Friction between the West and Islam - How to fix?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

Without a doubt. USA is 1-0 in neuclear exchanges.

Neuclear wars are winnable they are NOT lose-lose.

All wars, and neuclear wars in particular, should be away games.

The problem is, when you suffer a defeat, the country is all but dead.

PS - The correct term is "Nukular"

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(2) The polls seems to indicate a large majority of Muslims in all Muslim countries hate the US, and probably to a lesser degree the West in general.

And vice-versa. In fact, most Americans probably don't even know the three basic tenets of the al-Qaeda fatwa against the United States (which was written in 1998 before we invaded Iraq). While I strongly hate them and condemn their actions, at least I know why they claim to be attacking the United States. I don't agree with them, but at least I've taken the time to research their grievances. In their words:

1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.

In their mind, the U.S. has been occupying their land and using it as a staging ground to attack other Muslims. They also believe that their riches are being plundered, and that their non-elected rulers are being utilized as puppets.

2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.

This was written in 1998, but they also believe that the subsequent invasion of Iraq has been responsible for tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq. They also believe that the main reason for the U.S. presence is to protect its oil interests, not to help the Iraqi people.

3. U.S. support of Israel

In their own words: "If the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

I don't agree with this, but we're talking about the hearts and minds of the average poverty stricken citizens over there, who eat this stuff up.

Originally Posted by Edward64

(3) There seems to be a lack of will/want of Muslim governments and religious authorities to reconcile their population with the West.

Well, to put it quite simply, most of the governments that are friendly to the U. S. are between a rock and a hard place. On any given day, they don't know if they're going to be overthrown by the general population, which doesn't share the same camaraderie with their non-elected leaders that the U. S. does. (e.g. the Saudi Royal family, King Abdullah of Jordan, Musharraf of Pakistan, etc.). When given the chance to express themselves in free elections, we have seen the recent results in Egypt, Iraq and Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood gained strength in Egypt, the puppet government established in Iraq was booted out in short order, and Hamas crushed the U.S. supported Fatah government in Palestine.

The most common name for newborn sons in Pakistan over the past two years is “Osama”.

And we still sit back and scratch our heads and wonder why they aren't throwing the flowers in the streets that Dick Cheney predicted when we invaded Iraq.

[Drake]

My humble suggestion:

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And as long as Iraq and Afghanistan can succeed to the point where democracy becomes self-regenerating in their own flavor of democracy (and with no US support) their own sphere's of influence will push back against the aniquated systems of hard-liner theocratic rule.

Of course, a democratic middle east would present it's own challenges, but I think economic rivals are better than ideological rivals. At least in today's global world.

It's all a bit risky, but right now, success seems to have huge rewards, while failure seems to return us to where we were in 2001. It's worth the effort in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. For 50 some odd years, we've been basically playing pattycake in the region and taken a hands off approach. The worst we accomplish by the hands on approach is what we saw before.

And before anyone says that we're making more terrorists, etc., we have not heard of any attacks against US assets anywhere outside of the two warzones since we've been there (at least none that I can recall).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And before anyone says that we're making more terrorists, etc., we have not heard of any attacks against US assets anywhere outside of the two warzones since we've been there (at least none that I can recall).

So attacks against coalition members don't count?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So attacks against coalition members don't count?

Yes.

My reasoning is that I have no doubt they have tried to attack us, but have failed for some reason. They could attack us on foreign soil as they had in the USS Cole attack, the embassy in (my mind is going blank here) Africa, etc. They have shown their willingness to attack us anywhere on the globe. But the pace of attacks against us have slowed, why?

The only conclusion that I can draw based upon my belief is that we were able to either stop the attacks, or deny them the ability to attack us.

[Warhammer]

One thing regarding the use of oil. Is there any other resource whose price is based not upon current stocks and reserves, but what is going to happen 20-30 years down the road?

[Edward64]

Kobeck. Nuclear wars are winnable but they can be lose-lose. As stated, I'm all for a first strike if we get to that 'critical point' but that only works for governments. I'm not sure a nuke will 'win' anything in the mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Drake. A little too far out for me.

