Iran the british navy and what should be done.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford Does anybody care ? Not me. The man has lost his crediblity, his reputation for telling it like it is, by things like endorsing the Chimp in '04 and kissing up to the religious right recently to bolster his chances for nomination. I also believe he made a bargain with the devil in '04 that he'd back the Chimp in exchange for nomination in '08; the fact he could do that after what Chimp's folks did in South Carolina in '00 (the "illegimate" black child) makes me wonder if the guy has any balls or a soul. He was one Republican I could actually imagine voting for; no longer. Anyone else know why Guiliani is considered a "great leader" just because he didn't completely panic on 9/11 or scurry around the country like a frightened bunny the way the Moron in Chief did ?

And Guilani told the Saudi prince to shove his money up his you know what!!

Remember folks the saudis are only friends of the Bushes and Halliburton!

[samclem]

At least one person believes we should take something for trading purposes:


"In the Washington Times James Lyons, a retired admiral, suggests a show of strength that Carter rejected back then:

In November 1979, when our embassy was sacked and our diplomats were taken hostage, I recommended to the then-acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Tom Hayward, that our only good option really was to capture Kharg Island, Iran's principal oil export depot. If we did this, we could negotiate from a position of strength for the immediate return of our embassy and our diplomats.

Unfortunately, the Carter administration rejected any offensive operations as a means of responding to this blatant act of war against the United States. We were humiliated and seemed to the world to lack the courage to defend our honor. . . ."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

Of course, an action of this type would cause oil prices to go through the roof, so it would not be without cost to us.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem At least one person believes we should take something for trading purposes: "In the Washington Times James Lyons, a retired admiral, suggests a show of strength that Carter rejected back then: In November 1979, when our embassy was sacked and our diplomats were taken hostage, I recommended to the then-acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Tom Hayward, that our only good option really was to capture Kharg Island, Iran's principal oil export depot. If we did this, we could negotiate from a position of strength for the immediate return of our embassy and our diplomats. Unfortunately, the Carter administration rejected any offensive operations as a means of responding to this blatant act of war against the United States. We were humiliated and seemed to the world to lack the courage to defend our honor. . . ." http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ Of course, an action of this type would cause oil prices to go through the roof, so it would not be without cost to us.

That IS the real trouble here. The price of oil would spike to over 150 a barrel. The economy would be a mess and 8 dollar a gallon gasoline would be a problem. Face it americans we is screwed, and when we think everything will be OK Israel will do what we are afraid to do and the price will still go thru the roof and everyone will again Blame the JEWS!

[Alex]

The ironic thing about Iran's massive Oil reserves is that they have only one GASOLINE refinery in the entire country. What do you think would happen this refinery were destroyed

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex The ironic thing about Iran's massive Oil reserves is that they have only one GASOLINE refinery in the entire country. What do you think would happen this refinery were destroyed

I think they would import all the gasoline they need. There'd be a short-term disruption, but then they'd get their refined gasoline from somewhere else--maybe swap three barrels of crude for each barrrel of gasoline.

[bssc]

I predict that it will end up like the Hainen Island incident. The UK will offer a carefully worded letter like the US did and the sailors will be released.

[Insanity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 That IS the real trouble here. The price of oil would spike to over 150 a barrel. The economy would be a mess and 8 dollar a gallon gasoline would be a problem.

With all due respect to everyone who thinks Iran is the Big Threat, I'd like to suggest that you look at the whole equation from a different angle.

Take any nation and pump money into it. Throw in a few unfriendly neighbors and a little religious zealotry. And out comes a country with a first-rate air force and military that's developing a taste for nuclear weapons. Want to reverse this trend? Stop pumping oil out and money in.

That's not the real problem. We've developed a dependency on that cheap (and yes it is cheap -- bottled water costs less) oil to run our economy, and in doing so send a large percentage of our gross income to one of the less stable, less friendly parts of the world, and now those people we have been financing so well are becoming economic and military threats to the United States.

THat this was going to happen has been blatantly obvious for a very long time. In his State of the Union address the President said "The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security."

That was President Carter in 1980, by the way. And it wasn't the first or last time our President has said our dependence on foreign oil is a danger to national security. President Bush spelled it out in his State of the Union address this year, too: "For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil and do great harm to our economy."

The bigger hazard to our country isn't Iran and what to do about it, but that our country has a serious addiction problem that, like any addict, we seem to lack the will to address. In this senario Iran and other oil exporting nations are our enablers, our pushers, bending our will against our better judgement and against our better interests. Until we finally commit ourselves to breaking that addiction, we'll continue to ignore what's good for us, give money to our enabler, allowing them to develop weapons that form a significant military hazard, and perhaps even bankrupt our economy.

The answer is not simple, easy, or painless. First, we have to stop driving vehicles that suck gasoline (or any other fuel) down like a drunk on a payday Friday. Next, we have to sink money into research and development for other, economically and environmentally friendly and dependable sources of energy that we can produce within our borders, without foreign resources.

