Reply With Quote
link to the declaration of war?
If in fact, the military knew where it had crash landed on the ground and wanted to destroy it without any collateral damage before the Iranians could capture it and he stopped them from doing so, then yeah, I think it was a mistake.
link to the declaration of war?
And, it's beginning to sound like that might have been the case.
I'm not familiar with the Iranian cons utional requirements for "declaring war" but, if it's acts of war you're unclear about; you can start with attacking our Embassy on November 4, 1979, rummage through several dozen Iranian acts of hostility over the ensuing decades, and arrive at Ali Musa Daqduq as one of the latest examples of Iranian acts of war against America. Not to mention they've been arming every anti-Western Iranian proxy in the world.link to the declaration of war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
For one of their latest declarations of war, see this article:
Obama and the Hezbollah Terrorist
Obama is getting ready to release this murderer, at the end of December, and he will probably be welcomed in Iran as a hero.In the early evening of Jan. 20, 2007, in the city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, five black SUVs approached the location of a regular meeting between U.S. and Iraqi military officers. Inside the vehicles, which mimicked U.S. transports (to avoid heightened scrutiny), were a dozen individuals dressed in U.S. military uniforms and bearing U.S. weapons. Their drivers spoke English.
Upon reaching their target, the occupants opened fire on the Americans. One U.S. soldier was killed on the spot. Four others were kidnapped, tortured and executed.
The mastermind of this brutal attack? Ali Musa Daqduq, a Lebanese national and Hezbollah commander. U.S. forces captured him in March 2007, and, in interrogation, he allegedly provided a wealth of information on Iran's role in fomenting, training and arming Iraqi insurgents of all stripes.
Right. I failed the geography on that one.
Why don't they build more pipelines away from the strait?
Nonetheless, I'm not terribly worried at this point. It's not like we don't perform military operations that are essentially practice to keeping the strait open.
He's being released to the sovereign government of Iraq. You know, the government you wanted there.
so no war. k tnx
Actually, you have to go through the Bab el Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea to get to Suez Canal. The Straits of Hormuz lead to the Persian Gulf.
You kinda have to go through the straits of hormuz to get to the suez canal. In any event, I don't give a about Iran's threats because they always make empty threats like this. Same when they go out and buy new Russian anti ship weapons.
Iran's leaders are far more rational than many give them credit for.
I'm pretty sure Manny knows that. His point was that an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf (say from Saudi Arabia) wouldn't be able to get to the Red Sea/Suez Canal if the Iranians blocked the Straits of Hormuz. Higher capacity in the Suez Canal would be irrelevant to the flow of oil.
So why don't the Gulf states build pipelines to bypass the strait?
I'm pretty sure it's because they don't trust each other. Plus, the pipelines are vulnerable to sabotage (as we have seen in Iraq) Theoretically the Saudi's could build pipelines to the Red Sea (most of their oil fields are in the East) but they would still be vulnerable to Egypt. Kuwait and Iraq would have to send the pipeline through Syria or Turkey to get to the Mediterranean.
Iraq is the big reason I don't think Iran will shut down the strait. Why undermine other Shiites? Doesn't make the sense it did when Saddam was in charge -- and they didn't even close the strait when they were at war with him.
This is so funny. You all wait for some talking head to tell you to worry about a pipeline project that was already started, and probably half completed. When I mentioned the "Keystone Pipeline" more than a week back, nobody jumped on it till some talking head told you too.
It's amazing that all of your dumb asses ignored a rather cogent point that speaks directly to the OP, simply because you let your ideological blinders get in the way of seeing the economic reality, because that reality runs counter to your belief system.
speaking of belief systems getting in the way...
The disruption in 80 was a SUPPLY issue. The refineries couldn't run because they couldn't get OIL to run them. it wasn't a supply/demand issue where we just didn't want to pay enough for oil...we couldn't get enough at any price...
And pointing out that history can repeat itself if you ignore it DOES NOT make me a dumb ass.
No industry or government projection, even the MOST optimistic ones, show that we can EVER produce enough oil to wean ourselves from oil imports.
speaking of belief systems getting in the way...
The disruption in 80 was a SUPPLY issue. The refineries couldn't run because they couldn't get OIL to run them. it wasn't a supply/demand issue where we just didn't want to pay enough for oil...we couldn't get enough at any price...
And pointing out that history can repeat itself if you ignore it DOES NOT make me a dumb ass.
The pipeline will not change that, merely prolong and deepen our overall dependence and vulnerability to foreign supply disruptions.
If you would like, I can message the economics PhD and he will confirm this.
Answer one fundamental question, and be honest:
If you are running an oil company, and one customer says he will give you $90 for your product, and another will pay $110 for it, who will you sell it to?
I remember all the hype in 1980 and it didn't disrupt our driving habits.
Of course I understand there is a free market in commodities. It was never a question of willingness to pay market price it was a supply issue when production/shipping was disrupted. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Yeah, you apparently don't remember a lot of things.
That is not the question I asked.
You imply that this pipeline will make us less vulnerable to Iran shutting off supply, because it increases our oil supply.
That is patently false.
If any domestic producer suddenly gets bids from Britain or Europe for their oil for more than what we are bidding, they will export the oil, until our bid matches theirs.
This would apply even if we supplied 100% of our current needs.
In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's ing around with global supply.
The only way to change that is to make our economy use less oil.
We don't need a pipeline, we need a carbon tax that alters the market dynamic.
That is if you are really as concerned about the Iranian threats in the OP as you seemed to imply.
Are you concerned about our energy security or not?
The USGS begs to differ...
Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Permian Basin Province of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, 2007
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently assessed the undiscovered oil and gas potential of the Permian Basin Province of west Texas and southeast New Mexico. The assessment was geology based and used the total petroleum system concept. The geologic elements of a total petroleum system are petroleum source rocks (quality, source rock maturation, generation, and migration), reservoir rocks (sequence stratigraphy, petrophysical properties), and traps (trap formation and timing). This study assessed potential for technically recoverable resources in new field discoveries only; field growth (or reserve growth) of conventional oil and gas fields was not included. Using a this methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated a mean of 41 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and a mean of 1.3 billion barrels of undiscovered oil in the Permian Basin Province.
Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin, Montana and North Dakota, 2008Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
Between those two sources alone, America could survive for about 40 years without importing any oil from anywhere else.
And, there's an estimated 2 Trillion barrels under the Rocky Mountains just waiting for a inexpensive technology to tap it.
I'd say 40 years is enough time to noodle that one out.
EVER is a long time RG.
"America could survive for about 40 years without importing any oil from anywhere else"
so why isn't it being done by the oilcos? too expensive? can't get past those regulations (not that MMS would ever enforce them anyway) nat gas is their hot target now, not domestic oil.
It is these issues that urk democrats about the GOP plan:
-Require millions of seniors to pay more for health care.
-Cut unemployment insurance benefits for one million Americans.
-Tack on the unrelated, controversial provision like the Keystone XL Pipeline while cutting environmental air quality standards.
-Let billionaires and big oil off the hook. They won’t pay one more cent under the Republican plan.
It ain't all about the pipeline. Many democrats support the pipeline but not the above cuts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
