Who is losing the war in Iraq?
As Navy Captain Paul Serbo rightly contends, it is not the troops on the field who are losing the war, but the “back-seat drivers” at home. The mainstream media is partly to blame for projecting its daily “doom and gloom” message to the American people. But that is not all. The Congress bears much of the responsibility for the despair that prevails in America today. Liberals in Congress seem more concerned about ending the war than winning it. Like Sir Douglas Haig, British Commander in WWI, the Democrats prefer to embrace their ivory-tower opinions than face the facts. We hope the President will square off with the Congress when it returns next month. In time of war, back-seat driving is not an option!
This letter has not been edited.
How do we define a victory? Seems like a similar situation to Vietnam. No way to declare a victory so we just left. This has to be the worst foreign policy blunder of all time.
Posted by Curious on September 6, 2007 01:38 PMCurious,
Nonsense. We define victory when you have a stable Iraq that is a partner with us on the war on terror.
The worst foreign policy blunder of all time occurred during the Clinton Adminstration when that administration gave Loral (whose president was the biggest donor to the Democratic Party) permission to share missle guidance technology with China.
Posted by Jim on September 6, 2007 01:47 PMJim, should we attack the rest of the world and bludgeon them into partnering with us on the War of terror? Should we invade Cuba, Iran, China, Venexuela, Korea, you name it until they are stable ( Stable= thinking as we do)
Posted by Tim on September 6, 2007 02:00 PMInteresting. In Mr. Stuckey's world it is the media and Democrats who are responsible for the situation in Iraq, but the very architects of that war bear no responsibility.
How, extactly, would you like the media to cover this war? Should they avoid talking about unpleasant death tolls and what not ( I mean, ANY war is going to look bad if you focus on death tolls, right?). Or should they simply lower their coverage when things aren't going well so as not to embarrass the president? Ergo, Fox News.
The funny thing is that Mr. Stuckey, oddly, seems to be claiming the war is lost. This represents a major shift in the right-wing talking points: apparently they're acknowledging that there are problems, something they weren't always doing.
Progress?
Posted by Jeff on September 6, 2007 02:06 PMHey! I have an awesome idea. If teh stoopid media would just start waving flags and talking about how we're winning, then all the terr'ists would automatically lay down their weapons!
If teh stoopid MSM would start reporting on the never-ending good news, all Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and shower us with flowers!
If teh stoopid drive-by-media would start saying that we won the war, I bet Osama would kill himself, as well as every other single terr'ist in the world!
Man, I never realized how simple it is to win a war!
Posted by Tbone on September 6, 2007 02:13 PMHow does Mr. Stuckey get so many opinions on line?
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 02:24 PMBrian,
Bush had 4 years to do something to win this war, the Democrats have been in power in Congress for 7 months and now that is the reason we are losing? The papers and TV are saying bad things are happening over in Iraq so therefore they are? It couldn't be that anybody with a brain years ago even Cheney said it would be a disaster if we invaded Iraq, a quagmire (giggity, giggity) were Cheney's words. What changed their minds? Why suddenly did Cheney change? OH ya, we need the strategc oil reserves in our control and not China, tha's what changed... THIS IS NOT ABOUT STABILIZING IRAQ, WE ARE NEVER LEAVING, IT IS ABOUT THE STRATEGIC CONTROL OF THE REGIONAL OIL!!!!!
Posted by Mike D. on September 6, 2007 02:27 PMOnce again, Tbone shows how ignorant he is.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 02:40 PMBush and his ill-advised buddies will continue this occupation until the "duly elected" government of Iraq agrees to the multinational oil companies getting their 67% of existing oil, plus 100% of any new souces they "find". It is the #1 benchmark the administration has set for the Iraqi govenment. Is it any wonder the Iraqis can't agree to a plan which robs them of their country's wealth? The troops are doing their duty and doing it well, it's the policies of the administration that keeps this conflict going. If we allow the Iraqis to control their own wealth they'll probably arrive at a fair distribution plan. It's a better idea tthan the greedy one the oil companies want.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 02:42 PMAgree, Mike D. - this is a permanent occupation, and anyone who doesn't realize it by now and is still framing this as a "we're winning/losing" debate really has their head in the sand.
Why else would we need an embassy over there the size of the Vatican City??? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 02:45 PMyer rite, eye'm sooo stoopid. conz rool, libz drule!
Posted by Tbone on September 6, 2007 03:02 PMmytwosense,
You forgot to mention the permanent military base.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 03:07 PMtbone and Jeff, you two are great. You pick out the good stuff from Brians letter, i.e. we are losing the war, and run with it.
I guess our thoughts go like magic to the war and impede our troops.
I like the lets wave flags and say we have won idea.
If Brian Stucky did not exist, the RMN would have to invent him. (hint, hint, wink, wink).
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 03:17 PMI agree with everything TBone said.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 03:31 PMNo wonder I dislike Colorado so much. Must be the Rocky Mt High that has Tbone in its thrall.
The media and the Democrats dislike Bush so much they would rather see the US go down in flames than to help establish a free Iraq.
Clinton was too busy wearing his pants around his ankles to take care of business.
If there's one thing we can all be sure of, it's that the people who are responsible for losing the war in Iraq are the ones who have been completely powerless so far to make any decisions.
The prez says, "how can you judge whether it's working yet? We need 9 more months!" Then, 9 months later, he makes a decision, implements it before any debate can take place, and then tells people that it's too late to debate the stupid-ass decision he's already decided to make.
Let's see how it plays out after the "report from the general" that the White House is released. My money says, Bush will make another decision by himself, implement it, and by the time anybody begins to debate it, he will say, "it's too late. Besides, you have to give my new strategy time to work."
Pretty soon Brian Stuckey will be cheering our idiot in chief by himself.
Posted by Grog on September 6, 2007 04:00 PMIf you dislike CO so much, what are you doing checking out the Rocky Mountain News?
Once again, you reinforce the "if everybody were better cheerleaders we'd be winning" mindset. How can the media "help establish a free Iraq" anyways?
And what does clinton have to do with any of this? I love it when the party of personal responsibility rolls out the 'ol bbb...bbut....but Clinton did it too!!!
Posted by Tbone on September 6, 2007 04:05 PME Conelly,
It has to be Clintons fault that we invaded Iraq and are losing, it must be Clinton. If not then it has to be the Democratic led Congress for the last 7 months. It couldn't possibly be the fact that Bush doesn't really care about a democracy in Iraq, it won't work anyway, it is just a distraction until we get the Embassy's and the Bases built there, then we will start to pull out. There is no winning there, it is just gaining control over the oil reserves first, we have to establish strategic control. There will never be a free Iraq, we will always have military there. Come on people wake up, The Cons constantly call the libs socialists and bleeding hearts if they want to help out the needy in our own country, but why such bleeding hearts for the Iraqi's? We have to protect them, get a democracy and stable government for them. Why such bleeding hearts for the Iraqi's? Or the middle east in general? It is because of the control of the oil!!! Stop bickering about winning or losing, we will never have a stable democracy without religion involved anywhere in the Middle East!!! That is not what they want anyway.
Posted by Mike D. on September 6, 2007 04:09 PM"If Brian Stucky did not exist, the RMN would have to invent him. (hint, hint, wink, wink)."
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 03:17 PM
You caught on! This is really John Temple in drag attempting to get a rise out the reader audience.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 04:24 PMMike D.
You are absolutely correct. And, it can be further postulated that if the UN had threatened to lift the sanctions on Iraq due to their being no verifiable WMDs under Clinton's watch, he would have been forced to initiate the action himself.
We are going to keep a very large military contingent in Iraq for many years to come. This will be true regardless of who sits in the Oval Office after the next election.
We'll end regular participation in street fighting and security as the Iraqi military slowly takes over; but, we'll not leave as the western world (as opposed to the large private oil interests) cannot afford to have the Middle East embroiled in ideological and sectarian wars using the largest producing oil reserves as a battlefield.
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 04:33 PMMongoose said: "We'll end regular participation in street fighting and security as the Iraqi military slowly takes over; but, we'll not leave as the western world (as opposed to the large private oil interests) cannot afford to have the Middle East embroiled in ideological and sectarian wars using the largest producing oil reserves as a battlefield."
