So UK , US and many others have spent alot of blood and treasure in the last 11 years and the following has happened:-
1. Killed alot of Fighters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and drone striked terrorism suspects from Yemen to Sudan. 2. Accidentally and unintentionally killed alot of Civilians, helping out extremist recruitment. 3. Captured Saddam Hussein and Prosecuted him, and he was hung. 4. Killed Usama Bin Laden. 5. Over thrown Qaddafi and his Regime, with him being ripped to shreds by a crowd. 6. Played a diplomatic dance with Pakistan, with much backpatting, simultaneously performing Recon with each pat to work out where to stick the knife when the time comes.
Things we haven't done/ cannot be blamed for.
7. Egypt has changed from Dictatorship to Extremist tolerant society and will become a major problem in the future. 8. Much of the Extremism in Egypt has crossed the Border into Libya. 9. Syria felt left out of all the fighting so decided "how about we get rid of Assad?" despite putting up with him and his crony dad for years. 10. Somalia is slowly improving but fragile to fall apart if the Islamic council takes over mogadishu. 11. Sudan is split with a continuing low level civil war with islamic militia's and others making war on each other. 12. Israel Continues to piss everyone off, simply by existing and wants to hammer Iran. 13. Iran wants a showdown with someone/ anyone. 14. Saudi Arabia has not changed a bit. 15. Bahrain has civil strife as ruling elite want to remain in control over the masses. 16. Yemen is basically a written off Country. 17. Essentially the Middle East is awash with Weapons, and poorly educated, unemployed youths who play CoD and drive Toyota's.
But after all this are we any safer?
The last 24 hours have been insane, some madman makes a provocative movie on Islam and quelle surprise the Islamic World goes nuts. Once again most of this fury is vented on the US and every US Embassy becomes Target number 1 with American Diplomats Murdered. I cannot seem to find any facts about this crazy and ridiculous movie. Where it was made, who sanctioned it, who was the director? I have also read it was made months ago, and someone happened across it on Youtube. I have read 3-4 contradictory reports, which say it was in California to it was in Israel.
When is the middle East going to stop blaming the USA for absolutely everything?
"We are being killed by Dictator X, please America help us"
After a period the USA relents and helps
5 minutes later
"You Americans are all Infidels, die infidels"
It's like diplomatic schizophrenia.
I really don't have any feelings whatsoever about Islam, I'm just continually amazed and disgusted at how many middle eastern countries live in this crazy violent way and how they are managing to impact on a Global Scale. The future is really random with these Crazie's running around armed to the teeth. Is anyone slightly concerned that it's all getting a bit disturbingly close to Europe now? Malta is not that far North of Libya and Sicily is not far from Tunisia ! And a Greater Caliphate may actually be within Egypt's (Read Muslim Brotherhoods) grasp? The less said about Iran's long term goals the better! The future is not looking to promising, for the ideals of Peace and harmony.
EDIT - Wait till the BLURAY "Team America World Police" with Arabic translation hits the streets, we will all be F$*#ed!
When is the middle East going to stop blaming the USA for absolutely everything?
"We are being killed by Dictator X, please America help us"
After a period the USA relents and helps
5 minutes later
"You Americans are all Infidels, die infidels"
It's like diplomatic schizophrenia.
Well lets have a dose of honesty first. How many of those dictators did we overtly or covertly put into power in the first place? Saddam certainly, Mubarak I think, and lets think back to Iran. The Shah was kind of a gak head and the reactionary regime that replaced him is at least partially our responsibility. The US does not have a good track record abroad of picking good or even decent foriegn leaders, and we'd be better served if we didnt try.
That said the world community, and even some loud squakers domestically , demand action on our part when things fall apart. Its the same voices the denounce the US for interfering later. We are talking your friends and neighbors in the Eurozone here, so it's not a purely middle east thing.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up.
TLDR: Feth them all.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up.
TLDR: Feth them all.
Well lets have a dose of honesty first. How many of those dictators did we overtly or covertly put into power in the first place? Saddam certainly, Mubarak I think, and lets think back to Iran. The Shah was kind of a gak head and the reactionary regime that replaced him is at least partially our responsibility. The US does not have a good track record abroad of picking good or even decent foriegn leaders, and we'd be better served if we didnt try.
That said the world community, and even some loud squakers domestically , demand action on our part when things fall apart. Its the same voices the denounce the US for interfering later. We are talking your friends and neighbors in the Eurozone here, so it's not a purely middle east thing.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up. TLDR: Feth them all.
The term is "better the Devil you know" when it comes to foreign policy and nothing is ever ideal in the real world so we need to deal with shades of grey, you may back a winner, or a loser, or a winner who is corrupt, evil or a disaster but is it your countries interest? If you gain out of it, then it's in the National interest.
Much as I want to agree with you, that's what leads to 9/11. Disengaging, and becoming isolationist, leaves your enemies to fester, plan and coordinate action against you in foreign Countries, then they bring the conflict to your shores again. If you are happy with that great, but I'm willing to bet there is a significant portion of the US that doesn't want September 11 becoming a once a decade or every 3-4 years event.
