View Full Version : Interesting Piece
Middle East Imperative
by: James Cash, Brigadier General, USAF, Retired
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.
Understand; the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grand kids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates, that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support.
That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win.
We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.
The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more closely.
Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.
In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.
I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.
At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat.
Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.
They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.
Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days". The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.
I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the Internet through Stand-up America at http://www.ospreyradio.us/! , http://www.ospreyradio.us/ or http://www.rightalk.com/, < SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; COLOR: #6600cc">http://www.rightalk.com/.
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.
You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences.
'Enough - said!'
Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.
I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right.
I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.
This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.
I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton 's and now the Democrats hate Bush.
So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan , and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.
Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation.
You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.
The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that.
Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria, which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.
Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam War than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.
This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall.
All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic.
However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.
If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.
Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American--- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.
Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win.
By the way, it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.
So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he possesses.
A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time.
I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.
HOWEVER, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brigadier General, USAF, Retired
Lakeside, Montana 59922
"I'll tell you what war is all about; you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."
-- General Curtis LeMay
How are these two viewed by those who served with them? Also, it was just yesterday that Gates criticized the Air Force for not being engaged enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. I always thought the purpose of the Air Force is to support the Army.
The Reaper
04-22-2008, 15:31
I always thought the purpose of the Air Force is to support the Army.
The Air Force decided many years ago that the reverse is true.
If we can secure their bases, they can win any war with shock and awe from 30,000' and be back at the club in time for Happy Hour.
I don't think Al Qaeda and the Taliban got the memo.
TR
x-factor
04-22-2008, 18:53
How are these two viewed by those who served with them? Also, it was just yesterday that Gates criticized the Air Force for not being engaged enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. I always thought the purpose of the Air Force is to support the Army.
The age of nuclear weapons and prospect of intercontinental war means that isn't always the case. The USAF takes a lot of flak (bad pun, I know) for its relationship (supporting vs independent vs whatever) with ground forces. In my opinion, some of that is warranted and some of it isn't.
There are alot of big scenarios (Taiwan Straits most obviously, but there are others too) where the USAF has a potentially huge role and the Army a very minimal one. The country and the leadership expect them to be prepared for those. The USAF doesn't have the option of saying "no, our job is to support the Army."
That said, there are times when the USAF does quite blatantly try to fit a square "air power" peg into a round hole just to try and prove they can. Thats just ego, sometimes to the point of being borderline unethical.
Paste Eater
04-22-2008, 19:39
How are these two viewed by those who served with them? Also, it was just yesterday that Gates criticized the Air Force for not being engaged enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. I always thought the purpose of the Air Force is to support the Army.
An interesting read on thwe subject, "Danger Close" by Steven Call
It's mainly about TACPS in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it also goes into detail the turfwars so to say that the Air Force and Army struggled through prior to these conflicts. It gives a good insight as to how certain members of each respective branch have tried to merge the powers of these two branches to bring about "jointness" if you will, in combat and other capabilities.
Basically, quit pissing and moaning about who has the power and authority to do what and put your heads together and figure it the hell out.
Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days". The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
Good point.
There are those who contend the wars are about oil as if that were somehow odious and wrong. But the truth is, we've built our civilization around cheap and abundant crude oil. Perhaps we can transform ourselves, given time, to be less dependent - but the change would be neither quick nor cheap. Oil is, quite literally, our life blood. A cutoff of oil would be analogous to strangling a person.
But the problem is - do we have the national will to fight Iran? I suspect such a war would be hard to win and costly in terms of lives - but I am ignorant of such things. I hope one of the many who know more about the subject will comment.
If the war was primarily about oil, wouldn't it have been easier and more beneficial to invade Venezuela?
If the war was primarily about oil, wouldn't it have been easier and more beneficial to invade Venezuela?
Sir, my understanding is that Venezuela's oil is of poor quality - both heavy and sour. So the refineries have a much more challenging (hence expensive) job than with light sweet crude.
And then there's the neighborhood. Saudi Arabia produces about 10 million barrels per day, whereas Venezuela had 2.2 million barrels. In 2006, Iraq produced 2 million barrels per day. (The reports are available at EIA Link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/index.html)
So, supposing that one wanted to stabilize the entire area, Iraq might make an ideal spot to control.