Actually, I don't think the western world can afford to continue to put all its eggs in the oil basket. Think of all the money we've spent so far on this war...if that money had been used for alternative and renewable energy technology research, who knows how much closer we'd be now to true energy independence? To developing emerging technologies that could lead the world in environmental innovation?
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 05:01 PMmytwosense
"...if that money had been used for alternative and renewable energy technology research..."
You speak wise words. However, developing the new alternative energy sources also requires time to develop, refine, put in place distribution channels and, finally, modify all equipment utilizing the energy to work efficiently with the new fuels.
Ever since the "energy scare" back in the 70s, and during all subsequent "scares, we have talked about the need to develop energy sources and achieve independence from the need of foreign oil. Unfortunately, as each energy "crisis" was resolved and the ongoing price and supplies were not in real jeopardy, the emphasis on developing the alternative fuels was placed on the back burner.
So while we have been acknowledging the need for alternative fuels on a national scale for years, the actual funding and expansion of research projects has remained almost static at levels not allowing aggressive development.
Even though we are a lot more committed now in both research, development and limited implementation, we are still years away from even semi-independence of foreign oil. For the foreseeable future we have to protect known oil reserve availability by the expenditure of monies that could be used for research and development in the military defense of the oil. Making the cost even more dear is the expenditure of American lives that are lost in that defense.
Perhaps we could speed up our independence of foreign oil by developing domestic and offshore known reserves. It would save us money as it could be developed for a lot less than the cost of war -- leaving more for funding research and development of alternative fuels -- while saving thousands of lives being forfeited in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the environmental protection interests have pretty much tied that option up for the time being.
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 05:28 PMKeep sucking that limp chimp, Stuckey, it works well on a gutless pile of smegma like you.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:02 PMcurious,mike d. and all you other chicks.This war would of already been over if the liberals didn't sided with Al Qaeda.Every one of those piece of s--t dems has screwed this country and cause our soldiers to be killed.If you support the killing of our troops ,vote democrap,If you want to win the war,keep the strongest economy ever ,vote Republican.Pease check the facts before you vote.You will know I'm 100% right.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 06:31 PMcurious,mike d. and all you other chicks.This war would of already been over if the liberals didn't sided with Al Qaeda.Every one of those piece of s--t dems has screwed this country and cause our soldiers to be killed.If you support the killing of our troops ,vote democrap,If you want to win the war,keep the strongest economy ever ,vote Republican.Pease check the facts before you vote.You will know I'm 100% right.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 06:31 PMcurious,mike d. and all you other chicks.This war would of already been over if the liberals didn't sided with Al Qaeda.Every one of those piece of s--t dems has screwed this country and cause our soldiers to be killed.If you support the killing of our troops ,vote democrap,If you want to win the war,keep the strongest economy ever ,vote Republican.Pease check the facts before you vote.You will know I'm 100% right.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 06:31 PMYes, now I see it clearly now, the US military maintains bases in Germany, South Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines, Italy, UK, for the control of oil. All those places are famous for huge oil reserves.
Mongoose, who are you kidding?
“Perhaps we could speed up our independence of foreign oil by developing domestic and offshore known reserves.” – Remember Alaska? I wonder which party shut that idea down.
Keith, click once and be patient, these posts are slower than molasses…
Uno
Although I'm not normally PC I think it better to not to waste fuel by throwing gas on the fire (pun intended) by pointing fingers at one political party for stymieing domestic production. Both parties have to wake to the reality of our energy dependence and find a way to spur dometic production.
As to our bases around the world, they were established to forestall one threat of aggression or another. Our presence in the Middle East is just a continuation of that philosophy with oil reserves as the underlying factor. Not for the monetarily profits available, but for economic sustainability of western interests.
We don't have the major, and I emphasize major, threat of a nuclear war with former Soviet Block. But if we loose energy availability our economy along with Europe's could be devastated.
Besides the military need for oil energy, our entire transportation and interstate commerce systems are based on fuel oils to operate. Chemical, agriculture, plastics, composite material and emergency services are more sectors that rely heavily on fuel oil.
So unless we can; 1) implement alternative fuels over the next several months; or, 2) develop our own reserves currently blocked; or, 3) have Sean Penn and Danny Glover talk their good buddy Chavez into supporting instead of hating the US, we have to protect the oil supplies that lubricates and fuels our economy.
Although many of the anti-war advocates from the far left are screaming "no blood for oil" as a protest of the profits derived by private corporations, we are having to shed blood to protect the source of that oil irrespective of any profit to be made in order to protect the western economies. It's somewhat ironic that those same folks are in many cases the same ones who have been blocking developing our own reserves.
While it's both admirable and desirable to move into alternative, renewable fuel sources, we are still years away from that goal.
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 07:39 PMWhile we are at it, lets drill off shore near the Florida panhandle where we know the resources are located, we have a long history in that area and the infrastructure is there.
When Jeb was governor of Fla. he and his friends killed this bill that would let us drill there.
Are those the environmentalists you all were talking about?
Sorry, wrong folks.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 07:58 PMKeith,
If you repeat the same things over and over, they become true. I've heard that before, somewhere. Maybe Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Bill or Hillary Clinton or Adolf Hitler? Maybe an echo.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 08:11 PMSharon B
"...those the environmentalists you all were talking about?"
Part of them. Some environmentalists want to preserve pristine nature for the sake of nature itself; i.e, Alaska. Some environmentalists want to preserve the environment to be pleasing to the eye so as not do disturb tourists, high end residential development and general development; i.e., Florida offshore.
So basically it is the same folks -- just not as narrow in scope nor restricted in composition as is generally assumed.
Between Alaska and offshore Florida, we have known reserves that can carry us for hundreds of years. How about tapping into those WHILE aggressively developing the alternative fuels we really need for the environment over those same hundred of years?
There's no correct description of the the environmental groups blocking us from moving into the future of alternative fuels by keeping us dependent on Middle East oil reserves.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 08:12 PMmongoose,
You cannot separate the oil industry from the government. Get it?
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 08:16 PM"You cannot separate the oil industry from the government. Get it?"
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 08:16 PM
That's pretty much my point. However, neither can you separate the reality that you can't separate our economy from oil -- without oil it stops.
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 08:20 PMBroken record Keith
Keeps repeating "check the facts".
Fear him -- he knows all.
Why do I mock Keith?
For his slaughter of English;
No other reason.
Left-wing or right-wing,
It does not matter to me:
Stupid is stupid.
My own politics
Are mostly in the middle.
I'm no extremist.
Keith, I don't care 'bout your vanity,
Or that you worship Limbaugh and Hannity.
What gives me a fit
Is you can't write worth s---!
Your posts are disgracing humanity.
--four haikus and a bonus limerick from...
Posted by the anti-Keith on September 6, 2007 08:58 PMCurrently we are neither winning this war or loosing this war. By the numbers out of all the troops sent we've only lost .015%by death and just under 2% to injuries.
In my current profession I stand a higher chance of dieing than the soldiers in Iraq. The fact is Iraq is a pretty safe war. The only way we will know if we have won is when Iraq becomes a stable country and I don;t think that will happen for another 5-10 years.
If anybody thought this was going to be a short lived slam dunk then they were naive.
Posted by Harry on September 6, 2007 09:49 PManti-Keith. Don`t use a cap on Keith. That really messes with his mind. And then...
Pox on thee, little fellow
Creep and fink, with stripe of yellow.
Stolen from Mad Magazine, originally from some guy named Whitman.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 10:01 PMMongoose, you lost me at aggressively developing domestic sources of oil. I'm afraid I'm one of those environmentalists who wants to keep nature pristine for nature's sake.:) Seriously, we cannot keep killing each other and raping the land in the name of oil. I realize we're years and years away from being less dependent on oil. Probably won't see it in my lifetime, even. But that's why we need real visionaries and people who get things done despite the odds as our leaders in the coming years.
People scoffed we'd never see airplanes. That was less than a decade before they were invented. Throughout time, there has always been the cynical peanut gallery explaining why things can't change, can't happen, can't be done. It seems this peanut gallery is now out in full force regarding the development of renewable and alternative energies.