Vegas Vic. I do not agree with your comparison of us-hating-them is anywhere on the same level of them-hating-us. It is far more vehement and cohesive with the Muslim population-hating-us.

I agree with your statement with 'friendly' Muslim governments being in a rock and a hard place. I think the 2 exceptions are Kuwait and Qatar (and maybe Afghanistan) ... my vote for the 'shining examples in being pro-US/Western.

Warhammer. No I can't think of anything whose price is based on 20-30 yrs down the road. However, I don't think that's how oil is priced now, is it?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Warhammer. No I can't think of anything whose price is based on 20-30 yrs down the road. However, I don't think that's how oil is priced now, is it?

Well, we've never had more reserves of oil, production has never been higher, and yes demand is high, but not nearly what was predicted as China's consumption has been lower than what was projected (still increasing by quite a bit though), yet oil is still through the roof. Why? Because we're going to run out of it? If Big Oil is guilty of anything, I think this is what they are guilty of, not telling the truth about our supply.

[Dblbogey31]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

The current Muslim-Non-Muslim tension can be rapidly solved like every other problem mankind has ever faced - with the overwhelming use of force. Dead men do NOT continue to terrorize their neighbors. The US has used nukes before and I have no doubt that we will use them again when it suits our geopolitical goals. When the Muslim threat reaches a critical point of irritation they will be dealt with in a swift and proper manner.

What he said. We are far from this point however. If there comes a day when we in America must deal with terrorist attacks on a daily basis as they do in Iraq or Israel then bombs away. We aren't talking about just some ultra-religious nuts that stand on the street corner telling all who will listen that Armageddon has arrived. We are talking about some ultra-religious nuts that want to f'ing kill you. That is not to say all muslims think this way, it's just the extremists. There are some countries that tolerate this type of reasoning(that of the ultra-religious nuts that want to f'ing kill you) and allow them safe harbor. Those countries should be wiped off the face of the Earth if it means their dillusional citizens or agents will no longer be a threat to the lives of my children. Again, I think we are a long way from this point but we dropped the big one twice on Japan to avoid large American casualties from an invasion on Japanese soil. What makes you think for a second we wouldn't or shouldn't drop it again to avoid large scale casualties on our own soil? We have these weapons for a reason. If our way of life is threatened we have two choices: Change the way of life or end the threat to our way of life.

[Edward64]

Warhammer. From what I've read, oil prices is increasing not because of anticipated supply and demand 20-30 years from now, but because oil production capacity is (or close to) maxed out.

The temporary Katrina effect notwithstanding (ex. when it was $3+), the sellers can demand a higher price (currently at $2+).

I feel like you do that the oil companies are gouging us. However, I temper that with the thought that if the oil companies were losing money, we would say "tough luck, you've got too much expenses and should trim the fat". It doesn't seem as if the oil companies can win in this current environment, we criticize them either way.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I feel like you do that the oil companies are gouging us. However, I temper that with the thought that if the oil companies were losing money, we would say "tough luck, you've got too much expenses and should trim the fat". It doesn't seem as if the oil companies can win in this current environment, we criticize them either way.

I think you are quite right on this issue. We complain the oil companies are making too much. We'd tell them to buck up if they were losing money. Gouging is a just a ladened term meaning setting a really good price.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Can anyone give some modern examples of Islamic countries stepping out of their borders and giving the "covert or die" option?

Hmm, New York city September 11, 2001, world trade center site.

I mean they are not going to hand you a card and say check yes or no.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Warhammer. From what I've read, oil prices is increasing not because of anticipated supply and demand 20-30 years from now, but because oil production capacity is (or close to) maxed out.

The temporary Katrina effect notwithstanding (ex. when it was $3+), the sellers can demand a higher price (currently at $2+).

I feel like you do that the oil companies are gouging us. However, I temper that with the thought that if the oil companies were losing money, we would say "tough luck, you've got too much expenses and should trim the fat". It doesn't seem as if the oil companies can win in this current environment, we criticize them either way.