But, as I've said, I don't claim to know anything about military operations. I would be most interested in any thoughts you might care to mention.
Sir, my understanding is that Venezuela's oil is of poor quality - both heavy and sour. So the refineries have a much more challenging (hence expensive) job than with light sweet crude.Look into the number of oil refineries we had in the past and compare them to the #s we have today....:munchin
Stay safe.
Look into the number of oil refineries we had in the past and compare them to the #s we have today....:munchin
Stay safe.
Oh Now you want us to do Math? 1+1-2+3-9= oh shit we do not have enough.:D
Do you guys believe that our dependence of Middle Eastern oil alone was just cause for OIF?
Do you guys believe that our dependence of Middle Eastern oil alone was just cause for OIF?Way above my.......:eek:
Stay safe.
Do you guys believe that our dependence of Middle Eastern oil alone was just cause for OIF?
In my humble Opinion No!
But no one in DC cares what I think, much less those in my house.:rolleyes:
In my humble Opinion No!
But no one in DC cares what I think, much less those in my house.:rolleyes:Ain't that the truth!
Stay safe.
The boys from AEI have maintained for years "the path to peace in Palestine lies through Baghdad." It would be interesting to hear opinions on the validity of this thought.
Dad
The boys from AEI have maintained for years "the path to peace in Palestine lies through Baghdad." It would be interesting to hear opinions on the validity of this thought.
Dad
:confused:
Stay safe.
x-factor
04-23-2008, 10:31
Oil is the difference between Africa and the Mideast. They're both (generally speaking) culturally backwards tribal-minded holes, but we're one is sitting on the cornerstone of the world economy and the other isn't. Hence we have historically cared about one and generally ignored the other.
Oil is THE REASON why we care in the first place, but it isn't at all sufficient to explain why we do what we do. Oil makes Mideast stability a vital part of the world security picture (and by extension US policy), but the pursuit of that stability is governed by more than just the need to put wells in the ground and protect them.
Oil is the difference between Africa and the Mideast. They're both (generally speaking) culturally backwards tribal-minded holes, but we're one is sitting on the cornerstone of the world economy and the other isn't. Hence we have historically cared about one and generally ignored the other.Have you looked at the production cost of oil in Africa-vs-ME?:munchin
Oil is THE REASON why we care in the first place, but it isn't at all sufficient to explain why we do what we do. Oil makes Mideast stability a vital part of the world security picture (and by extension US policy), but the pursuit of that stability is governed by more than just the need to put wells in the ground and protect them.I agree too a degree since religion plays a major part in the equation.
Stay safe.
Look into the number of oil refineries we had in the past and compare them to the #s we have today....:munchin
Stay safe.
Fascinating. We have less capacity today than we did in 1981; and the number of refineries is down by more than half. Thank you, Sir!
Here's the source for anyone interested: LINK (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_21.pdf)
I'm tempted to conclude that the oil companies know that supply constraints are at hand, and hence don't care to invest more in new (or upgraded) refineries.
Have you looked at the production cost of oil in Africa-vs-ME?:munchin
Thank you again, Sir. I'm looking forward to any further insights you are willing to share.
For those interested, here's a LINK (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/perfpro/tab12.htm)
The Reaper
04-23-2008, 13:59
Fascinating. We have less capacity today than we did in 1981; and the number of refineries is down by more than half. Thank you, Sir!
Here's the source for anyone interested: LINK (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_21.pdf)
I'm tempted to conclude that the oil companies know that supply constraints are at hand, and hence don't care to invest more in new (or upgraded) refineries.
I'd say that if the oil companies thought that there was a penny more profit to be had from creating more refining capacity, they would build them. Obviously, there isn't.
I'd also speculate that if the US Government thought that it was in our strategic interest to do so, they should build a few down near the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Obviously, they don't.
Finally, I would say that the enviro-whackos and NIMBYers have made it a huge challenge to build anything in this country, much less a potential source of fire and pollution. Frankly, IMHO, we need to establish a primitive living state for these people, and ship them to their pre-electric, pre-industrial, pre-internal combustion engine, pre-modern medicine, fully predator-populated, 17th century utopias to die by the ripe old age of 50. BTW, if we can't refine oil, make electricity, etc. because of you and your neighbors, your ration needs to be cut by half every time you open your pie-hole.