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 10:29 PM"Between Alaska and offshore Florida, we have known reserves that can carry us for hundreds of years"
Hundreds of years? Something so outrageous needs a citation.
Posted by Kyle on September 7, 2007 02:03 AMsharun b wrote
Are those the environmentalists you all were talking about?
Sorry, wrong folks.
what you admit that the republicans are not out to ruin the environment by drilling for oil? you forgot to check your blame Bush book before you wrote that comment.
if you want to know who is winning the war talk to a soldier and stop listening to the far left socialist liberal media and dums.
the only war they ever liked was WWII. but we could learn from Harry on that one and use it today. lets drop 2 bombs like he did and then it will be over. remember how japan gave up after those two bombs hit?
I say lets do it. I would even fly the plane to get it done.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO REPEAT THIS:
THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS LOSING THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 05:54 AMif you want to know who is winning the war talk to a soldier and stop listening to the far left socialist liberal media and dums.
How about you just talk to soldiers, like this Zogby poll did late last year:
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 07:12 AM5:40 AM, lol, so your solution to 'freeing' Iraq is to drop a couple nukes on them and kill 'em all. Brilliant just brilliant! And yet you Righties think withdrawling will lead to Iraqi deaths? You are a pathetic excuse for a human being
Posted by No Nukes on September 7, 2007 07:15 AMBush lied us into this war and he is lying to keep us there. Bootlickers like Keith and Brian just eat up all the crap that Bush spews. Why would anyone believe Bush?
Posted by Drew on September 7, 2007 07:33 AMdrew,you dumb-ass I don'y care how many times you repaet that lie is not going to come true.Anti-keith=anti-fact.Fact:anti-keith is a idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 7, 2007 08:30 AMQuestion: Who is losing the war in Iraq?
Answer: The same fools who got us into it in the first place.
Posted by Colorado Dave on September 7, 2007 08:48 AMWhere were the WMD's Keith? Was there an imminent threat from Iraq? If Bush were to stop short you and the rest of the bootlickers out there would sprain your neck. Start using your head and open up your eyes. You have been neo-conned by a bunch of robber barons lining their pockets while running up the debt. They should all be charged with treason.
Posted by Drew on September 7, 2007 08:59 AMStuckey is admitting that we have already been defeated in Iraq. He's trying to blame people who had nothing to do with the decision to go there in the first place. Why not blame the people who told us this would be a "cakewalk" (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz),
Or we'd be greeted as "liberators" (Bush, or Chalabi) or the people who told us they "knew where the weapons of mass destruction were" (Rumsfeld). Or blame the people who editorialized for war like William Kristol or Charles Krauthammer. Blame the people who did this, not the people who had nothing to do with this stupid decision.
Charles B - I think the idea was to get more accurate info by talking directly to the troops, rather than getting the filtered version thru zogby.
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 09:10 AMthe anti- (individual whose name if typed in seems to get my postings dropped into limbo.)
A doffing of the hat, accompanied by a deep bow, a round of applause, and a hearty, BRAVO!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 09:16 AMI'm not sure how anyone keeps score on such things, but I'd say that if anyone were "losing" this war it would be the people of Iraq whose only transgression was to have been born in the wrong country at the wrong time sitting atop all of our oil under their sand.lower than prewar levels of electricity production and distribution immeasurably diminished levels of sanitation, healthcare and education, many thousands dead or maimed or displaced either to other countries or within the american garrison that is now their country sure seems like a losing proposition to me.
Posted by davis X. Machina on September 7, 2007 10:14 AMLetter writer Brian Stuckey is 100% right.The US media and the Democrats are helping the terrorists win the war .That is because they hate the US.Without the aid and comfort provided by the Democrat party our brave soldiers would have won the war by now.Our real enemy is the media and the NEW Democrat party.They are responsible for getting hundreds of our troops killed.
Posted by An American on September 7, 2007 10:54 AMThe Democrats are in a panic and the liberal press is trying to hide the fact that the surge is working and alot of progress is being made.
The reason is the Democratic Party has been running on how they are going to fix Iraq.Now that things have seemed to be turning around,they have no platform to run on.
They won't do anything until after the election to fix the illegal immigration mess for fear of not getting the illegal vote.
Don't tell me illegals won't be voting in the elections either. The illegal support organizations are already gearing up to have illegals vote en masse. They have better odds with Democrats getting amnesty than Republicans.
If they have fake I.D's to work,drive and rip off Americans paying taxes,they can vote. There is no way to stop them from using fake I'D's at the polling stations and to register to vote.
So now that things are turning around in Iraq,the Democrats will spend the next year trying to undermine that too.
We will win in Iraq and regain our honor in spite of what the Democrats and the liberal media does.
I have faith in our military to get the job done and they will.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 11:01 AMYou know you’re a Republican when:
1. You’re afraid of your own shadow.
2. You believe in the Boogy-Man
3. People who don’t look like you are scary.
4. You’re married and enjoy playing with men in public restrooms
5. You’re married, employed as a pastor, enjoy playing with men, and enjoy meth.
6. You’re a 100% family values and keep the children safe type, but you can’t resist a little pee-pee chat with underage boys.
7. Although you have a high profile position in the campaign to elect the next GOP president, you can’t resist the urge to pay an undercover police officer for the privledge of swallowing his essence...
I could go on, but my fingers are tired.
Again the neo-con lie that has not been answered:
"And, it can be further postulated that if the UN had threatened to lift the sanctions on Iraq due to their being no verifiable WMDs under Clinton's watch, he would have been forced to initiate the action himself."
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 04:33 PM
How was "The UN" going to lift the sanctions? We're part of the UN, particularly the Security Council, WHERE WE HAVE VETO POWER!!! The sanctions were not going to be lifted withoput our approval. SInce all the rethuglicons like to mention how everybody, including Clinton, thought Saddam had WMD, please square this cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Repugnants are Liars on September 7, 2007 11:31 AMI wish I had something better to do in life than post-in; however, I live an learn: WHAT! Brian Stuckey blaming the democrats for Bush's imperialistic ambition. The "facts" Keith, the "facts" are evidenced in these postings. I am starting to weaken; there are just too many who chide you. Jealous of the anti-Keith and his rhyme and wit, I hereby attach mine to which W. Bush subscribes:
Christians have their mode of prayer, Actual prayer for oneself, Intercessory for someone else, Imprecatory kill ones’ enemies.
The libs tie the hands of our troops by complaining about mistreatment by our troops no matter what they do and our troops are still winning the war. Our troops are awesome,they are winning a war against terrorists when half of their own country doesn't support them because being politically correct is more important then winning the war. We lost in Viet Nam because of the liberals but of course in their blidness they can't see that. They are too busy blaming America for everything bad. You people are disgusting, you don't deserve freedom of speech because all you do is bash our country and the heroic soldiers that have died defending your freedom to bash this country and anybody who doesn't agree with you.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 12:07 PMmytwosense on September 6, 2007 10:29 PM
"...we cannot keep killing each other and raping the land in the name of oil. I realize we're years and years away from being less dependent on oil...
We have a choice to make as a country. We either develop the oil reserves here while we aggressively develop alternative fuels; or, we use the military to protect Middle East oil reserves while we aggressively develop alternative fuels. The operative phrase is AGGRESSIVELY DEVELOP.
Without fossil fuels and by products our economy would come to a complete stop. Even if no private company or individual made a penny a barrel on oil, we still need oil to survive as much as we need red blood in our veins.
We talked a big game about developing alternatives for years but never followed through aggressively. It will take another 10 to 15 years to harness, develop and put into full distribution new fuels - and that's if we're lucky.
In the meantime, we either find a compromise on developing as environmental friendly domestic production as possible and produce; or, we use military force to protect the known reserves as people on both sides die.
As a country we can cry about cluttering the environment with oil rigs and pipelines, or cry about the deaths overseas -- but we have to cry about one them.
But, if we lose the oil necessary to keep our economy (and the European and Asian economies) functioning while we pursue and get in place alternative fuels, we'll be crying over millions of domestic deaths as we slide into chaos and a feudal system based on survival of the strongest.