I agree too, but this has been talked about since the 70's. It makes you wonder why researchers are just now starting to get really serious in looking to develop synthetic substitute for Oil and Car companies are back giving alternative energy Vehicles a higher priority.

[BucDawg40]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

Without a doubt. USA is 1-0 in neuclear exchanges.

Neuclear wars are winnable they are NOT lose-lose.

All wars, and neuclear wars in particular, should be away games.

I wouldn't exactly call that little thing with Japan an "exchange." That's like calling yourself 1-0 in arm-wrestling against somebody with no arms.

[JPhillips]

Thank God those of you calling for a nuclear strike aren't in charge of anything more than your keyboards.

Without discussing the moral implications, the effects of our using a nuke first would devestate us.

First, you can be sure that oil imports would be effected. We'd probably lose ME oil, Venezuela and Russia. We can't maintain our way of life without oil.

Second, China would almost certainly punish us economically. Since we don't make much of anything and China makes a lot of what we need, we'd be screwed. Again there goes our way of life.

Third, it would facilitate a major realignment of world powers. NATO wouldn't survive and the end result would be a Europe that is mostly against us, China gaining influence in the Far East and probably the return of a confrontational Russia.

But of course from the cockpit of your keyboard I'm sure a nucular attack is almost irresistible. All the colors and fire and dead Arabs....

[Kobeck]

Originally Posted by BucDawg40

I wouldn't exactly call that little thing with Japan an "exchange." That's like calling yourself 1-0 in arm-wrestling against somebody with no arms.

Not the point. Point was that the US has built and used nuclear weapons to facilitate their geopolitical needs. US has built plenty of nukes since that time, could argue that they were "used" as a deterrant against Soviets.

there must be something missing. The US would not resort to nuclear warfare and then abide by normal trade relations. If the US goes nuclear the US will obtain any needed resources by force as necessary. Domestic production capacity can and will be increased/implemented as needed. No trade with China basically means that a Tshirt costs what a Tshirt should cost instead of the cost of a Tshirt made by a political prisoner or 6 year old child.

Just as England did extraordinary things when faced with annilihation by the Nazies (hey got around to Nazies before the 6th page), the US will do extraordinary things if the terrorists truly threaten American soverigenty.

Oh and their is nothing immoral about using nuclear weapons. They are just bombs, big ole bombs that do a lot of damage, but just bombs none the less. I personaly would like to see the US use more air burst gasoline weapons. Those things really go boom and ruin your day if you are anywhere near it. US used them in Afghanastan when we had Bin laden pinned in those mountains. Some foreign reporters believed the US had used some of their nuclear arsenal. They leave a real impression on the receptient.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dblbogey31

If there comes a day when we in America must deal with terrorist attacks on a daily basis as they do in Iraq or Israel then bombs away.

Who are you going to bomb?

I assume that you want to get all of the terrorists, so we would need to nuke at least 70 or 80 countries. While we're at it, we might as well nuke ourselves, just to make sure that we get all of them.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I assume that you want to get all of the terrorists, so we would need to nuke at least 70 or 80 countries. While we're at it, we might as well nuke ourselves, just to make sure that we get all of them.

Exactly.

[JPhillips]

Kobeck: You're a fool.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Kobeck: You're a fool.

And even better, he's never going to be elected to office in any democracy.

Of course, having said that, if he's writing these posts from Iran....we might be in trouble here.

[Edward64]

Vegas Vic, JPhillip, flere-imsaho, BucDawg40, BYU 14.

(1) Can we bring this relationship back to neutral.
(2) If yes, how?
(3) If no, what do we do in the forseeable future?

(Greyroo, no need to reply).

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RadioFriendlyUnitShifter

It's sort of crazy to think about how this country only came to be because the settlers believed that they had the right and ability to handle things on their own. Now, we're trying to tell people on different wavelengths what to do and what to think.

Let Israel do it's thing. If it can handle itself, then that's cool. What if Israel gets demolished? That's cool, too. You can only be a parent for so long. You can't kill yourself trying to raise something that is old enough to think for itself.