I want the President, who has nothing to lose at this point, to announce that we are starting a Manhattan Project to develop a viable alternative source of energy to oil within the next ten years. Tax gas by .50 per gallon to pay for it. Charge people an extra $100 per year, and an additional charge per mpg for each car over the CAFE limit. In the interim, we are going to drill and pump every prospective site in the country as much as we can, and build at least one refinery in every state, more if you have more than 1,000,000 residents with cars. Then watch the oil states and oil speculators have the fear of God put into them. Probably piss a lot of people off, but our children would be better off for it. I strongly suspect that the oil prices would drop by 50% or more within a month, and some of this Middle Eastern trouble would get resolved.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Fascinating. We have less capacity today than we did in 1981; and the number of refineries is down by more than half. Thank you, Sir!
Here's the source for anyone interested: LINK (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_21.pdf)I in an oil refinery city...:p
I'm tempted to conclude that the oil companies know that supply constraints are at hand, and hence don't care to invest more in new (or upgraded) refineries.The restrictions of "new" construction cost $$$$!
CA will put 10 MFers out of work too save one (1) tree!:confused:
AIO!:lifter
Stay safe.
Roguish Lawyer
04-23-2008, 14:07
But no one in DC cares what I think, much less those in my house.:rolleyes:
Well I care. Feel better? ;)
I'd say that if the oil companies thought that there was a penny more profit to be had from creating more refining capacity, they would build them. Obviously, there isn't.Negative!
I'd also speculate that if the US Government thought that it was in our strategic interest to do so, they should build a few down near the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Obviously, they don't.At times I believe state state laws trumps federal laws...
Finally, I would say that the enviro-whackos and NIMBYers have made it a huge challenge to build anything in this country, much less a potential source of fire and pollution. Frankly, IMHO, we need to establish a primitive living state for these people, and ship them to their pre-electric, pre-industrial, pre-internal combustion engine, pre-modern medicine, fully predator-populated, 17th century utopias to die by the ripe old age of 50. BTW, if we can't refine oil, make electricity, etc. because of you and your neighbors, your ration needs to be cut by half every time you open your pie-hole.I agree!
Stay safe.
TR is right on--a concerted effort to find alternative fuel with the objective of self sufficiency. First, in an interview the president of the American Petroleum Institute has stated he knows of not one single oil company with intentions of building new refineries. They think the cost versus an estimated 35 year window is not worth the investment. Why they think it is only a 35 year window puzzled me. They are upgrading refineries to increase production. Now the good part. Last week I listened to an interview on NPR with a lady at what I think they said was the American Chemical Engineers convention. The lady explained the most effective enzyme known for converting plant materials into fuel resides in a cows stomach. That is why cows farts are so explosive. Through a little bio engineering they have put the ability to produce this enzyme into corn. The real beauty is the corn only produces the enzyme in the outer epidermal layers of the stalk and leaves, NOT in the kernel. The enzyme only becomes active after harvest when the plant is ground up. This means you can feed the corn, thus holding down food costs and then process the stalk and leaves for fuel. It is beautiful but will absolutely run into opposition groups opposed to bio engineering. It definately shows the genius this country is capable of. I started thinking maybe because the petroleum industry is aware of developing alternatives they put a 35 year window on the need for additional refineries. We are still the most creative country in the world when we need to be. If we don't achieve self sufficiency it won't be because we don't have the talent
TR is right on--a concerted effort to find alternative fuel with the objective of self sufficiency. First, in an interview the president of the American Petroleum Institute has stated he knows of not one single oil company with intentions of building new refineries. They think the cost versus an estimated 35 year window is not worth the investment. Why they think it is only a 35 year window puzzled me. They are upgrading refineries to increase production. Now the good part. Last week I listened to an interview on NPR with a lady at what I think they said was the American Chemical Engineers convention. The lady explained the most effective enzyme known for converting plant materials into fuel resides in a cows stomach. That is why cows farts are so explosive. Through a little bio engineering they have put the ability to produce this enzyme into corn. The real beauty is the corn only produces the enzyme in the outer epidermal layers of the stalk and leaves, NOT in the kernel. The enzyme only becomes active after harvest when the plant is ground up. This means you can feed the corn, thus holding down food costs and then process the stalk and leaves for fuel. It is beautiful but will absolutely run into opposition groups opposed to bio engineering. It definately shows the genius this country is capable of. I started thinking maybe because the petroleum industry is aware of developing alternatives they put a 35 year window on the need for additional refineries. We are still the most creative country in the world when we need to be. If we don't achieve self sufficiency it won't be because we don't have the talentPost your POV! Icould care lees about "others" POV!;)
Stay safe.