Not a doomsday prediction, but a realistic assessment of what will happen when the production, transportation and distribution system for food collapses to start with. The retail supply system which fills the needs and wants of society will shut down. Transportation will be limited to man power in place of horsepower. The shut down originating in food and transportation will snow ball through all domestic and international industry, effectively shutting down the economy supplying everything on which we have become reliant on to live and function as a civilized society.
So once again, mytwosense, I agree with you 100% in that we have been foolish in the past in the development of preferable alternative fuels. However, since we do not have them available, and won't for many years to come, our survival is based on fossil fuels without equivocation.
Therefore, I repeat that we only have two choices at present WHILE we develop and implement alternative fuels: we either find a compromise on finding as environmental friendly domestic production as possible and produce; or, we use military force to protect the known reserves as people on both sides die.
We either violate the environment domestically; or, we'll spill red blood defending the reserves overseas -- or, we will spill red blood here when our economy collapses.
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 12:57 PMCharles B.
Again you come up with these "sources" .
Anything for a buck , Zogby International, a marketing survey company. Here is their own statement of Company Philosphy on the home page: Targeted, comprehensive, and customized to your needs.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies.
Sounds Unbiased doesn’t it? A poll by a marketing company is only as reliable as who commisioned it and usually reports what the commisioner wants.
The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes.
No mention of how they chose these “soldiers” Military respondants? What is that? And whose security?
Give me a break Charles, where do you get ‘em?
AF
Bottom line, whether democracy is successfully instituted in Iraq or not. We are not ever going to leave there and not be in an immediate strike position to protect the vast oil reserves.
Mongoose painted a pretty accurate picture of our societal dependence on oil. Without adequate supplies readily available our economy collapses. Price of fuels is only a small part of it, but an important factor nonetheless.
Environmentalists call for $5 - $8 per gallon fuel to slow down driving. Fuel reaches that level in our urban economy, all prices will adjust upward to cover the additional cost of production, delivery and distribution. While a temporary moral victory may be claimed by the environmentalists, it will be short lived as the economy simply scales upward to restore equlibrium.
Remove oil from that production, delivery and distribution chain, you cut the heart of it. The economy stops dead in it's tracks. No more grocery stores, departments stores, public utilities or transportation. No more heat for schools, hospitals, businesses or homes. What little non fossil fuel based electrical generation will become object of intense rationing, sabotage and theft; eventually resulting in its demise.
There are no more easy choices that can be postponed until the future. The future is hear now and awaits our course of action.
Posted by carl on September 7, 2007 01:25 PMLibs and neocons politicians would prefer to see American blood in Iraq than alternative fuel and energy sources. One case in point
The new book “Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound,” by Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb, chronicles the bipartisan efforts to kill the wind farm project.
An earlier book by Peter Schweizer, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” also disclosed Kennedy’s efforts to torpedo the wind farm.
“The Cape Wind Project would be built in Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis,” Schweizer explained. "The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn’t be able to actually see the turbines from their home. Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.”
Kennedy was not alone in opposing the project. Authors Williams and Whitcomb disclose that Sen. John Warner, R-Va., added a rider to an urgent Iraq war-funding bill that barred the Army Corps of Engineers from spending money permitting offshore wind projects.
Warner’s wealthy relatives own choice waterfront property on Cape Cod.
After an outcry, Warner was forced to back down.
Another Republican, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, introduced a bill banning virtually all offshore wind projects in the U.S. He owns real estate on Nantucket Island.
But Kennedy remains the main focus of wind farm proponents, including Greenpeace – which has launched an anti-Kennedy TV ad campaign in support of the offshore project.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 01:53 PMHere we are coming upon the sixth anniversary of 9-11, and Bin Laden is still at large. Somehow, it's the liberal democrats and stuckeys' "back seat drivers' " fault. Isn't it, Brian?
Posted by mike h on September 7, 2007 01:54 PMWho cares about:
1) Brian Stuckey (blinded by faux patriotism, no reality involved)
2) Bin Laden (he did his job, time to move on)
3) Democracy in Iraq (it's about the long term bases)
4) The Constitution (no economy, Bush's declaration becomes fact)
5) Who the next pres is (the main concern will remain - see 6)
6) IT'S ABOUT THE OIL and the time squandered before developing alternative sources because pet projects and pork came first.
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 02:06 PMAnon 01:53:
You didn't clarify which Kennedy was the most active against this project. A little googling points out that it's the entire Kennedy clan, lead by Ted Kennedy himself.
"Liberal darling Ted Kennedy has run afoul of the left over his opposition to a controversial wind farm project in Massachusetts.
Liberals “are now heaping scorn on the 73-year-old senator,” ....“Young audiences boo at his name, and the leftish ‘Daily Show’ on Comedy Central makes fun of him.”
The energy-producing wind farm on Nantucket Sound was slated to be the first such project in the U.S., and polls showed that 84 percent of state residents favor it.
The Cape Wind Project would erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound and could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and nearby islands, which is now largely supplied by coal-fired plants.
But the project has been “frustrated at every turn by a handful of yachtsmen, Kennedy included, who don’t want to see windmills from their verandas
Posted by carl on September 7, 2007 02:18 PMA quick comment on fuels.
Right now the situation is perfect for the oil business. Environmentalists are blamed for not drilling off shore Florida, California and in the Arctic.
Oil companies need to build or renovate their refineries and stop saying they are hamstrung by environmentalists. Drilling should take place where the oil is, and believe it or not, we know where a lot of it is.
A good many people confuse alternative energy sources. Electricity does not come from burning petroleum products. It comes from wind, coal, hydro etc.
Petroleum is used for fuels and plastic. We can not exist as a society without both of these things.
Drilling in the Arctic involves working only in the coldest months because of the permafrost. This is not an easy problem to work around.
How many men would it take to develop this field? Where do they live, eat, get medical attention in an area that has no infrastructure to support any size crew.
Should we build housing for them, how many people to do that and where do they live while construction takes place.?
If the drill rig breaks a bit or needs a new part, do we keep that handy or send to the lower 48 states for backup? Where do we store extra parts when there isn`t a building for miles?
Very few test holes have been sunk there, it is possibles that the field isn`t what we think.
If we go ahead here, we need a lot of test holes to determine just where the oil has migrated. My guess is that it is off shore, where it likes to go. We could drill off shore in the Arctic, but again, only in the coldest months.
Canada has oil and tar sands. We have oil shale. Resources are available, but they take time.
China wants all the oil it can get, and it has the money to pay.
Thank you mongoose for the info on the sanctions being lifted. I remember the President mentioning that.
Finally, a sensible reason for this insane war. I may not like it, but i can understand it better.
Humans often wage war for resources. But Bush could not have persuaded anyone to go to Iraq just for oil. He had to dress up this pig and make it presentable to us.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 02:30 PMRe the Nantucket Cape Wind Project
This is a good example of what many have been preaching about partisan politics in this forum. Mike D, Dan2, Trinity, Fresh,myself and others have been saying that blind party allegiance is not the answer to getting an efficient government. As shown in the above two articles about the wind projects we have the elite and powerful of both parties fighting not for what's best for the country, but what's best for themselves and special interests.
Vote for candidates of the party of your choice. But when the elected officials do something as obviously self serving for themselves or other special interests, replace them with a party candidate who will operate for the public benefit.
Keep your partisan preference, but rotate the elected officials until we have good ones in office. Perhaps we wouldn't have to have our men and women dieing far from home if we had developed the alternative and domestic fuel sources to maintain our economic society.
Posted by darfor on September 7, 2007 02:37 PMSharon B
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and explanation. There is a growing awareness of what this war and occupation is really about.
The dress on the pig you so aptly identified is the fabric of terrorism. While terrorism is a very real and serious threat to us, fighting over in Iraq does not keep the terrorist from attacking us here. They know where we are and most likely already have some small cells thriving in this country while awaiting a little direction or inspiration. That's why we have the DHS and FBI, etc.
Catching Bin Laden, while being a great psychological boost, will stop neither al Qaeda style terrorist activities nor the war and occupation of Iraq. We may pull out of everyday fighting in the streets as the terrorists over there are essentially just a nuisance in our establishment of large, secure long term military bases.