The world of Islam isn't ready to drink Coke, eat McDonald's, and play baseball. Helping to designate borders is places we have nothing to do with is a mistake. If that piece of shit land is worth fighting for to them, then let them fight. Muslims will not buy what we're selling until we have something they are interested in. It's not a religion issue. Muslims don't say "Canada is the Great Satan", or "Australia's infidels must die"

I don't see why America is holding onto Israel. Let them duke it out.

Wow, must suck being your friend with an attitude like that. I guess a friend in need is a burden who is on his own for you.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

Without a doubt. USA is 1-0 in neuclear exchanges.

Neuclear wars are winnable they are NOT lose-lose.

All wars, and neuclear wars in particular, should be away games.

1-0 when nuclear weapons were much less powerful. Plus, the idea of nuclear war is not the same as what it once was. With rogue groups looking to start something, there is no longer a country that you are specifically at war with so who do you attack. The only exception to that rule may be Iran, as I see them more likely to use the weapons that North Korea would be. The last thing that China wants to see is North Korea start using nukes and they should have enough influence to keep that from happening.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well I'll be damned.

Just when I thought I might truly be the last voice of logic & reason in the world, along come some new voices in this thread to prove me wrong.

Will wonders never cease? Eh, upon further review ... I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, I'll just sit over here in the corner & be happy with the reassurance that I'm not the last sane person left.

[JPhillips]

Edward: Well we sure as hell won't get anywhere by lobbing nukes. There is no way that using a nuke first will be for the better of the USA. It may(but probably won't) make the ME safer for us, but you can't discount the effect on the rest of the world. The surest way to our being knocked off the top of the hill is using a nuke first.

What we do now is tricky. First we need to really focus on terrorism if that is our main threat. We get told one thing, but the QDR makes it clear that we are still focused on a large contry to country conflict. If terrorism isn't our main threat be honest about it. I'm personally not sure that terrorism is a bigger threat over the next three decades than China, but the admin tells us all the time that terrorism is the main problem.

We need a larger Army. If we're going to commit to long term occupations we need the troops to do it. Right now we really can't do anything much in Iran because we don't have troops free. I would love to add six divisions, but the admin is very reluctant to add any troops. All our fancy weapons are almost useless in insurgency combat and the only answer is more troops.

Devise and follow a plan for Iraq. Its clear to me that we are the focus of the problems in Iraq. I'm willing to admit that Iraq may fall into chaos without the U.S., but I'm convinced it will never be stable as long as we are a crutch for the Iraqi government. The government of Iraq, our supposed allies, have also stated that its fine for Iraqis to kill us. We can't stay in a country that sees us as the problem. We need to declare victory and start a phased withdrawal now before it really will look like we're running.

Our only long-term hope is to get out of the oil business. I don't know if that can happen, but I'll give Bush credit on finally pushing alternative fuels. I don't think we'll ever be friends with militant Islam so the answer is to stop relying on them for our way of life.

We're finally basing terrorism defense money on risk and that's well overdue. I wish the Homeland Security head had more ability to coordinate projects. I still think we're woefully unprepared for an attack.

I want those in the admin to be held accountable and not given medals. Right now loyalty trumps competence. We hire college students to hand out reconstruction money, have a CPA head that touts export tax relief as a major accomplishment, and have a Defense administration that has been wrong on almost every prediction and assumption. I thought this was supposed to be a new era of responsibility.

Finally, I don't think its possible to eliminate the risk of terrorism. Its just something that we'll have to do our best to limit. It helps a lot that we're so far away from the terrorists and I have to believe that the Arab countries can't hold off modernity forever. I generally believe the Bush rhetoric on democracy, but the election results in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq are worrying. What do we do if the militants win elections? Maybe having to be in charge will help mellow them.

What I'm sure of is that we can't kill everyone that doesn't like us. Its simply impossible. That, along with a real ignorance of WWII history, is why I called Kobeck a fool.