Mr POV is we can achieve energy independence without sufferiing unduly. We only need the will
Sir, my understanding is that Venezuela's oil is of poor quality - both heavy and sour. So the refineries have a much more challenging (hence expensive) job than with light sweet crude.
I can't speak to the quality of Venezuelan crude, but I think its noteworthy that regardless of quality, we import almost 150,000 more barrels a day from them than from Iraq.
I also find it noteworthy that there is only 1 ME nation in the top 5, and 3 in the top 10, and that even with Saudi Arabia's high export numbers (19%), the 3 ME nations only provide 31% of the imported oil from the top 10 list.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Mr POV is we can achieve energy independence without sufferiing unduly. We only need the willSomeone said this to me...
"When has life NOT been about suffering?":confused:
Stay safe.
x-factor
04-23-2008, 19:31
Have you looked at the production cost of oil in Africa-vs-ME?:munchin
Yes, indeed. And have you noticed that our interest in Africa has been increasing steadily and concurrently?
Also, I whole-heartedly agree with TR on the need for some kind of green energy manhattan project. If I were running for President that would be the crown jewel of my campaign. I can't think of a single incident in modern American history where the country's security, economic, and environmental concerns have so overlapped. It baffles me why none of the candidates is jumping on this.
x-factor
04-23-2008, 19:33
Someone said this to me...
"When has life NOT been about suffering?":confused:
Stay safe.
My wife would be mad at me if I did not offer the following quote from The Princess Bride: Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
GratefulCitizen
04-23-2008, 19:54
The solution is nuclear power and methanol.
Nuclear power is probably the best way to generate electricity.
(the French did get that one right)
Methanol can be made from petroleum, coal, biomass, and can even be synthesized from water and CO2.
(the last method even has the advantage of using/recycling CO2)
Methanol can use existing infrastructure with only minor modifications.
It can also be used to power fuel cells.
Besides just being a fuel source, it is useful in the manufacture of other chemicals.
Now for why nuclear power and methanol will not be developed.
/ tinfoil hat on /
The greenies don't want an actual technical solution.
They want the political power associated with finding a solution.
Energy companies don't want to invest in a solution which, after they have developed the technology/infrastructure, will allow other players to enter the game.
Politicians won't support a solution which takes away a campaign issue and threatens funding (from interested parties) for their next campaign.
Too many apple carts will get upset and there's too much money to be made with tight supplies.
/tinfoil hat off/
Hopefully we'll someday get some brave leaders willing to push the agenda.
I can't speak to the quality of Venezuelan crude, but I think its noteworthy that regardless of quality, we import almost 150,000 more barrels a day from them than from Iraq.
I also find it noteworthy that there is only 1 ME nation in the top 5, and 3 in the top 10, and that even with Saudi Arabia's high export numbers (19%), the 3 ME nations only provide 31% of the imported oil from the top 10 list.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
All good points, Sir.
And yet, it is my understanding that the fungible nature of crude reduces the importance of exports by a given country to any particular other country. So if Venezuela decided to sell only to China, then China would buy less from some third party - and that third party would sell to us.
I think the total exports of crude by nation may be telling. From that viewpoint, Venezuela supplies a bit less than 4% of the global total - and many nations, including Iraq and Norway export more. It is, if I have counted correctly, number 8 on the list of exporters.
The real powerhouse is Russia, right behind Saudi Arabia...
LINK (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iea2005/table31.xls)
Finally, I would say that the enviro-whackos and NIMBYers have made it a huge challenge to build anything in this country, much less a potential source of fire and pollution.
Sir, if matters develop as I expect, the enviro-whackos will face an enraged public. They might prefer your idea to what reality has in store.
I want the President, who has nothing to lose at this point, to announce that we are starting a Manhattan Project to develop a viable alternative source of energy to oil within the next ten years.