Iraq is about our economic survival. We can't afford to have China monopolize it or appropriate it if we are not present. Even if we discount a China factor we still can't sit by and watch the various sectarian factors embroil the region in a war that would compromise the free harvesting of the reserves.
We are stuck shedding blood for oil, not for profits per se, but to ensure our economic viability until we can become independently self sufficient.
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 02:56 PMMongoose, Thank you for reading all that and responding.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 03:11 PMBlood for oil, or responsible environmental harvesting of domestic reserves:
Emphasis on replacing Persian Gulf Oil for 59 years -- even the pork barreled preference "congress can get alternative fuels on line by then:
Today, 90 percent of the nation's offshore acreage -- the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the East and West Coasts -- is off limits to development because of congressional or presidential moratoria. It is estimated that the oil from these areas could replace Persian Gulf oil imports for the next 59 years. This amounts to 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 billion barrels of oil"
http://www.ipaa.org/news/press_releases/pr2006/2006-02-08.asp
And, from up north, a less environmental friendly reserve is found in Canada, as pointed out by Sharon B:
"These oil sands are the world's most expensive, most polluting source of oil under large-scale production. Wringing four barrels of crude oil from the sands requires burning the equivalent of a fifth barrel. The mines and refineries release huge amounts of greenhouse gases -- the equivalent each day to more than a third of California's daily car emissions.
Yet Alberta's oil sands are destined to be the main supply of foreign oil to the United States for at least the next century. The sands hold proven reserves of 175 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia's 262 billion, and far more than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's estimated 10 billion. "
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL
We can scream and yell at Bush's unjust war; but, I submit that if the UN trade sanctions were about to be lifted under the Clinton watch, he would have been forced to be the one to move in order to protect our economic system.
Posted by carl on September 7, 2007 03:22 PMBrian Stuckey:--
"...most likely already have some small cells thriving in this country while awaiting a little direction or inspiration."
I have it from a very reliable source that there is a cell hidden in your basement...be very careful the boogie man doesn't sneak into your bedroom tonight...
CA
Posted by on September 7, 2007 03:27 PMSharon B:-- You said and asked...
"Drilling in the Arctic involves working only in the coldest months because of the permafrost. This is not an easy problem to work around.
How many men would it take to develop this field? Where do they live, eat, get medical attention in an area that has no infrastructure to support any size crew."
I bet it would take a lot less total men, and with less dying there, than what we have going on in Iraq.
CA
Posted by on September 7, 2007 03:31 PMI do hope Brian Stuckey is writing this letter from Iraq. Brian... you HAVE enlisted by now, right? I mean, you couldn't STILL be sitting in the comfort of your own home, sacrificing absolutely nothing while you lead the cheer to keep our honorable men and women mired in a mismanaged war, right?
Posted by Dan on September 7, 2007 03:56 PM"I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO REPEAT THIS: THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS LOSING THE WAR IN IRAQ."
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 05:54 AM
The war is being neither won nor lost in Iraq by anyone. If the Iraqi government got their poop in a group we could probably achieve a "victory" in Iraq for the Iraqi people.
In the meantime, we are rapidly moving toward completion of our embassy/intelligence compound and enormous, long term military bases. Completion will be the "victory" that the US is seeking.
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 03:58 PMMongoose---
You seem to support the war as much as Stuckey. It's easy to support something that can't affect you. How about all those dying in Iraq because of Bush's mismanagement, don't they count? You armchair warriors are pathetic.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 04:05 PMCA, those question I asked about the logistics of drilling in ANWAR, are real ones.
Yes, the number of men would be less than those in Iraq, but you can`t compare the two scenarios.
We have plenty of available fuel resources before we go to the Arctic. However, I would love to see the first cuttings and the underlying strata that is below the field there.
Tar sands are awful, so is coal, but they are here or near to us. Not under the Middle East.
All along I have wanted the war to make sense, now it does. I don`t like it but at least I`m not stumbling around in the dark any more.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 04:41 PMAnon: 04:05 PM
When my brother-in-law first “recruited” me to start reading, then posting in this forum I promised myself I would refrain from using ad hominem attacks or responses as are so common. While you push the envelope I will provide a civil answer.
I do not support the war, especially the way that it has been politically micro-mismanaged out of Washington. I do understand the need for the war in respect to our economic viability. I am bitter at the political rhetoric that politicians have been spewing about the development of alternative and renewable energy sources while diverting money and exerting influence to pork barrel and special interest projects.
And, I’m disappointed that the radical environmentalists can’t find a common ground in domestic production – production that would free us from having to send our men and women into a foreign land to kill or be killed. I understand better than you the horrors of war having served almost three years in Viet Nam with the Special Forces. I am forced to be an “arm chair warrior”, as you called me, as I left the lower half of my right leg to become plant food in the jungles of Cambodia.
And I do have something to lose even though I’m not there. My brother-in-law is back for a second time as a civilian construction manager in Ramadi; his son, my nephew, is an Army Combat Medic operating out of some FOB east of Baghdad; and, my son is somewhere in the Middle East with the Special Forces – I don’t know where because their operations and positions are classified.
Do I support the war; no. But I do understand the reality and necessity to defend the base of our economic system. If that system were to teeter and collapse due to lack of viable raw oil and fuels not only would my family members currently in harms way be threatened, but the children of my nephew and son would be threatened along with everyone else in this country.
It’s easy to sit in safety and cry that we are interfering with another country and getting our soldiers killed in doing so. It’s easy to point at Bush and blame his incompetency for the way the war has gone, and be right. But, if the same scenario of UN economic sanctions being lifted from Iraq, coupled with the regime in Iran pushing for regional dominance and unification, had happened during the Clinton administration, he would have had to react in a similar manner for our economic security.
We will keep our footprint in Iraq for the foreseeable future regardless of who the next President is. We will only consider removing it entirely when we are fuel and energy self sufficient.
Due to our lack of enthusiasm to follow through aggressively in developing alternative fuels – instead justifying putting it on the back burner to appease special interest and pork barrel expenditures – and politically locking up and finding an environmental friendly way (as much so as possible) to develop our domestic and offshore reserves, this war was inevitable – with it’s timing determined by the confluence of a few factors.
Whether public sentiment is for or against the war, it will and must be pursued for our economic survival. Billing it as a war on terror is simply putting an identifiable face on it.
Sharon B:
"Tar sands are awful, so is coal, but they are here or near to us."
Extraction and/or conversion (especially coal) will provide more greenhouse gases, and arguably, more environmental damage than controlled drilling for oil located in our known domestic and off shore reserves.
There are numerous studies to be found on the web to support this. One of them I mentioned above in respect to the Canadian oil sands. To repeat the URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL
mongoose:
By chance is your brother in law the individual who just left this forum to go back Iraq?
And thank you for your service and sacrifice for our country. I was one of those fortunate ones who had deferments until after the war ended in Viet Nam.
Posted by carl on September 7, 2007 05:53 PMCarl, thanks for that link. The higher the cost of petroleum, the more we are likely to develop even worse fuels.
I have walked around tar sands, they smell like a city street on a 110 degree day. But they are ours. The ones I saw were in Utah, I think. It was awhile ago.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 06:40 PMRepugnants are Liars on September 7, 2007 11:31 AM
"How was "The UN" going to lift the sanctions? We're part of the UN, particularly the Security Council, WHERE WE HAVE VETO POWER!!! The sanctions were not going to be lifted withoput our approval. SInce all the rethuglicons like to mention how everybody, including Clinton, thought Saddam had WMD, please square this cognitive dissonance."
You're just letting your partisan hate for Republicans, and Bush in specific narrow your perspective. Easy to do and understand.
China was pushing hard for lifting the sanctions as they had large oil deals pending. The only justification for sanctions, and the reason they were implemented, was Saddam having WMDs and the resulting threat of use. This issue alone was standing between Iraq and the lifting of UN sanctions; Iraq and Chinese investment, development and involvement. (keep in mind that they already have investments and limited involvement in both Syria and Iran)
If the UN inspectors concluded that Saddam had in fact destroyed or otherwise eliminated all WMDs from his arsenal, any and all justification for maintaining the sanctions would have vaporized. The sanctions would have to be legally lifted with the US voting along with the others for removal. We couldn't justify doing otherwise.