Unless we do these things it's really only a matter of time before we've paid for Iran's Nuclear Weapons and who knows what other threats (Iranian and otherwise) to our nation.

"We must take whatever actions are necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . ."
-- President Carter, 1980

"We have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil . . . "
-- President Bush, 2006

--Peter

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insanity With all due respect to everyone who thinks Iran is the Big Threat, I'd like to suggest that you look at the whole equation from a different angle. Take any nation and pump money into it. Throw in a few unfriendly neighbors and a little religious zealotry. And out comes a country with a first-rate air force and military that's developing a taste for nuclear weapons. Want to reverse this trend? Stop pumping oil out and money in. That's not the real problem. We've developed a dependency on that cheap (and yes it is cheap -- bottled water costs less) oil to run our economy, and in doing so send a large percentage of our gross income to one of the less stable, less friendly parts of the world, and now those people we have been financing so well are becoming economic and military threats to the United States. THat this was going to happen has been blatantly obvious for a very long time. In his State of the Union address the President said "The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security." That was President Carter in 1980, by the way. And it wasn't the first or last time our President has said our dependence on foreign oil is a danger to national security. President Bush spelled it out in his State of the Union address this year, too: "For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil and do great harm to our economy." The bigger hazard to our country isn't Iran and what to do about it, but that our country has a serious addiction problem that, like any addict, we seem to lack the will to address. In this senario Iran and other oil exporting nations are our enablers, our pushers, bending our will against our better judgement and against our better interests. Until we finally commit ourselves to breaking that addiction, we'll continue to ignore what's good for us, give money to our enabler, allowing them to develop weapons that form a significant military hazard, and perhaps even bankrupt our economy. The answer is not simple, easy, or painless. First, we have to stop driving vehicles that suck gasoline (or any other fuel) down like a drunk on a payday Friday. Next, we have to sink money into research and development for other, economically and environmentally friendly and dependable sources of energy that we can produce within our borders, without foreign resources. Unless we do these things it's really only a matter of time before we've paid for Iran's Nuclear Weapons and who knows what other threats (Iranian and otherwise) to our nation. "We must take whatever actions are necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . ." -- President Carter, 1980 "We have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil . . . " -- President Bush, 2006 --Peter

You are on point my friend.

[Craig]

I agree with you 100%, Insanity / Peter.

Laurence, glad to see you have your hackles up on this one as well.


We're not screwed. The U.S. is a great nation, with great economic, military and cultural strength. We do need some changes in policy, and an energy policy should be one of the highest on the list. We will get through this.

But even if / when we change policies, I think we'll be in a major conflict with radical Islamists in the next five years. Iraq will assume its correct proportion, as a tiny conflict, unfortunately. I remain surprised we haven't seen more attacks on our soil ... have to believe it is a function of successful security work, and perhaps also a recognition by terrorists that they may awaken a sleeping giant by further attacks on our soil. Big question is whether we will elect a President in 2008 who will have the balls and brains to defend our country.


Regarding the main question of the thread, I agree we'll likely see calmer heads prevail, and the UK and Iran work out some diplomatic statements that resolve the crisis, resulting in the release of these sailors. The Iranians, like Hussein, have proven themselves to be crude bastards who are hamhanded at public relations, and later we will hear what they've done to these poor hostages.

Or, if the Iranian nutcases prevail, we'll see bombs dropping on strategic targets, followed by Iranian statements that they're moving the sailors to other potential targets as "human shields". We've all seen this movie before.

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insanity "We must take whatever actions are necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . ." -- President Carter, 1980 "We have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil . . . " -- President Bush, 2006

As long as it doesn't involve our drilling off the coast of any state that doesn't want it, drilling in ANWAR, developing/implementing nuclear power....

We only do stupid things like ferment corn (ask any moonshiner how to make white lightning and corn would be laughed at), dump money into hydrogen power (where do you think the H2 will come from?) and opine endlessly about "green power" without any that make economic sense.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B As long as it doesn't involve our drilling off the coast of any state that doesn't want it, drilling in ANWAR, developing/implementing nuclear power.... We only do stupid things like ferment corn (ask any moonshiner how to make white lightning and corn would be laughed at), dump money into hydrogen power (where do you think the H2 will come from?) and opine endlessly about "green power" without any that make economic sense.

Correct again!!

[janeeyre]

Yes, we must drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have heard this rhetoric for years. What we need is a dynamic leader who will transform the rhetoric into action.

Do you know anyone??

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles But even if / when we change policies, I think we'll be in a major conflict with radical Islamists in the next five years. Iraq will assume its correct proportion, as a tiny conflict, unfortunately. I remain surprised we haven't seen more attacks on our soil ... have to believe it is a function of successful security work, and perhaps also a recognition by terrorists that they may awaken a sleeping giant by further attacks on our soil. Big question is whether we will elect a President in 2008 who will have the balls and brains to defend our country.

I think the five years you talk of is a very short sighted. I think reality is more like decades. I also think the radical Islamists are being tied up in Iraq as well as the security you are talking about.