Simmons (Twilight in the desert) advocates exactly that. Hirsch LINK (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf) suggests a variety of mitigation efforts, with the total from all efforts offsetting declines in oil. Hirsch's report suggests that mitigation will take 10-20 years - and that if we don't begin implementation soon, the costs to the U.S. economy could exceed a trillion dollars.
Strong, determined leadership could accomplish much. I think there would still be considerable economic pain for many; but good leadership could result in a positive outcome. Whether we will get the leadership we need...I don't know.
But oil can't be the only reason, or even the main reason, to proceed with OIF, or even our interest in the region. If that is the case, then who is next:
Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries
Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
Russia (6.67)
Norway (2.91)
Iran (2.55)
Venezuela (2.36)
United Arab Emirates (2.33)
Kuwait (2.20)
Nigeria (2.19)
Mexico (1.80)
Algeria (1.68)
The following countries have strong reserves to compete effectively in global oil trade.
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country (2005)
Saudi Arabia (262 billion barrels)
Canada (179)
Iran (126)
Iraq (115)
Kuwait (102)
United Arab Emirates (98)
Venezuela (77)
Russia (60)
Libya (39)
Nigeria (35)
I have a feeling that oil is a key issue. Let's consider your list:
Saudi Arabia (All things considered, they have been fairly friendly to the U.S. (certain radical teaching notwithstanding) Why attack a friendly state?)
Russia (6.67) (Probably not a good idea to attack)
Norway (2.91) (Norway is more likely to be an ally than an enemy)
Iran (2.55) (Big population, mountains. Seems like quite a challenging target.)
Venezuela (2.36) (Jungles, mountains, surrounding nations that might harbor rebels...and the crude is heavy and sour.)
United Arab Emirates (2.33) (They've been pretty friendly in the past)
Kuwait (2.20) (They've been pretty friendly in the past)
Nigeria (2.19) (MEND is a problem...do we want a ground war in Africa? The events in Somalia come to mind.)
Mexico (1.80) (Occupying a country with 100,000,000 people seems problematic. And Cantarell is in rapid decline. Plus, we have fairly good trading relations already)
Algeria (1.68) (I seem to recall the French faced a bitter, costly insurgency over many years. Do we really want to do the same thing?)
I will confess that I'm doing this from memory, and my memory isn't perfect. So if I've made factual errors in the above - or, for that matter, errors of interpretation - I hope and trust someone will correct my mistakes.
That said, even though I don't know enough about military strategy to peel the potatoes properly, it doesn't seem prudent to invade and occupy any of the above....
Yes, indeed. And have you noticed that our interest in Africa has been increasing steadily and concurrently? China is pouring $$$$$ into there.
Stay safe.
x-factor
04-24-2008, 12:55
China is pouring $$$$$ into there.
Stay safe.
So true. You think in 2045 we'll be sitting around some airfield in Senegal crying for the "simpler days" of the GWOT, the way the old timers today pine for the simpler days of the Cold War? ;)
[QUOTE=x-factor;207641]Yes, indeed. And have you noticed that our interest in Africa has been increasing steadily and concurrently?[QUOTE]
Take a look.
"The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion."
"Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html
Coincidence? I think not.
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2008, 23:05
I want the President, who has nothing to lose at this point, to announce that we are starting a Manhattan Project to develop a viable alternative source of energy to oil within the next ten years. Tax gas by .50 per gallon to pay for it. Charge people an extra $100 per year, and an additional charge per mpg for each car over the CAFE limit. In the interim, we are going to drill and pump every prospective site in the country as much as we can, and build at least one refinery in every state, more if you have more than 1,000,000 residents with cars. Then watch the oil states and oil speculators have the fear of God put into them. Probably piss a lot of people off, but our children would be better off for it. I strongly suspect that the oil prices would drop by 50% or more within a month, and some of this Middle Eastern trouble would get resolved.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
TR's post inspired me to do some minor researching.
Energy independence/peak oil/the sky is falling...these problems are not technical, they are political.
If anyone is interested in doing some reading, you'll see how the dots connect.
Uranium is the future of power generation.
http://tinyurl.com/3bt64o
http://tinyurl.com/4ds77l
http://tinyurl.com/4vkh35
China and India already know this.
http://tinyurl.com/4shdxz
We're not going to run out of fuel for our SUV's or put too much CO2 out.