Yes, Clinton and Bush both thought that Iraq had and would use WMDs. But, it was under Bush that the realization that there were no WMDs left became apparent.
It is arguable that if the UN inspectors had found WMDs, we would not have done more than rattle sabers and issue threats. In other words, we may not have invaded since the sanctions would not be in jeopardy.
Just to set the record straight, especially if you haven't seen from my other intervening posts, I neither a Republican or supporter of Bush. In fact, I voted for Clinton both times -- sorry to steal your ammunition. But, it's kinda like finding no WMDs in Iraq.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 06:47 PMSorry; I screwed up again! I posted 06:47PM anonymously because I was asleep at the switch!
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 06:49 PMCarl
"By chance is your brother in law the individual who just left this forum to go back Iraq?"
Yes. He's the one who recruited me to this forum...time will tell if he did me a favor or bent over the barrel for abuse...
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 07:00 PMmongoose:--
What makes you think your concern for oil and our economy are real? I think I have seen it kicked around before but I don't know where. Carl above seems to agree with you some.
CA
Posted by on September 7, 2007 07:47 PMEasy to end the war. Convert to Islam now!
CAIRO, Egypt — Usama bin Laden appeared for the first time in three years in a videotape Friday released ahead of the 6th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, telling Americans they should convert to Islam if they want the war in Iraq to end…
Bin Laden made no overt threats and did not directly call for attacks, according to the transcript. Instead, he addresses Americans, lecturing them on the failures of their leaders to stop the war in Iraq despite growing public opposition in the U.S.
"There are two solutions to stopping it. One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out," bin Laden said, according to the transcript.
"The second solution is from your side," he said. "I invite you to embrace Islam."
"It will also achieve your desire to stop the war as a consequence, because as soon as the warmongering owners of the major corporations realize that you have lost confidence in your democratic system and have begun to look for an alternative, and this alternative is Islam, they will run after you to please you and achieve what you want to steer you away from Islam," he said.
Man, how easy can it be!
Posted by on September 7, 2007 08:29 PMCA
"What makes you think your concern for oil and our economy are real?"
Really, it's just an educated theory that I've been researching for quite awhile. There is a lot of substantiating evidence and thorough studies available. But, since I don't have an inside line to Bush's brain (thank God!), it remains an educated theory.
I retired after 32 years with a major international oil company where I worked as an analyst of international affairs and policy. This type of analysis and scenario development was the crux of my work.
Now I work as an officer and investment coordinator for a large venture capital and development consortium -- again, developing international policy interpretations and projected scenarios.
Posted by mongoose on September 7, 2007 08:47 PMMongoose: I don't say anything in here that often but I read the posts quite often. I just want to thank you and your family for your service to this country and I also appreciate your thoughtfulness in your answers. That doesn't seem to happen often in these posts. It's a scary world right now and I wish there were more voices of reason like yours and then maybe we could unite as a country to do whatever we have to do.
Posted by JV on September 7, 2007 10:13 PMMongoose said "I do understand the reality and necessity to defend the base of our economic system"
Isn't that just a polite way of saying you are a pirate?
Where do you strike the balance between making you feel safe about the state of economic interests, and the other guy's life and interests?
Did you see Osama Bin Laden on TV.He sounded like he was in the Democrat party.All his talking points were the same as the Democrats posting on this page.The only question I have is Bin Laden the head of the Democrat party or just a member?
Posted by An American on September 8, 2007 08:08 AMmongoose,
Back yesterday, in your posting @ 02:06 PM, your said: "6) IT'S ABOUT THE OIL, and the time squandered before developing alternative sources, because pet projects and pork came first."
I certainly could not dispute the first part of that statement, at least.
However, you have since indicated that you are an experienced oil company employee, and have served the oil interests in sensetive areas, including that of "development", even now in the area of "international" research.
Would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to WHICH ONE, if any, of the major oil companies in the world showed any interest in, or took any major steps toward, the development of any form of "alternative source" for our energy consumption?
And, WHICH ONE, if any, of the major oil companies in the world was hindered in such attempts by "pet projects and pork"?
In Colorado alone, there are several shale-oil areas, which at one time were supposed to be - or become - an "alternative" to drilling in the Arctic Wilderness, or otherwise raping the earth, both on land and at sea, for profits. After intense publicity concerning the "value" of these, as well as touting the benefits, the projects were abandoned. Why?
The answer most often given was: "It would cost too much." And, this answer was most often heard from the mouths of the oil company executives. Was all the hoopla about "alternative sources" just that; nothing more than hoopla, and foofaraw? Slick advertising from the flack-hacks on Madison Avenue?
WHICH ONE, if any, of the major oil companies of the world ACTUALLY gave - or gives today - a f**k up a rat's a** for ANY development of "alternative sources", so long as the rest of the earth can be raped for profit, by the old fashioned, and cheap - relatively speaking - method, of drilling and spilling, while burning off natural gas, as a useless by-product, as well?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 08:48 AMmongoose: "Whether public sentiment is for or against the war, it will and must be pursued for our economic survival."
I agree with mongoose that wars are primarily fought for economic reasons, though I think that the term "survival" is a propagandistic one. We are not fighting for our survival; rather, we are fighting to retain our number one position, fighting to try to avoid lowering our high standard of living.
I expect it's not nice to raise the question of what limits, if any, there are on what we are entitled to do to try to retain our standard of living. Or the question of whether our principles are subservient to our desires. Best if such a discussion takes place only in academia and behind closed doors.
We know in the backs of our minds that our superiority in the world is not going to last forever. It is human nature to try to put that off as long as possible. That is why I think there will always be wars. But we are not to blame. Human nature makes us do it. It is unfortunate that there is no moral evolution.
I have one question for an american.You are an american what?You might want to stop and think(if you're even capable of that) about so casually demonizing and dismissing at least half of the people that share this nation with you(whether you want them to or not). It is,after all, the doings of your lord and master- the commander- in-thief and his busheviks- who have elevated Bin Laden from criminal to legitimate opponent and have provided him with the finest most enduring recruiting propaganda any demagogue could ask for along with the finest live fire training facility in American doctrine, tactics, and weapons and a target rich environment. What are you BAKs(Boosh Anatomy Kissers) going to do when the constitution you seem to despise sends your demigod back to the richly deserved obscurity of the all-hat-no-cattle-photo-op-ranch? What then will be your raison d'etre?
Posted by davis X. Machina on September 8, 2007 09:41 AMdavis,Just another dumb-ass liberal who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 09:57 AMOld Grouch
You asked: "WHICH ONE, if any, of the major oil companies of the world ACTUALLY gave - or gives today - a f**k up a rat's a** for ANY development of "alternative sources", so long as the rest of the earth can be raped for profit, by the old fashioned, and cheap - relatively speaking - method, of drilling and spilling, while burning off natural gas, as a useless by-product, as well?"
Answer, none of them. They will seek the cheapest and most readily available source of oil possible.
I wasn't defending the oil industry. I only said I learned and honed skills in analyzing international affairs and policy in respect to oil while being on the inside.
I observed the industry initiated pressures to "slow down" alternative fuel development expressed in many forms. I also took an earlier retirement because I was "disillusioned" with a lot of things relating to the oil industry and its detrimental influence. While providing a much needed commodity that benefits society, it's a classic case of with some good comes some bad...
You pretty much summed up the industry in your question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Truth
You said: "We are not fighting for our survival; rather, we are fighting to retain our number one position, fighting to try to avoid lowering our high standard of living."
You are apparently very naive and delusional. Remove the availability of 53% of our oil supply and we'll create a society based on the survival of the strongest. Additionally, the domestic supply we are currently harvesting would automatically become prime targets for terrorist activity.
I've read enough of your posts to realize that you are always looking for the altruistic, Utopian styled scenario; but, it doesn't apply to an oil based economy losing over half of its supply without having an immediate alternative available.