@Shurmagoratha It's not Xenophobic to point out that the Middle East is a hot bed of Violence it's been like that for Millenia. As a Veteran of Iraq, all the promises of the people, of the Governments (British, US, UN, Iraq's Own elected officials) all come to nothing because you simply cannot impose the rule of law. The tribal complications and grudges just come to the surface and destablise any peace. Then add in extremism it gets much worse. The exact same will happen in Afgahnistan post 2014, and all the blood and treasure to stabilise a Country would have been a waste.
oh and Writing TL: DR makes you look ignorant, especially if you take the time to make a post about it.
Well lets have a dose of honesty first. How many of those dictators did we overtly or covertly put into power in the first place? Saddam certainly, Mubarak I think, and lets think back to Iran. The Shah was kind of a gak head and the reactionary regime that replaced him is at least partially our responsibility. The US does not have a good track record abroad of picking good or even decent foriegn leaders, and we'd be better served if we didnt try.
That said the world community, and even some loud squakers domestically , demand action on our part when things fall apart. Its the same voices the denounce the US for interfering later. We are talking your friends and neighbors in the Eurozone here, so it's not a purely middle east thing.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up.
TLDR: Feth them all.
The term is "better the Devil you know" when it comes to foreign policy and nothing is ever ideal in the real world so we need to deal with shades of grey, you may back a winner, or a loser, or a winner who is corrupt, evil or a disaster but is it your countries interest? If you gain out of it, then it's in the National interest.
Much as I want to agree with you, that's what leads to 9/11. Disengaging, and becoming isolationist, leaves your enemies to fester, plan and coordinate action against you in foreign Countries, then they bring the conflict to your shores again. If you are happy with that great, but I'm willing to bet there is a significant portion of the US that doesn't want September 11 becoming a once a decade or every 3-4 years event.
It's not Xenophobic to point out that the Middle East is a hot bed of Violence. As a Veteran of Iraq, all the promises of the people, of the Governments (British, US, UN, Iraq's Own elected officials) all come to nothing because you simply cannot impose the rule of law. The tribal complications and grudges just come to the surface and destablise any peace. Then add in extremism it gets much worse.
The exact same will happen in Afgahnistan post 2014, and all the blood and treasure to stabilise a Country would have been a waste.
If we were totally disengaged, they wouldn't be our enemies, nor would they have the ability to attack us.
No you disengaging with them, doesn't mean Mutual disengagement, it means you walking from the table.
If you disengage from an Enemy you are conceding the field, that doesn't make you friends all of a sudden or mean that the Enemy will not pursue you by any means possible.
Disengagement as of part of Isolationism is not good for Trade or for your relationships globally.
mwnciboo wrote: No you disengaging with them, doesn't mean Mutual disengagement, it means you walking from the table.
If you disengage from an Enemy you are conceding the field, that doesn't make you friends all of a sudden or mean that the Enemy will not pursue you by any means possible.
Disengagement as of part of Isolationism is not good for Trade or for your relationships globally.
The Middle East is not our enemy. Islam is not our enemy.
By leaving everything but trading relationships there is no impetus to attack us. We've done this before. There have been many times and many regions where the US tended to stay out. Its appropriate to do the same here.
Further its a general policy, not just ME specific. Active neutrality will help do wonders for the constant wars.
We've had troops in harm's way in the ME since before my children were born. The Boy is about to finish high school. Think about that. Enough already.
And if someone attacks us after, reply with a response that could only best be described as "biblical."
But the damage is done, they don't forgive or forget. The grudges will last hundreds of Years, active engagement and sorting out the issues Middle East Peace process would unlock alot of this and save someone hitting the "Biblical" Nuke Button, which by the way soon could be in the hands of Iran.
To turn your back on the world and looking after yourselves, much as I like the sentiment, will not protect you from the retribution, justified or not, that will come to you from the numerous enemies, perceived or not, you have globally.
Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting. You cannot hide from the world, you are Pre-eminent and therefore looked upto, respected, loved, valued, loathed and despised by others depending on our relationship with the US.
mwnciboo wrote: No you disengaging with them, doesn't mean Mutual disengagement, it means you walking from the table.
If you disengage from an Enemy you are conceding the field, that doesn't make you friends all of a sudden or mean that the Enemy will not pursue you by any means possible.
Disengagement as of part of Isolationism is not good for Trade or for your relationships globally.
The Middle East is not our enemy. Islam is not our enemy.
By leaving everything but trading relationships there is no impetus to attack us. We've done this before. There have been many times and many regions where the US tended to stay out. Its appropriate to do the same here.
Further its a general policy, not just ME specific. Active neutrality will help do wonders for the constant wars.
We've had troops in harm's way in the ME since before my children were born. The Boy is about to finish high school. Think about that. Enough already.
And if someone attacks us after, reply with a response that could only best be described as "biblical."
^^Exalted.