[Flasch186]

i dont know how to fix it, but its all messed up and at some point, like I said in a similar thread about a year ago....if the moderate islamists dont gain their religion back at some point it WILL be a war against Islam and since last time I checked the radicals dont wear a uniform that differentiates themselves from those moderates the collateral damage will be high. I do predict a massive war at some point, which many bibileists will say it was predicted in revelations....whether theyre right or wrong about the relevanc of revelantions in that prediction, the times will be scary. I just have no faith that the belt of islamic countries will get a grip on it and ideoligies will come to a head. Not a good thing for anyone who doesnt enjoy war, bloodshed, and fighting. I hate it.

[brewcrewmaroon]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Warhammer. From what I've read, oil prices is increasing not because of anticipated supply and demand 20-30 years from now, but because oil production capacity is (or close to) maxed out.

The temporary Katrina effect notwithstanding (ex. when it was $3+), the sellers can demand a higher price (currently at $2+).

I feel like you do that the oil companies are gouging us. However, I temper that with the thought that if the oil companies were losing money, we would say "tough luck, you've got too much expenses and should trim the fat". It doesn't seem as if the oil companies can win in this current environment, we criticize them either way.

Interesting topic considering the book I just started reading. "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler. The book is basically about what is ahead of us a decade or two in the future. According to the book, global oil production has already peaked and started diminishing. Assuming the estimates of reserves the author quotes are correct, as well as the global demand for oil, there are enough reserves to last another 40 years assuming no population growth and demand does not continue to grow. I'm not saying this is gospel, just food for thought.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

1-0 when nuclear weapons were much less powerful. Plus, the idea of nuclear war is not the same as what it once was. With rogue groups looking to start something, there is no longer a country that you are specifically at war with so who do you attack. The only exception to that rule may be Iran, as I see them more likely to use the weapons that North Korea would be. The last thing that China wants to see is North Korea start using nukes and they should have enough influence to keep that from happening.

Eaglefan. In my opinion, in NK you have a crazy guy truly in charge of a country w/nukes and a supporting cast of sycophants. In Iran, you have a crazy guy w/nukes (or soon) but with a group of (somewhat rational) mullahs (afraid of losing power) controlling him. This makes NK much more dangerous.

I seriously doubt China can control him if he decides to go off the deep end. He's got his army, his people have endured starvation for a while, economy is in a shambles and he's still revered.

JPhillips, Flasch186. Both of you seem to indicate you are not optimistic we can bring it back to neutral.

[Flasch186]

i dont see neutral as a possibility as Al Qaeda and the extremists are excellent marketers and they are able to use the media and current events to their advantage, without even having any control over them. They will fuel the fire until eventually the number of extremists will grow faster than they can be killed and eventually it will come to a head. I am beginning to wonder if at some point in the future the West will have to give fair warning to the ME and those countries holding extremists and if another attack occurs the West attacks in a monstrous war, or Vice versa.

[brewcrewmaroon]

Here's an article about the guy that I got the book handed down from. He seems to have taken this oil issue to heart. I would say that if oil is the issue, and the Middle East has it and we need it, there will never be a resolution to the West/Islamic clash.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...4646/index.htm

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by brewcrewmaroon

Here's an article about the guy that I got the book handed down from. He seems to have taken this oil issue to heart. I would say that if oil is the issue, and the Middle East has it and we need it, there will never be a resolution to the West/Islamic clash.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...4646/index.htm

Peak oil is an interesting and alarming idea--it's an extreme prediction, but if true, terrorism will be the least of our problems as much of our civilization would fail without petroleum or petroleum-based products. Again, a worst-case prediction, but it is a wake-up call that we better get the timing of the transation away from fossil fuels just right, or there will be chaos.

Also, if true, the Middle East won't matter to the west in 75-100 years. However, the implication for the next 50 years is that there will be a scarcity of resources that will not make cooperation with our economic rivals very easy. Conflict with ascendant powers such as China is beginning to happen now--witness China's attempts to secure oil resources to fuel it's economic development and the outcry caused by CNOOC's bid for UNOCAL last year.

I tend to think that the next large war, if it were to happen, would be over competition for natural resources and not ideology. In fact, I have heard some analysts say that the next war in the middle east would not be over religion or oil, but a tip in the balance regarding rights over scarce water supplies.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

...but a tip in the balance regarding rights over scarce water supplies.