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 10:14 AMdavis X,
The yappy puppies will always be with us.
In general, they serve as Architypes of the "conservative", the Republican, and the Right-wing.
In particular, they serve to show us the amount of fact, evidence, thought, reason, and judgment present at any time in any of the individual positions, and arguments, presented from that for which they serve as Architype.
This is what makes them a useful, and accurate, guage, or indicator, by which to be guided, both in reception of, and response to, what is presented by others who adhere to the general for which the yapping puppies act as Architype.
Otherwise, as yapping puppies, they may be ignored completely; and are not worth wasting time on.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 10:37 AMmongoose,
I thank you for the frank, open, and honest answer. And, I commend you, highly, for your action in taking the risks of early retirement, along with the risks of future economic well-being, as evidence of the integrity of your own conclusions concerning the industry.
I believe we will all benefit greatly from your future presence among us in these postings, as a reasonable, thoughful, and soundly grounded in principle voice is something of a rarity of late. Hope to be able to read your works again, elsewhere on the website.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 02:11 PMOld Grouch
While I appreciate your kind reference to my "risk of early retirement", I only stayed retired for a little over a year before I was recruited to a different industry at almost three times the renumeration. While my conclusions regarding the industry remain valid, I definitely landed in an upright position!
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 02:38 PMMongoose. Renumeration, what a pretty word. I would like to try some of that some time. I buy junk and sell antiques.
Hope you keep writing.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 03:00 PMYeah right Brian. Liberals at home are losing the war the conservatives started. Huh? How much sense does that make. You had the president, congress & house of reps and could not get the job done. You are just a crying be cause your side is losing. We libs have been busy prosecuting conservative criminals and raising awareness about global warming. The war is absolutely and completely your problem.
Posted by hikingartist on September 8, 2007 03:37 PMSharon B
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement to stick around. I definitely plan on it as I do enjoy the exchange of ideas presented by people such as yourself. When my brother-in-law "recruited" me to come here I was a little skeptical as first. But he pointed out some characters to watch for and and I was quickly converted.
Oh, and by the way, don't take this wrong, but -- "I buy junk and sell antiques." May my wife never meet you!
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 03:56 PMMongoose, sounds like a lady after my own heart. I found a painting from the 1700`s in a Salvation Army store. It may some day be in a gallery in Denver. Gallup House Fine Art 2050 S. Saint Paul, Denver, Co.
If you ever go there, look for a painting of a church picnic with white church people and a well dressed black man all together.
Glad it got a good home. I couldn`t afford to have it restored.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 04:38 PMmonogoose: "Remove the availability of 53% of our oil supply and we'll create a society based on the survival of the strongest.
According to the articles and map at http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports
dated November 2005, we are importing about two-thirds of our oil.
And of that two-thirds, about 12% comes from Saudi Arabia, 12% from Nigeria, 6% from Angola, 3% from Algeria. and 5% from Iraq, so that a total of 38% of our oil imports come from Africa, which is about and 25% of the total oil we use. That is slightly different than mongoose's 53% figure.
But aside from mongoose's misstatement, which I consider propaganda, the larger question is, despite mongoose’s desire to just assume he is right, whether the war in Iraq is serving or is dis-serving our oil problem. There are many people in places even higher than the one mongoose has set aside for himself who disagree with mongoose.
Is it sufficient to simply dismiss them all as being naive and delusional? I don't think so. While I don’t consider mongoose to be naive and delusional, as he does me, I do disagree with him, as do many, many other people who are in a much better position to judge than I am.
Osama Bin Laden would agree with Sharon B,Truth,Old Grouch, Bango Skank and hikingartist.Need I say more!!!
Posted by An American on September 8, 2007 07:09 PMTruth
Clarification on my 53%. While your numbers are a little dated, they are somewhat accurate. When I presented the number it was to reflect the total percentage of imports that a rapid strike force from the Iraq long term base could move to protect, plus the unstable supply we are importing from a predominately Muslim country which would fold immediately with further sectarian fighting - Nigeria.
Of the countries which will fall under the "protective umbrella" of the Iraq center you have all of the Middle East/Persian Gulf imports --- averaging 22%
Northern Africa -- Averaging 22%
Nigeria -- currently fluctuating between 8% - 11%
Of these, Nigeria is currently the most worrisome as even the US intelligence community has warned the Nigerian government of pending terrorist attacks against their oil production.
Any regional breakout of warring factions in the production region named above, Nigeria is expected to fold into civil unrest essentially halting oil production of any consequence.
I presented a possible scenario of what would happen if we couldn't protect our oil supply in this combined region. You are more than welcome to accept or reject it; modify it to fit your analysis or wishful thinking.
But, I do assure you that the lose of these reserves (estimated at two thirds of the known world reserves) would do more than just effect our quality of life.
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 07:32 PMMongoose, have you noticed people think the rulers in Iran are crazy for wanting nuclear power for electricity. They always say, "well, they have all that oil"
It is very expensive to use oil to make electricity.
We have a number of energy sources, but cars use petroleum, for now. And all those trucks that carry out needs use gas.
Electricity for a family car is great and railroads could be used more for freight, but petroleum rules our lives.
I know we get some petroleum from Mexico also. Didn`t see that in the percentages.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 08:07 PMSharon B
Here's a link to the US Government statistics on daily oil import by the top 15 supplying nations. Mexico is the third largest supplier at this time. Please note that these figures are the average DAILY barrels imported.
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 08:24 PMMr.American said ” Osama Bin Laden would agree with Sharon B,Truth,Old Grouch, Bango Skank and hikingartist.Need I say more!!!”
Nice try at character assassination, beepo.
Shall we compare how much agreement you have with bin Laden?
You probably agree with almost everything that Qutb said about western liberal culture, and only differ from bin Laden on some specifics.
I am more than happy to play this particular game with you beepo, so let’s go for it.
You tell me how bin Laden, Qutb, and Zawahiri are actually atheistic-inclined liberals.
I will tell you how Leo Strauss, Perle, Wolfowitz are more like those fundamentalists than liberals are.
Qutb and his ideological descendants are your cousins beepo, whereas to them liberals are an alien species.
Thanks for the link, maybe the Canadians should be careful, how hard would it be to invade and control them.? We could bring them Democracy, too.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 10:26 PMIf someone I don't know who is winning the war in Iraq then why are there so many Iraqis fleeing the country. Thousands. Many are in Syria causing great instability in the region. Ask Amnesty International. Countless children who were once in school in Iraq are now on the streets of Syria selling trinkets so they can help their families. But wait, Syria can not assimilate all of these people .Are all of you out there who support this war sending money to help these refugees? Who will take care of them? Who is left in Iraq to reap the benefits of the war? Are you signing up because we all know the military is way below recruitment levels? We have the first surge, then there will be the next surge, then the next, and the next ad infinitum. Hey folks? How many more surges will there be before you see the light? Where is the money coming from anyway to pay for this war? You and I are not paying for it. It's our children! This President is under such illusions that we are making progress. I THINK NOT. He even said the next Pres will have to solve the problems that he created. And you are still in adoration this guy? I don't get it.
Posted by JJ on September 8, 2007 10:59 PMDid anyone see Osama Bin Laden on TV.What he said is what Bango Skank and the rest of the Democrats are saying on this page.Read or listen to what he says.It sounds like what the Democrat leadership is saying.
Posted by An American on September 9, 2007 09:11 AMHere is a question I have for everybody.If the terrorists or Osama Bin Laden could vote in the US elections would they vote Democrat or Republican?We all know the answer to this one.I think even the Democrats are smart enough to answer this one.Maybe!
Posted by An American on September 9, 2007 09:23 AMLets cut to the chase and end this post.Who is losing the war in Iraq?Answer ;Al Qaeda and the democrat party.And the lowlife's that voted these corrupt morans in.Fact.
Posted by Keith on September 9, 2007 09:52 AMLets cut to the chase and end this post.Who is losing the war in Iraq?Answer ;Al Qaeda and the democrat party.And the lowlife's that voted these corrupt morans in.Fact.