Its pretty much time for the western countries to stop meddling in other peoples affairs, be it Africa, the Middle East or even South America!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mwnciboo wrote: But the damage is done, they don't forgive or forget. The grudges will last hundreds of Years, active engagement and sorting out the issues Middle East Peace process would unlock alot of this and save someone hitting the "Biblical" Nuke Button, which by the way is soon could be in the hands of Iran.
To turn your back on the world and looking after yourselves, much as I like the sentiment, will not protect you from the retribution, perceived or not, justified or not, will come to you.
Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting.
WHAAA?
The USA has as much responsibility in the current lack of wars in Europe as they do in the current lack of wars in South America: i.e. none!
I think during the past 11 years, the reputation of Islam and Muslims in the West has been torn down and left in shambles. That is an important point that should be included in your list.
When is the middle East going to stop blaming the USA for absolutely everything?
"We are being killed by Dictator X, please America help us"
After a period the USA relents and helps
5 minutes later
"You Americans are all Infidels, die infidels"
It's like diplomatic schizophrenia.
Well lets have a dose of honesty first. How many of those dictators did we overtly or covertly put into power in the first place? Saddam certainly, Mubarak I think, and lets think back to Iran. The Shah was kind of a gak head and the reactionary regime that replaced him is at least partially our responsibility. The US does not have a good track record abroad of picking good or even decent foriegn leaders, and we'd be better served if we didnt try.
That said the world community, and even some loud squakers domestically , demand action on our part when things fall apart. Its the same voices the denounce the US for interfering later. We are talking your friends and neighbors in the Eurozone here, so it's not a purely middle east thing.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up.
TLDR: Feth them all.
And the CIA trained bin laden on how to be a terrorist against the Russians.
CuddlySquig wrote: I think during the past 11 years, the reputation of Islam and Muslims in the West has been torn down and left in shambles. That is an important point that should be included in your list.
The reputation before that wasn't great, the "west" is a somewhat homogeneous block of developed christian countries that has never looked favorably on different cultural values. What's changed significantly since 9/11 is the militancy north Americans have towards the Islamic world and the economic and cultural scapegoating the Eurozone has pinned on them. North Africa and the Middle east has been a region composed of totalitarian dictatorships and failed states for decades, they haven't really changed. A lot of the wests increasing cultural xenophobia can be pinned on a sense of decline in relative western power and supremacy of views as compared to the rest of the world.
mwnciboo wrote: But the damage is done, they don't forgive or forget. The grudges will last hundreds of Years, active engagement and sorting out the issues Middle East Peace process would unlock alot of this and save someone hitting the "Biblical" Nuke Button, which by the way soon could be in the hands of Iran.
To turn your back on the world and looking after yourselves, much as I like the sentiment, will not protect you from the retribution, justified or not, that will come to you from the numerous enemies, perceived or not, you have globally.
Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting. You cannot hide from the world, you are Pre-eminent and therefore looked upto, respected, loved, valued, loathed and despised by others depending on our relationship with the US.
The ME has never been "sorted out." It won't be in our lifetimes.
They can't touch us if we are not there.
mwnciboo wrote: But the damage is done, they don't forgive or forget. The grudges will last hundreds of Years, active engagement and sorting out the issues Middle East Peace process would unlock alot of this and save someone hitting the "Biblical" Nuke Button, which by the way soon could be in the hands of Iran.
To turn your back on the world and looking after yourselves, much as I like the sentiment, will not protect you from the retribution, justified or not, that will come to you from the numerous enemies, perceived or not, you have globally.
Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting. You cannot hide from the world, you are Pre-eminent and therefore looked upto, respected, loved, valued, loathed and despised by others depending on our relationship with the US.
The ME has never been "sorted out." It won't be in our lifetimes.
They can't touch us if we are not there.
They kinda can...
I mean that's essentially what 9/11 was wasn't it?
FETH THEM ALL. Well lets have a dose of honesty first. How many of those dictators did we overtly or covertly put into power in the first place? Saddam certainly, Mubarak I think, and lets think back to Iran. The Shah was kind of a gak head and the reactionary regime that replaced him is at least partially our responsibility. The US does not have a good track record abroad of picking good or even decent foriegn leaders, and we'd be better served if we didnt try.
That said the world community, and even some loud squakers domestically , demand action on our part when things fall apart. Its the same voices the denounce the US for interfering later. We are talking your friends and neighbors in the Eurozone here, so it's not a purely middle east thing.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up.
The term is "better the Devil you know" when it comes to foreign policy and nothing is ever ideal in the real world so we need to deal with shades of grey, you may back a winner, or a loser, or a winner who is corrupt, evil or a disaster but is it your countries interest? If you gain out of it, then it's in the National interest.
Much as I want to agree with you, that's what leads to 9/11. Disengaging, and becoming isolationist, leaves your enemies to fester, plan and coordinate action against you in foreign Countries, then they bring the conflict to your shores again. If you are happy with that great, but I'm willing to bet there is a significant portion of the US that doesn't want September 11 becoming a once a decade or every 3-4 years event.