Interesting, in the Israeli/Palestinian continual crisis, one of the more quiet issues is the watertable that sits under the West Bank. Israel Proper is almost dry as a bone compared to the West Bank.

Could Israel end up being dependent on Palestine for it's fresh water supply? That's a security risk in and of itself!

[brewcrewmaroon]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Peak oil is an interesting and alarming idea--it's an extreme prediction, but if true, terrorism will be the least of our problems as much of our civilization would fail without petroleum or petroleum-based products. Again, a worst-case prediction, but it is a wake-up call that we better get the timing of the transation away from fossil fuels just right, or there will be chaos.

Also, if true, the Middle East won't matter to the west in 75-100 years. However, the implication for the next 50 years is that there will be a scarcity of resources that will not make cooperation with our economic rivals very easy. Conflict with ascendant powers such as China is beginning to happen now--witness China's attempts to secure oil resources to fuel it's economic development and the outcry caused by CNOOC's bid for UNOCAL last year.

I tend to think that the next large war, if it were to happen, would be over competition for natural resources and not ideology. In fact, I have heard some analysts say that the next war in the middle east would not be over religion or oil, but a tip in the balance regarding rights over scarce water supplies.

Peak oil may not be as extreme an idea as you might think. I myself had a hard time getting used to the numbers used in the book so I've been doing some searching on the internet. Wikipedia and other sites with information regarding oil, natural gas, and coal reserves. Even the highest estimates I could find for oil reserves allows about 40 years assuming no growth in demand. China's demand for oil is growing at a very fast clip, upwards of 40% increase per year now. Even if every other nation in the world could level off consumption, with China's voracious appetite growing as it is, there is only enough oil reserves to last a decade or two.

Once again, with oil becoming such a scarce commodity, and the Middle East having two-thirds of the world's estimated reserves, and the West's and now China's appetite for oil increasing, I see no resolution to the West/Islam clash.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by brewcrewmaroon

Once again, with oil becoming such a scarce commodity, and the Middle East having two-thirds of the world's estimated reserves, and the West's and now China's appetite for oil increasing, I see no resolution to the West/Islam clash.

But that is the resolution, if you follow peak oil to it's logical conclusion--once the oil runs out, it won't matter as much...

[brewcrewmaroon]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But that is the resolution, if you follow peak oil to it's logical conclusion--once the oil runs out, it won't matter as much...

Absolutely, I somehow missed that earlier. We will simply retreat to our little corner of the world.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Interesting, in the Israeli/Palestinian continual crisis, one of the more quiet issues is the watertable that sits under the West Bank. Israel Proper is almost dry as a bone compared to the West Bank.

Could Israel end up being dependent on Palestine for it's fresh water supply? That's a security risk in and of itself!

A very interesting long-term problem for Israel. Countries bisected by the major rivers in the region (Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, etc) also may be suceptible to conflict, especially if a country upstream decides to draw more water or dam up the river...

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by brewcrewmaroon

Once again, with oil becoming such a scarce commodity, and the Middle East having two-thirds of the world's estimated reserves, and the West's and now China's appetite for oil increasing, I see no resolution to the West/Islam clash.

Except to reduce what Bush calls "our addiction to oil" by the development of alternative technologies.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Warhammer. From what I've read, oil prices is increasing not because of anticipated supply and demand 20-30 years from now, but because oil production capacity is (or close to) maxed out.

The temporary Katrina effect notwithstanding (ex. when it was $3+), the sellers can demand a higher price (currently at $2+).

I feel like you do that the oil companies are gouging us. However, I temper that with the thought that if the oil companies were losing money, we would say "tough luck, you've got too much expenses and should trim the fat". It doesn't seem as if the oil companies can win in this current environment, we criticize them either way.

True, production capacity is close to maxed out. However, I disagree with a few statements, I do not believe that the oil companies are gouging us. They only make 8.5-10% return on investment which is extremely low. The people that make a killing are the speculators in the stock market. They are the ones who cause the price fluctuations in the price of oil based upon demand.