Posted by Keith on September 9, 2007 09:54 AMKeith I know the one thing everybody else here knows. You and all your facts don't amount to much more than just one more loudmouth wingnut for whom clap harder is a military/political stratergy and for whom bellow louder is a debating tactic.Learn it all from blowharbillowlielly did you?
Posted by davis X. Machina on September 9, 2007 11:08 AMYour posts are not an analysis, mongoose. You mainly try to pass off your speculation about the future as gospel fact. It's something that the Bush administration has been doing since before the invasion.
An analysis would consist of a discussion of the various contingencies that would have to take place in order for your view of the future to become reality. You seem to put forth your predictions of the future as though they are already historical fact.
What you say would definitely happen indeed is a possibility. To what extent it is a probability is a matter of much debate. Certainly, it is a scenario highly touted by the Bush administration. People will have different opinions as to how credible that makes it.
There are quite a few comments about the dire effects on our oil supply if Iraq comes apart. I've not seen any other than yours which paint a doomsday picture of our losing 100% of the oil we now get from the Middle East and Africa.
You blithely assume that if we continue our present course we will protect our oil supply. The presence of U.S. forces since early 2003 has hardly resulted in peace in the Middle East. It can certainly be argued that our strong military presence in the Middle East has exacerbated our problems there, though that can only be the subject of the same kind of speculation which you engage in.
The Middle East has been in turmoil for many years without disrupting our oil supply from there. When Iraq and Iran engaged in an eight year war, that did not sever our oil supply from that area of the world or result in the disintegration of the Middle East as a whole.
When Secretary of Defense Gates says he is formulating contingency plans to withdraw our troops from combat in case the surge doesn't work, I don't think he contemplates that as a result we will lose all of our oil supply from the area, as you seem to.
When Admiral Fallon and others opine that the surge is not working and that we need to significantly drawdown our troop levels in the near term, I don’t think they contemplate a significant drawdown of our troops, I don't think that as a result we will lose all of our oil supply from the area.
Of course, it could be that everyone who disagrees with your speculation is naive and delusional.
There isn't any question that we must be concerned about the risks our oil supply faces. But I don't think that propaganda doomsday scenarios, or other Bushonian scare tactics help in that regard. Most people recognize that at present the prospect of a stable Iraq, with or without our presence, are dim for the foreseeable future. Most people recognize that we not likely to be able to sustain the present force there for too much longer without endangering our capability of dealing with Iran and with other potential problems that history tells us are almost sure to arise.
Margaret, Keith, Brain, An American, et al
ONE NATION
ONE PARTY
ONE GOD
does that about sum it up?
I see our socialist Utopitarian faux intellectual, "Un" Truth is posting more nonsensical commentary confirming the shallowness of his thought process. What a tragedy seeing a human mind decay so rapidly.
What's the matter, "Un" Truth, your welfare check late again this month and you're trying to be prolific on the web before it's cut off?
Posted by on September 9, 2007 01:33 PMTruth:
You will see the beginnings of troop withdrawal. Do a little googling and you'll find that out long term base and the embassy/intelligence compound are almost completed. Staying in the street level beyond an advisory participation is going to wind down. It appears that the objective of the long term presence will be met.
Posted by carl on September 9, 2007 01:40 PMCut and run chicken Dumocrats still at it!
WASHINGTON — President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.
Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.
"The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province, where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 02:24 PMHarry Reid said weeks ago that the war was lost: Hells Bells~~ McCain said that in 2002.
Me, Deicide Grimes.
Deicide Corner: “Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians.” -- Michel de Montaigne
Posted by rg ~~~~ r22037yahoo on September 9, 2007 02:59 PMrg
"McCain said that in 2002"
The war didn't start until 2003
Posted by on September 9, 2007 04:42 PMKW reccommended:
"Charles B - I think the idea was to get more accurate info by talking directly to the troops, rather than getting the filtered version thru zogby."
Why would you prefer anecdotal evidence to a statistical analysis accurate within a small percentage?
Answer:
Because anecdotal evidence can be used to support whatever your predisposed position is...
Posted by Charles B on September 9, 2007 09:01 PMCharlie Boy--
"Because anecdotal evidence can be used to support whatever your predisposed position is.."
And we all know you're the expert at using anecdotal (and concocted) evidence...
Posted by on September 9, 2007 10:46 PMrg,Another dumb-ass liberal who can't present facts.
Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:40 AMMexico is our SECOND largest supplier of imported oil. Unfortunately, like all oil supplies, it too is vulnerable. While it may be the target of a group other than radical Islamics, it's the second time that Mexico has had disruptions recently.
MEXICO CITY — Six explosions believed to be the result of sabotage ripped apart pipelines for Mexico's state oil monopoly early Monday, the company said. There were no reported injuries.
Mexican state oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, issued a statement saying it believed the explosions, which forced the evacuation of 12,000 people, were deliberate.
It said the six blasts caused four fires. At least five pipelines were affected.
A small, left-wing guerrilla group claimed to have attacked a major Pemex gas pipeline in July, forcing at least a dozen major companies, including Honda Motor Co., Kellogg Co. and The Hershey Co., to suspend or scale back operations.
The July explosions affected sections of a major pipeline extending from central Mexico City to Guadalajara in western Mexico.
Those attacks sent the Mexican government scrambling to increase security at "strategic installations" across Mexico. It was not clear what security measures were in place at the pipelines that exploded Monday.
Posted by mongoose on September 10, 2007 09:15 AMAnd your point is?
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 09:42 AMI stand corrected. I did hear McCain say that the war was lost because not enough ground troops ~~~~ he must have said 2003; I appreciate the correction. It is the second time in my life I have made a mistake. Thanks for being cordial. Deicide Grimes
Deicide Corner: “We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher answer'--but none exists.” -- Stephen J. Gould
Posted by rg Deicide r22037yahoo (ffrf.org for free copy of FreeThought on September 10, 2007 10:01 AM"Un" Truth:
"And your point is?"
Every time I slip up and accidentally find myself reading one of your posts I find myself wondering the same thing.
Whatever you are referring to it obviously didn't have a Utopian Socialist bent to it so you were lamely trying to exhibit some great intellect and once again scraped the bottom of the empty barrel you call a mind.
Your dreams of grandeur, of providing riveting intellectual commentary is strictly a product of your own wishful imagination. Your commentary is generally just fatuous flatulence.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 10:23 AMAnon 10:23:--
Welcome to the club! I've gotten to the point that many on this thread have expressed; if it has Truth in the name field I skip over it.
Same with An American, Keith, Edmond and Wes.
Posted by CA on September 10, 2007 12:38 PMFlattery will get you nowhere. I want to know what you really think.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 01:14 PMI am glad that "CA "does not read my postings because I do not think she would understand what I am writing.Her husband owns a gun shop and she is anti-gun.How smart is that?She feels only her elite friends should have a right to own firearms!!
Posted by An American on September 10, 2007 02:59 PMAn American, i think i am falling in love with you...sigh.. its wunnerful having a reel man to love agin
Posted by keith on September 11, 2007 12:39 PMFirst we went to Afghanistan to get Bin Ladin.
Let's see, didn't he just put out another video message?? Then we went to Iraq - why was that? Weapons of mass destruction? - oh yeah, they weren't there. To get rid of Saddam because he was such a bad man? How many dictators have we supported over the years (including Saddam) who were "bad men" but valuable to us. So we got him.
To establish a democracy - democracy in a country filled with sectarian hatred where they treat women like cattle - or brood mares.
Sunnis, Shias & Kurds have hated & killed each other for centuries, but we are going to go in & say "now play nice boys & let's all get along (& we don't care how much you mistreat your women) & we'll have a nice Democracy. Good grief. These people are not going to turn around centuries of hatred just because we say so. The Kurds (who are mostly Christian) have a much better society - all they want is to be free of Iraq & have their own country. Do we support them? No - because that wouldn't be Bush's Victory. What exactly would be Bush's Victory & how many more of our young people have to die for something we cannot even define??
Keith isn't it it funny how the Democrats make fun of the people they say they support,the gays.This just shows that they have no respect for the gay community but just use them for votes.Once again we see how phoney the Democrats really are but what is new''
Posted by An American on September 12, 2007 11:02 AM