@Shurmagoratha It's not Xenophobic to point out that the Middle East is a hot bed of Violence it's been like that for Millenia. As a Veteran of Iraq, all the promises of the people, of the Governments (British, US, UN, Iraq's Own elected officials) all come to nothing because you simply cannot impose the rule of law. The tribal complications and grudges just come to the surface and destablise any peace. Then add in extremism it gets much worse. The exact same will happen in Afgahnistan post 2014, and all the blood and treasure to stabilise a Country would have been a waste.
oh and Writing TL: DR makes you look ignorant, especially if you take the time to make a post about it.
First and foremost I'd LOVE to hear how TLR makes me look ignorant by summing up my post, it's a common and useful tool used my newspapers everyday in the form of a headline, and a recognized tool of message boards...like this one. I've fixed my post to be more ignorant (by your definition).
Second. I don't see the part of my post where I said we should gut our intelligence gathering on conflicts and nations in civil war. We do it anyway, it's an implied task of our national and international intelligence agencies. Intelligence failures happen, and the 9/11 attacks while tragic are not an isolated incident. The WTC was bombed in 1993, Oklahoma City in 95, the East Africa Embassies bombings in 98, 9/11 in 2001 these are just a few in the litany of terrorism incidents in and against the US. If anything we are either long overdue unless you count shooting sprees. Your point is invalid at best. terrorism is not new, nor did terrorist attacks begin in 2001. Preventing all acts of terror is impossible, whether we go to other countries or not to stir the gak and spend our money and lives is not.
When is the middle East going to stop blaming the USA for absolutely everything?
"We are being killed by Dictator X, please America help us"
After a period the USA relents and helps
5 minutes later
"You Americans are all Infidels, die infidels"
It's like diplomatic schizophrenia.
Well lets have a dose of honesty first. How many of those dictators did we overtly or covertly put into power in the first place? Saddam certainly, Mubarak I think, and lets think back to Iran. The Shah was kind of a gak head and the reactionary regime that replaced him is at least partially our responsibility. The US does not have a good track record abroad of picking good or even decent foriegn leaders, and we'd be better served if we didnt try.
That said the world community, and even some loud squakers domestically , demand action on our part when things fall apart. Its the same voices the denounce the US for interfering later. We are talking your friends and neighbors in the Eurozone here, so it's not a purely middle east thing.
I think Syria is a pretty good example of a case of the US saying, "No, you solve your own problems." and largely that's the attitude we need. When we wage war, even small ones it needs to be for purely selfish reasons. Let the civil wars of countries play themselves out. Those confrontations are none of our concern, unless they'd like to make a purchase; and then sell away. Not. our. problem. We can establish an embassy when the dust settles and deal with what comes up.
TLDR: Feth them all.
And the CIA trained bin laden on how to be a terrorist against the Russians.
We've hated muslims ever since they crawled out of the woodwork and gobbled up the fertile crescent, took jerusalem, took the Byzantine empire and claimed northern africa as their own. After that, we started to realize that they were a serious collective of people, so of course, we hated them, and then the crusades, which did nothing.
Seems like muslims in america live relatively well. Quite a number of them went to my high school. They were all nice people. It's a funny demographic, because Muslim doesn't necessarily imply middle-eastern, which surprises people...There's asian muslims, african muslims, european muslims... even some hispanic muslims.
Also, from a pragmatic point of view, how did islam even catch on? In practice, tradition and ceremony, it's very similar to Judaism. Lots of rules about what you can and can't do. Lots of values and morals instilled, lots of obligations and such... In contrast, Christianity is easy. Just go to church once a week, pay a little tithe and obey 10 rules, and you're good.
mwnciboo wrote: Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting. You cannot hide from the world, you are Pre-eminent and therefore looked upto, respected, loved, valued, loathed and despised by others depending on our relationship with the US.
that. Let China do it.
note I'm not saying disengage in diplomacy to help peacefully resolve dispute-just like Switzerland does, or trade. I'm saying no more government support and no more military. You're on your own. Do what you want in your own turf. We won't stop you and we won't help you.
mwnciboo wrote: But the damage is done, they don't forgive or forget. The grudges will last hundreds of Years, active engagement and sorting out the issues Middle East Peace process would unlock alot of this and save someone hitting the "Biblical" Nuke Button, which by the way soon could be in the hands of Iran.
To turn your back on the world and looking after yourselves, much as I like the sentiment, will not protect you from the retribution, justified or not, that will come to you from the numerous enemies, perceived or not, you have globally.
Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting. You cannot hide from the world, you are Pre-eminent and therefore looked upto, respected, loved, valued, loathed and despised by others depending on our relationship with the US.
The ME has never been "sorted out." It won't be in our lifetimes. They can't touch us if we are not there.
They kinda can... I mean that's essentially what 9/11 was wasn't it?