Also, our refinery capacity is not any different than it was 5 or 6 years ago. In many ways it is better due to process improvements refineries have made the last few years.

[ISiddiqui]

Oy, this Peak Oil stuff. The basic idea is true (there will be a time where we reach a peak, etc, etc), but this catastrophe prediction is way off the mark. Remember there are PLENTY of oil reserves that we don't mine because it is not economical at the current price (well, the current price a year ago... the price is high enough now that some of those projects, like oil shale mining and offshore drilling off West Africa are beginning). Basically, we may see a peak in easily mined oil, but new technology and other reserves that will become more economical with the high oil prices is going to stave off any 'catastrophe'.. for at least the next century. And who knows, by then, we may be driving hydrogen cars.

Anyway, when technology becomes sufficiently advanced the BIG prize is in Siberia. It is rumored that there may be more oil under the permafrost than there is in the Middle East as a whole. We just have to be able to cheaply drill through the permafrost so that it is economical. New technology may indeed make it far cheaper than currently.

[Edward64]

ISiddiqui. Assuming we can drill the Siberian oil economically, it'll still be a major problem. Wrong sphere of influence.

Mac Howard. I'm all for the alternative technologies. Its just that we've been preaching that since the 70s and its not been happening fast enough. GB and his 20 yr goal is mindless, pushing it off onto another administration who'll do the same and on-and-on-and-on.

Dutch. I didn't know about the water supply situation. Interesting.

[Kobeck]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Edward: Well we sure as hell won't get anywhere by lobbing nukes. There is no way that using a nuke first will be for the better of the USA. It may(but probably won't) make the ME safer for us, but you can't discount the effect on the rest of the world. The surest way to our being knocked off the top of the hill is using a nuke first.

What we do now is tricky. First we need to really focus on terrorism if that is our main threat. We get told one thing, but the QDR makes it clear that we are still focused on a large contry to country conflict. If terrorism isn't our main threat be honest about it. I'm personally not sure that terrorism is a bigger threat over the next three decades than China, but the admin tells us all the time that terrorism is the main problem.

We need a larger Army. If we're going to commit to long term occupations we need the troops to do it. Right now we really can't do anything much in Iran because we don't have troops free. I would love to add six divisions, but the admin is very reluctant to add any troops. All our fancy weapons are almost useless in insurgency combat and the only answer is more troops.

Devise and follow a plan for Iraq. Its clear to me that we are the focus of the problems in Iraq. I'm willing to admit that Iraq may fall into chaos without the U.S., but I'm convinced it will never be stable as long as we are a crutch for the Iraqi government. The government of Iraq, our supposed allies, have also stated that its fine for Iraqis to kill us. We can't stay in a country that sees us as the problem. We need to declare victory and start a phased withdrawal now before it really will look like we're running.

Our only long-term hope is to get out of the oil business. I don't know if that can happen, but I'll give Bush credit on finally pushing alternative fuels. I don't think we'll ever be friends with militant Islam so the answer is to stop relying on them for our way of life.

We're finally basing terrorism defense money on risk and that's well overdue. I wish the Homeland Security head had more ability to coordinate projects. I still think we're woefully unprepared for an attack.

I want those in the admin to be held accountable and not given medals. Right now loyalty trumps competence. We hire college students to hand out reconstruction money, have a CPA head that touts export tax relief as a major accomplishment, and have a Defense administration that has been wrong on almost every prediction and assumption. I thought this was supposed to be a new era of responsibility.

Finally, I don't think its possible to eliminate the risk of terrorism. Its just something that we'll have to do our best to limit. It helps a lot that we're so far away from the terrorists and I have to believe that the Arab countries can't hold off modernity forever. I generally believe the Bush rhetoric on democracy, but the election results in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq are worrying. What do we do if the militants win elections? Maybe having to be in charge will help mellow them.

What I'm sure of is that we can't kill everyone that doesn't like us. Its simply impossible. That, along with a real ignorance of WWII history, is why I called Kobeck a fool.

