that aren't-at least to most people.
Some of these plans consist of nothing nore thasn skeleton documents listing basic critical data and the units ,and the capabilities of these units,stationed near enough to the thrown into any fight on short notice.Others occupy the minds of capable men for thier entire careers.
I believe they have a term for this obsessive mindset, but it escapes me at the moment.
The rest of us call it due diligence or something along that line.
OFM, you have heard correctly. Your post is on-target. Due diligence indeed.
The problem is...no matter how many years and how many men and women we commit to planning for OPLANs X,Y,Z, and P,D, and Q, when the Pres pulls the trigger it never turns out how anyone imagined.
No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.
Conquest is easy...control is not!
Unintended outcomes are assured.
Blow-back is a bitch.
After all my years out of the cold I have become increasingly convinced that military action is a round peg which we keep trying to pound into various triangular, square, Rhombus, etc -shaped holes.
However, those men you spoke of who spend their whole lives as 'true believers' believe that all the World's problems are nails, since they have warehouses and hangars and dockyards full of hammers and they spent their whole career practicing their swing.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-28/g-20-responds-to-european-de...
'G-20 Responds to European Debt Crisis With Deficit-Cutting Goal'
June 28, 2010, 12:06 AM EDT
Didn't GWB promise to half deficits by 2008 early in his first term? Now the G20 are aspiring to the same type of claim.
I think this is why they are blustering about cutting the deficit, to get investors back to the roulette tables, i.e. investing in the future of the world's corporations.
Obama and Geithner offered caution on a fragile economic recovery, but the other members of the G8 are apparently listening to investors concerns.
My own take is based on the sequence of events having taken place over the past several years: Flat oil production starting in late 04, followed by years of rising oil prices, then the 08 real estate bubble bursting mortgage meltdown, followed by borrowing to kick start the economy with massive stimulus packages. Much of which in the US went to pay regularly occurring State bills.
But now investors are providing feedback that the limits of borrowing have been bounced up against, and Austerity is the buzz word at least in many other G20 countries, and now even the idea of deficit cuts.
I have to wonder if all this bluster is baseless drivel orchestrated to head fake investors into once again dishing out hard earned cash on the casino tables of the market, to generate the needed excitement required to lull people into increasing consumption, which will lead to more tax revenue and thus the deficit cuts will then be possible. A sort of what came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, they lay a vacuous egg with a boastful claim, and hope later the chicken actually lays a real egg.
The question now is; Will the economy build momentum or will a there be a double dip? My opine is a double dip. Sure, maybe the stimulus stoked the flames of industry temporarily, but what is this recovery based on as we move forward? It doesn't have real estate to hinge on with new construction. The internet is up and running, so not a new phenom any longer. So what is the juice? Oil prices are back up close to 80 again, not in the 20's like in the 1990's. I just don't see how the economy builds momentum from here. Does anyone else?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/business/global/29bis.html?src=busln
'Report Warns That Many Western Banks Still Vulnerable to Crises'
The head fake better work, or we could see another round of Government borrowing to fund failing banks here and abroad, which would mean bigger deficits in spite of promises to reduce them.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that despite the spectacular northern ice melt, the global sea ice area is only slightly below average because of unusually high ice area in the antarctic.
Goffers, You have something to back that statement up?