Look at Europe now, post WWII and post Cold War the US has built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years after thousands of years of us fighting. You cannot hide from the world, you are Pre-eminent and therefore looked upto, respected, loved, valued, loathed and despised by others depending on our relationship with the US.
Why yes, it seems that you were talking about the past 60 years alone...
No one is denying the USA's importance in winning WW2. But claiming that they've "built a stable and peaceful Europe within 60 years" is ridiculously understating the achievements of the European people as a whole, in the post-WW2 period. They've built nothing, they provided the financial aid necessary (for a profit, naturally), for Europe to rebuild itself.
I think all the US troops that were in Europe after the end of the war helped keep the entire damn continent from descending into violence. Civil wars could have been a real possibility in several countries where people who would otherwise have been enemies of the state were not only armed but well trained and experienced fighters by the end of the war.
purplefood wrote: I think all the US troops that were in Europe after the end of the war helped keep the entire damn continent from descending into violence. Civil wars could have been a real possibility in several countries where people who would otherwise have been enemies of the state were not only armed but well trained and experienced fighters by the end of the war.
Agreed. Troops and the Marshall Plan especially in the first decade. Later a common foe helped too. After that, once Europe started getting its act back together everyone was so traumatized from WWII plus making all that money that there's no need for it. Of course, then the Balkans blew up and the USSR did invade two countries (Hungary, Czech). Plus Spain, Italy, and Greece had nice little domestic wars going on.
Withdraw all US presence then from Europe and the Middle East. Can't really withdraw from South Korea since technically we're still at war with North Korea. 2ID is no longer though a 110% division. Let europe pick up the slack for Bosnia and Kosovo rotations. Remove ourselves from the Sinai rotation and let the Middle East handle there own affairs. Let Israel know their country protection is in their hands. Hope Iran don't start sinking ships in the 2 mile stretch of water in the Straight of Homuz till we get Canada oil into operation (Keystone Pipeline). Hope Egypt don't close the Suez Canal to. Eventually the US hate will probaly be transfered to the Russians and/or China as they try to influence them. Sit back and watch it all go up in flames on the TV drinking coffee.
Jihadin wrote: Withdraw all US presence then from Europe and the Middle East. Can't really withdraw from South Korea since technically we're still at war with North Korea. 2ID is no longer though a 110% division. Let europe pick up the slack for Bosnia and Kosovo rotations. Remove ourselves from the Sinai rotation and let the Middle East handle there own affairs. Let Israel know their country protection is in their hands. Hope Iran don't start sinking ships in the 2 mile stretch of water in the Straight of Homuz till we get Canada oil into operation (Keystone Pipeline). Hope Egypt don't close the Suez Canal to. Eventually the US hate will probaly be transfered to the Russians and/or China as they try to influence them. Sit back and watch it all go up in flames on the TV drinking coffee.
Jihadin wrote: Hope Iran don't start sinking ships in the 2 mile stretch of water in the Straight of Homuz till we get Canada oil into operation (Keystone Pipeline).
Lets be honest: not the biggest concern. I mean it's a big deal, but we can make it without ME oil.
Iran close the Straight of Homux. Not a US issue. Egypt close the Suez Canal. Not a US issue. Iran took over Iraq and Afghaanistan (after 2014) Not a US issue. Some idioit country attack Israel and Israel gains half a country. Not a US issue. Syria unleashes chemical weapons. Not a US issue and keep it within the Syria. Saudi and Kuwait wants to do business with the US in oil. Nope to much american interest would be invested in both country and its cheaper from Canada. UN wants to deploy troops to areas in the ME. US will no go or lead so have fun with that.....
CuddlySquig wrote: I think during the past 11 years, the reputation of Islam and Muslims in the West has been torn down and left in shambles. That is an important point that should be included in your list.
The reputation before that wasn't great, the "west" is a somewhat homogeneous block of developed christian countries that has never looked favorably on different cultural values. What's changed significantly since 9/11 is the militancy north Americans have towards the Islamic world and the economic and cultural scapegoating the Eurozone has pinned on them. North Africa and the Middle east has been a region composed of totalitarian dictatorships and failed states for decades, they haven't really changed. A lot of the wests increasing cultural xenophobia can be pinned on a sense of decline in relative western power and supremacy of views as compared to the rest of the world.
The reaction from Americans towards Muslims has been rather mild in the wake of 9/11, especially compared to historical examples. We've hardly set up internment camps as we did for Japanese-Americans during World War II, and we've definitely yet to figure out a Trail of Tears for Muslims in America, nor do we seem about to.
CuddlySquig wrote: I think during the past 11 years, the reputation of Islam and Muslims in the West has been torn down and left in shambles. That is an important point that should be included in your list.
The reputation before that wasn't great, the "west" is a somewhat homogeneous block of developed christian countries that has never looked favorably on different cultural values. What's changed significantly since 9/11 is the militancy north Americans have towards the Islamic world and the economic and cultural scapegoating the Eurozone has pinned on them. North Africa and the Middle east has been a region composed of totalitarian dictatorships and failed states for decades, they haven't really changed. A lot of the wests increasing cultural xenophobia can be pinned on a sense of decline in relative western power and supremacy of views as compared to the rest of the world.