[kjpliny]

I look at the issue as a simple sliding scale. The left side of the scale is $$ spent on US military adventures worldwide and the right side is $$ spent on energy independence. Right now the weight on the scale is positioned pretty much all the way to the left. If a program was set up over the next 20 years to move the slider a few % to the right each year, in twenty years we'd be in a position to spend a fraction of what we're currently spending on military because we'd be almost totally energy independent and we wouldn't need to be involved in the business of what other countries are doing. Eventually we could take some of the money we'd be saving on military expenditures and put it towards paying off our massive debts.

As far as the radical Muslim extremists, we can't fight a war with these people and expect to win without killing a preposterous number of innocent people along the way. You can't tell an extremist from a regular civilian until after the extremist makes a move, usually to the detriment of surrounding lives and property. If we were as ruthless as some of the people we're fighting, the war on terror would be an easy win for the US...just drop a few hundred nuclear weapons on each suspect country until said country doesn't exist anymore. We'd end up wiping out a billion people and a religion at the same time. Think the people of the world hate us now?

[2soon2tell]

Yes, it will take a serious change in energy policy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It's not going to happen with this president who owes his election to big business including big oil. It's not going to happen with our elected leaders who have so many vested interests in the status quo. It's not going to happen until we have the political will to make drastic changes. How do you run for office telling the voters that they must sacrifice now and bear some pain for the greater good down the road.

I think necessary changes will only happen when out backs are against the wall as a nation and the politicians have no other choices.

2soon

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire The easiest way to answer this is to compare him with a poor leader. NYC was attacked unexpectedly resulting in a huge disaster for the city. Guiliani's response was acceptable. Look at New Orleans after Katrina hit it. The storm was expected, yet the hurricane disaster preparedness program was not implemented, causing a huge disaster. After the fact all the mayor and Governor could do is blame the federal government for not providing help sooner.

I see your point, but I'd argue that Katrina was a significantly bigger disaster. That whole
region of the country was crippled. The Ground Zero of 9/11 was surrounded by a
thriving bustling city eager and willing to help out.

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjpliny As far as the radical Muslim extremists, we can't fight a war with these people and expect to win without killing a preposterous number of innocent people along the way.

It probably makes more sense to figure out how to stop people from becoming religious
extremists. Thomas Friedman has written very insightfully about its causes; the shame
of living in such crappy societies and having it in their faces (thanks to internet etc) how
much better our societies are; the oppressive governments many Muslims live under
(all the 9/11 hijackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, very repressive); and, of
course, the actions of the USA, particularly in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Quote:

If we were as ruthless as some of the people we're fighting, the war on terror would be an easy win for the US...just drop a few hundred nuclear weapons on each suspect country until said country doesn't exist anymore. We'd end up wiping out a billion people and a religion at the same time. Think the people of the world hate us now?

Perhaps the biggest problem is we'd very likely make the planet un-livable for ourselves
as well.

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles We're not screwed. The U.S. is a great nation, with great economic, military and cultural strength.

In particular, our engineers are by far the best at meeting major challenges. Look at the
Manhattan Project and the space program, for example. Some leadership is needed to
make energy indepedence (and carbon-emission reduction) priority #1 for our scientific
community - a challenge much like JFK's exhortation to go to the moon. Some financial
incentives, like a carbon tax, wouldn't hurt either.

[samclem]

Developing energy alternatives is not an engineering problem, and it is not (primarily) a politcal problem. It is an economic problem. As long as oil is cheaper, it wil be our source of energy. Does anyone remember all the money we wasted on the government synthetic fuels program? We could have endless wasteful "Manhatten Projects" like that and not be one step closer to being free of our dependence on oil.

Also, remember that if we put up tarrifs or other things to make oil artificially expensive so that other energy sources are developed, we'll be puting our industries (and workers) at a significant disadvantage worldwide. Say "bye-bye" standard of living. And, we won't be even a smal step closer to cutting off the supply of money to the fundamentalist, repressive regimes in the Middle East, since others will simply buy up the oil we aren't buying.

It is true that oil gets a subsidy from the government, especially in the use of military forces to keep the supply lines open. If we could somehow include that cost in the price of oil other alternaives would instantly become feasible and desirable. Now, how to do that, and do it without putting our industries and workers at a competitive diasdantage.

No easy answers. And almost certainly none that will come (primarily) from big govt, unless they somehow harness/channel the energies of the free market in the right direction.

(Revised and extended during subsequent edit)

[Brat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford It probably makes more sense to figure out how to stop people from becoming religious extremists. Thomas Friedman has written very insightfully about its causes; the shamemuch better our societies are; the oppressive governments many Muslims live under of living in such crappy societies and having it in their faces (thanks to internet etc) how (all the 9/11 hijackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, very repressive); and, of course, the actions of the USA, particularly in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I agree on the premise. I also think we should not neglect our own. We have been hit only once by a home-grown car-bomer but I think there are some in our own society who advocate the same thinking.

These folks usually attack the moderates of their own group first.