Nothing like getting personal to show you have lost touch huh?

I understand the historic signigance of the US bombing Japan into submission in WWII. I also know not only was it the most expedient way to end the war it was also the best way to end the war. I am defining best as the way that minimizes US/allied loses and maximises Japanese loses. There are a lot of Americans around today cause their grandfathers did not have to storm the beaches of Japan.

And in fact the US can kill everyone that it is necessary to eliminate. Now there is no painless and pretty way to do it, but it can be done if the will is there to do it.

Your outlook has been warped by 50+ years of silly anti-nuke rehoretic. Free your mind from that crap and you will see the nuke bomb as the tactical weapon with the strategic force that it is.

But I do agree that currently a bunch of the US antagonists are not worth dropping a nuke on, some of them are not even worth conventional weapons. For those foes there is only boots on the ground. US is currently in Germany and Japan and the US will be in Iraq and Afghanastain in 2040 cause that is just the way it goes. Came with the decision to go in to begin with ( I was against the Iraq invasion FWIW).

Just cause you hate Bush does not mean you have to hate the US strategically excersizing its power to protect US interests. Don't be scared, Americans do not approch the world from a position of fright and weakness. If you want a foreign policy based on giving a crap about the people you are gonna bomb then go to France.

And FWIF I am a veteran and I have children, I had family enlisted in every conflict since WWI, probably before but not positive. My point here is that although you might take some wierd comfort in believing that the US cannot defend itself, your attitude is not only wrong it sends the wrong message. If it takes the world being frightened about the next US move to secure the US future then so be it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

A very interesting long-term problem for Israel. Countries bisected by the major rivers in the region (Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, etc) also may be suceptible to conflict, especially if a country upstream decides to draw more water or dam up the river...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere on the books that says if Turkey were to dam up the Tigrus and Euphrates rivers that the "World Alliance to dismantle what's left of the Ottoman Empire" event is triggered.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

Free your mind from that crap and you will see the nuke bomb as the tactical weapon with the strategic force that it is.

And you were talking about OTHERS losing touch?!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

ISiddiqui. Assuming we can drill the Siberian oil economically, it'll still be a major problem. Wrong sphere of influence.

Just depends on the next President of Russia. I mean the US doesn't need to have more oil within its borders. That's just silly. A Russian President who wants to make as much money as he can will supply the US will plenty of oil, or supply others with plenty of oil, leaving other parts for us.

[Kobeck]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And you were talking about OTHERS losing touch?!

Are you scared of Nukes also? Seems that way. Nukes are just weapons nothing more, nothing less. Nukes are not evil.

The longbow was the "nuke" of its day. A stand off weapon that could penetrate the best defenses (armored heavy infantry) of its day. The longbow is not evil and nuke bombs are not evil. quite being so French.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

The longbow was the "nuke" of its day. A stand off weapon that could penetrate the best defenses (armored heavy infantry) of its day. The longbow is not evil and nuke bombs are not evil. quite being so French.

A single longbow could turn a city to dust? I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Dutch]

I think the nuke is a great weapon too, so long as it doesn't turn our milk purple, that is.

[Kobeck]

the longbow was not often used individually. The longbow was a mass attack weapon and it provided the tactical advantage that a nuke does today. That is it nutralized the offensive capability of the opponent and gave control of the battlefield to the side with the longbow. Nukes are designed to be used on battlefields. The fact that they could be airbursted over a city, as the US did to Japan, is just another reason to embrace the nuke as the tatical weapon with the city busting strategic punch that it is.

Again all wars, and nuke wars in particular, should be away games.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

Are you scared of Nukes also? Seems that way. Nukes are just weapons nothing more, nothing less. Nukes are not evil.

The longbow was the "nuke" of its day. A stand off weapon that could penetrate the best defenses (armored heavy infantry) of its day. The longbow is not evil and nuke bombs are not evil. quite being so French.

Please tell you are just trolling us. I wonder if use of a longbow would turn the user state into a pariah among the world, including (former) allies. Do you also advocate using nerve gas as tactical weapons as well?