The reaction from Americans towards Muslims has been rather mild in the wake of 9/11, especially compared to historical examples. We've hardly set up internment camps as we did for Japanese-Americans during World War II, and we've definitely yet to figure out a Trail of Tears for Muslims in America, nor do we seem about to.
Yeah, we've handled ourselves better than we could have within our own borders. American history is not particularly clean in regards to racial or religious tolerance. I'd hesitate to say that that our reaction is all that mild though considering we've jailed and released thousands without trial, have indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and still have thousands jailed without proof of any crime through client states like Yemen or Iraq. We've also utilized and condoned torture. The eurozone has set up deportation camps, but that's not really the same thing as an internment camp and there's legal precedent for them.
Jihadin wrote: Withdraw all US presence then from Europe and the Middle East.
Agreed
Can't really withdraw from South Korea since technically we're still at war with North Korea.
Sure we can. 1) Announce that we are leaving in 2013. 2) Announce we've sold SK 50 nukes which are already in country.
3) China declares war on us.
Don't be daft.
You just gave a border country with which they are currently in open territorial hostilities with 50 nuclear weapons. You usually say things that are pretty foolish on here in regards to American foreign policy, but this is like not understanding 1+1=2.
Yeah, we've handled ourselves better than we could have within our own borders. American history is not particularly clean in regards to racial or religious tolerance. I'd hesitate to say that that our reaction is all that mild though considering we've jailed and released thousands without trial, have indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and still have thousands jailed without proof of any crime through client states like Yemen or Iraq. We've also utilized and condoned torture. The eurozone has set up deportation camps, but that's not really the same thing as an internment camp and there's legal precedent for them.
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, we've certainly never shirked from torture before - look up the five poor German sailors who had the misfortune to wash up on the beach over here after their U-boat sank - and...well, I could go on. We're not perfect, but we're certainly better than most.
Yeah, we've handled ourselves better than we could have within our own borders. American history is not particularly clean in regards to racial or religious tolerance. I'd hesitate to say that that our reaction is all that mild though considering we've jailed and released thousands without trial, have indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and still have thousands jailed without proof of any crime through client states like Yemen or Iraq. We've also utilized and condoned torture. The eurozone has set up deportation camps, but that's not really the same thing as an internment camp and there's legal precedent for them.
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, we've certainly never shirked from torture before - look up the five poor German sailors who had the misfortune to wash up on the beach over here after their U-boat sank - and...well, I could go on. We're not perfect, but we're certainly better than most.
Keep in mind we did invade two countries and caused the direct and indirect deaths of hundreds of thousands. I think that was a bit out of line as a reaction to Sept11th. I suppose in the context of Vietnam one could say that we're truckin' on like we have been for decades. I'm not that old and I suspect that this stuff is somewhat cyclical. In my life I didn't see much xenophobia or societal angst before 9/11 and post 9/11 it's like every sleight and poke by our enemies had to be payed back 10 times over. The U.S. likely just has periods where it finds that flexing its muscle is the best way to solve crisis until it stops working and we back off from interventionism for a while.
North Korea is their border country not South Korea. Besides if I remember correctly all nukes were removed from South Korea to Japan. 91-95 I believe. So we upgrade South Korea with current US military hardware.
Keep in mind we did invade two countries and caused the direct and indirect deaths of hundreds of thousands. I think that was a bit out of line as a reaction to Sept11th.
To much and not enough. We're still at war. Terroist still exist and I've still got stand naked in front of a stranger if I want to get on a plane and none of it helps. People are still finding new and creative ways to cause damage.
Sinai is the buffer zone between Israel and Egypt. Result from the 6 day war. Its more to protect the Suez Canal then to keep apart two possible belligerents. Israel also restrained against Egypt for military operation being conducted now by Egypt military. Basically they literally have a armored division in there dealing with the extremist thats in there.
edit
I think all fuel should be one grade in the US. To me thats pretty sensible
I think all fuel should be one grade in the US. To me thats pretty sensible
Good luck I was in MT this summer and there are like 3 different grades of regular unleaded at 83, 85 and 85.5...here its 87...uniformity would be nice.
Jihadin wrote: North Korea is their border country not South Korea. Besides if I remember correctly all nukes were removed from South Korea to Japan. 91-95 I believe. So we upgrade South Korea with current US military hardware.
......South Korea's current military would mop the floor with north korea without help from the US
Why wouldn't it work out? Whats wrong with le Volts?
Hydrogen fuel cell cars would be even better though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, really, all we need to do is mine the moon for helium 3... Some private companies already have their sights set on moon mining, so that might not be as distantly in the future as most people would think.