Electricity + water + CO2 = methanol (a suitable substitute for gasoline)
http://tinyurl.com/4qe35s
Dimethyl ether is a suitable substitute for diesel fuel, and is made from methanol.
http://tinyurl.com/3kfe9j
However, if we must have hydrocarbons...
http://tinyurl.com/4y9b9e
http://tinyurl.com/45uhdb
Technical problems can be overcome, given sufficient economic incentive or political will.
Declining oil will not be the end of civilization.
However, a dependent, fearful, and easily swayed electorate will bring and end to the combination of civilization and freedom.
olhamada
07-08-2009, 11:19
Yes, indeed. And have you noticed that our interest in Africa has been increasing steadily and concurrently?
I was searching for "Alien Abduction" and the "Thought Screen Helmet" and this thread popped up. I'll post a link to the "Thought Screen Helmet for Alien Abduction Prevention" soon.
But first a few arbitrary points on this old thread -
China is slowly increasing their presence all over the African continent - especially Sudan. I was in Southern Sudan a couple of years ago and heard a great deal of talk from the locals that China had effective control over most all of Sudan's oil production and exports in exchange for provision of funding and materials for infrastructure improvements, oil well and refinery construction, and "security" (around 10,000 Chinese military troops) for all oil fields in the country.
Another point - When I asked a friend of mine who is an oil man in Tomball, TX about the difference between a US well and a Saudi well, he said, "An excellent US well produces about 1,000 barrels of oil a day. An average Saudi well produces about 1,000,000. That absolutely floored me.
That said - I do not believe the war in Iraq was about oil.....or terrorism, or Al Queda, or WMDs, or GWB seeking vengeance for GHWB's being a target for assassination, or democracy, or human rights, or Iraqi freedom, or UN violations - most of these reasons were not really an issue. I believe it was about eliminating Israel's biggest threat - Saddam Hussein - in order to secure Israel's safety (ok, it didn't work too well), in exchange for PM Ariel Sharon's forming a third party and agreeing to remove settlements, grant Palestinian autonomy, and work towards a two state solution. It was masterminded and negotiated by Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Donald Rumsfeld. This was told me by a friend who had very close ties to the GWB WH and was then corroborated by several other independent sources - including one who serves on the Council on Foreign Relations, and another who is on staff at The Fund for American Studies. This scenario seems to make the most sense. SEC Powell's statement, "The decision to go to war was made well before evidence was gathered" which he made around noon on the day of his resignation as he and his wife stood on the steps of the US Capitol, seemed to support this argument by weakening the other reasons given for the war. Food for thought.......
Food for thought.......
Truly. Thank you for your insights.
bailaviborita
07-12-2009, 21:19
Didn't see this last year, but since it was resurrected, read it for the first time. In short I'd say this wasn't written by a retired general and whoever did write it doesn't know what they are talking about.
Snopes had a discussion board posting tearing some of it apart. I'll only address a few-
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. So he must define "terror-sponsoring countries" as countries that produce terrorists. Hmmmm. Oh- and all we have to do is put "firm pressure" on these two and- viola!- they will majorly reform. Has he ever been to the Mid-East? :confused:
The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Again, his definition of "terror-sponsoring country" seems to include countries that don't officially sponsor terrorism- to include two current allies of ours. Another regime change for Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, maybe for Afghanistan... ;)
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. Gee- I didn't realize it was that easy- why didn't I think of just buying N Korea off? :rolleyes:
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? Obviously? What? Saudi Arabia, etc. will support Iran? Does Hillary know about this?
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age. If this wasn't so poorly written I'd think it was Paul Wolfowitz during his last days as WB president.
Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam War than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died).
I'm not a Jane Fonda fan, but H.R. McMaster faulted many others for Vietnam and I don't remember Jane among them- in fact, if I remember correctly he'd say it was McNamara. Likewise, there have been tons of books written by Army officers on how we messed up Vietnam and I don't recall any naming Jane as the one person who most "prolonged" the war. This guy isn't a general- he isn't even in the Air Force. Maybe a Marine...
HOWEVER, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS. Controlling Iran? We can't even control California...
Democratizing the Middle East? I thought he just said he didn't like the word "democracy"...
Anyway, I noticed not many- if any- responses seemed to address what he said, so it doesn't look like many took it to heart.