Chevy loses money on every Volt they sell, they've copped to that much. They deny Reuters claim that they lose 49,000 per car. For a car with a base model cost of 31k and fully loaded 39k that'd be an awful lot. So if they were to sell the car at cost that makes it as much as 80,000k; can you afford an 80k car, better yet would you? The actual estimates for the cost of that car are from the mid 70's to the low 90's. As far as electric cars go; these aren't the droids you are looking for. As a solution to fossil fuels use: where do people think electricity comes from?
You were right to say hydrogen fuel cell cars would be better, maybe. Depends on how Hindenburgy they are. I don't have the answer but I know its not electric cars. At least until a majority of electricity is renewable...so basically never.
AustonT wrote: can you afford an 80k car, better yet would you?
Not now, but remember that this is still early technology. It's like that for everything, at first it's expensive then costs begin to drop. And eventually, even if electric cars are more expensive than "normal" cars, the savings in fuel costs over the life of the car will make up for it. But we're never going to reach that point if we just leave it at "it's too expensive" and drop the whole idea.
As a solution to fossil fuels use: where do people think electricity comes from?
Sure, a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, but don't forget two important things:
1) There are options for renewable energy. Hydroelectric, nuclear (well, mostly), etc, can provide power without burning fossil fuels. As we're forced to move to those options it would be nice for electric car technology to be developing in parallel so both solutions are ready when they're needed. And of course if you live near a hydroelectric dam, well, your conscience is pretty clear.
2) Efficiency scales with size. Sure, you might still be burning fossil fuel, but you can do it in a power plant maximized for efficiency instead of throwing away a lot of it as waste heat in a car engine. Assuming the power plant is close enough to keep the transmission line losses down, it's quite possible that the electric car is still better.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars would be even better though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, really, all we need to do is mine the moon for helium 3... Some private companies already have their sights set on moon mining, so that might not be as distantly in the future as most people would think.
Ya that's what you want to see. We have enough trouble with idiots and drunk driving. I really want them to be drunk driving something that's powered nuclear or hydrogene. /sarcasm
Instead of a dent in the house it gets blown up but hey at least it'll glow in the dark. Won't have to stub my tow gettin to the front door in the morning.
Keep in mind we did invade two countries and caused the direct and indirect deaths of hundreds of thousands. I think that was a bit out of line as a reaction to Sept11th.
One was, one wasn't.
World War I kicked off because one guy got shot.
Really? One guy got shot? It was nothing to do with the Imperial Tensions that been building up between all the Major Powers in Europe?
You are mistaking the Catalyst of events with the Cause of Events.
hmmm....Whales were happier, standby for some Complex conspiracy involving Israeli, the illuminati, US intelligence and the order of Cetacea.
I was at Sea on September 11th, don't remember ships around the Globe stopping. There was more rigorous Port control in the US and shut down of US ports for a day or two. Don't think it made a huge impact on Trasatlantic trade, almost all ships carried on their way and anchored off or some even drifted for a few days NUC, well off the US Ports before being called in. Never mind the fact that most US Warships immediately put to Sea at speed as the US was in a defacto state of war with an unknown assailant.
Changes
1. Osama bin Laden slain.
2. Widespread arabian revoltutions. (the echo of 1848?)
3. Another kingpin. Gaddhafi fell from power and killed in the Libyan Civil War
4. Rise of Dubai. the new business centre of the world.
Saddam Hussein and family also dead. Don't forget that.
Mubarrak out. Syria teetering.
Hamas legally elected.
Israel and Iran about to go at it.
Iraq a democracy.
Afghanistan is a hole.
Yes it is, but fungibility doesn't really matter if large suppliers start refusing to sell you goods, which becomes much easier if they have other markets to consider.
Yes it is, but fungibility doesn't really matter if large suppliers start refusing to sell you goods, which becomes much easier if they have other markets to consider.
Yea it does actually actually. You buy cargoes from other sellers. Market readjusts.
The only way an embargo works is if total global production is lowered or the absolute supply is interrupted (US carriers looking at you Iran!)
As a solution to fossil fuels use: where do people think electricity comes from?
Sure, a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, but don't forget two important things:
1) There are options for renewable energy. Hydroelectric, nuclear (well, mostly), etc, can provide power without burning fossil fuels. As we're forced to move to those options it would be nice for electric car technology to be developing in parallel so both solutions are ready when they're needed. And of course if you live near a hydroelectric dam, well, your conscience is pretty clear.
Hydroelectric power makes up 2/3s of the renewable energy in the US, and less than 7% overall. Let me repost this in case you missed it.
AustonT wrote:I don't have the answer but I know its not electric cars. At least until a majority of electricity is renewable...so basically never.
As it turns out I was aware of renewable engergy when I said that.
The only way an embargo works is if total global production is lowered or the absolute supply is interrupted (US carriers looking at you Iran!)
You know Frazzeled, you have some wonderful nieghbours to the north of you who would love to sell you lots of oil, provided of corse you put the hippies in their place so we can get that pipeline built.
Best of all, you guys get ethical oil from a country that actually believes things like stoning women to death for showing off an ankle is wrong!
The Middle East needs the rest of the world. On the other hand, we don't actually need them.
If anything has changed since 9/11, it's that our governments have only just tried to play even nicer with the jihadists who still party like it's the year 999 and think those evil crusaders are still after their cattle. (sorry, I mean their women that they treat as sub-humans!)
azazel the cat wrote: I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.
In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!
For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!
azazel the cat wrote: I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.
In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!
For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!
No, this is not a good option. It's being lauded as a job-creating project, even though those are temporary construction jobs, and will only create about 8 permanent jobs when it's done: additionally, the potential environmental damage is just ridiculous, considering it is a potential disaster that cannot be undone, no matter the level of cleanup. (Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez are great examples). There is absolutely no good reason for Canada (and especially BC) why the Gateway Pipeline Project should move forward.
azazel the cat wrote: I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.
In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!
For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!
No, this is not a good option. It's being lauded as a job-creating project, even though those are temporary construction jobs, and will only create about 8 permanent jobs when it's done: additionally, the potential environmental damage is just ridiculous, considering it is a potential disaster that cannot be undone, no matter the level of cleanup. (Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez are great examples). There is absolutely no good reason for Canada (and especially BC) why the Gateway Pipeline Project should move forward.
A pipeline spill is minor. Don't get your tree hugger bindies in a bind. Plus you still need a pipeline to ship the refined products, except now a lot of that is easier to go BOOM!
azazel the cat wrote: I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.
In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!
For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!
No, this is not a good option. It's being lauded as a job-creating project, even though those are temporary construction jobs, and will only create about 8 permanent jobs when it's done: additionally, the potential environmental damage is just ridiculous, considering it is a potential disaster that cannot be undone, no matter the level of cleanup. (Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez are great examples). There is absolutely no good reason for Canada (and especially BC) why the Gateway Pipeline Project should move forward.
A pipeline spill is minor. Don't get your tree hugger bindies in a bind. Plus you still need a pipeline to ship the refined products, except now a lot of that is easier to go BOOM!
Define "minor". And a tree hugger I am definitely not. However, I do object to someone building a pipe through BC without appropriate compensation, which is exactly what the Gateway Pipeline represents. Additionally, I do not have any inherent faith in oil companies to hold themselves accountable should any spills occur, nor has history given me any reason to think otherwise. Unless there is some rather draconian legislation put into place on the issue, I hope that the Gateway project ginds to a halt.
Poppabear wrote: Where is the day for all the innocent lives that the Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: So you don't want oil development at all then?
Tell me Frazzled, your guy's "Oil Development" is really just coming up with some dumb justification to invade a country, kill millions and take everything that is useful out it. When it comes to the likes of Canadians, you guys pretty much illegally build pipes under BC and Alberta and steal the damn the thing.
"Oil Development" what a joke.
Says the guy from Australia that mines the hell out of his own country.
No, not at all. The hydrocarbon market is quite fungible. If you are a sconsumer big enough to buy a cargo you're good to go.
If we assume all consumers are equal a reduction in supply to one particular nation, holding demand constant, necessarily increases price for that nation over the term of the supply reduction. You don't need to lower global supply, you just need to impede supply to the relevant nation.
That's how embargoes work, you aren't stopping supply from flowing, you're making it harder for it to flow.
Frazzled wrote:So you don't want oil development at all then?
I'll answer your question once you phrase it in the form of not a strawman. kthx
You don't want a pipeline correct? How do you expect to move the hydrocarbons? Fairies?
See? More strawmanning. I didn't say I was against a pipeline. I said I was against the Gateway Pipeline Project.
I'm perfectly fine with a pipeline, so long as the legislature works to find a way to hold both oil companies and those responsible for making its decisions personally accountable for any environmental disasters that might occur as a result of their decisions, including criminal charges and asset seizures. Additionally, I'd like to see BC actually get some fiscal compensation for allowing a pipeline to pass from Alberta to the West Coast. After all, Frazzled, wouldn't you expect compensation if your neighbour on your right wanted to build a pipe through your front yard to your neighbour on your left?
However, if these two caveats are not acceptable to the parties involved, then they can definitely fill up tank trucks and drive.
No, not at all. The hydrocarbon market is quite fungible. If you are a sconsumer big enough to buy a cargo you're good to go.
If we assume all consumers are equal a reduction in supply to one particular nation, holding demand constant, necessarily increases price for that nation over the term of the supply reduction. You don't need to lower global supply, you just need to impede supply to the relevant nation.
Absent military intervention or destruction of pipelines however, you can't impede supply to a particular nation.
EDIT: this applies to distillates. Natural gas requires more specialized tankers. A major pipeline shutoff can have a stronger, albeit temporary, effect.
The republicans went from using it as a rallying cry and jusification for everything they did and said to this:
They also went from "Bin Laden is public enemy number one and we will never forget or rest until we get him" to their recent flip flop of implying that Obama is somehow a bad man for getting him and downplaying his death, etc.
Still, back to the original premise, is there much hope hope for the future when Arab extremist elements seem to be spreading now unchecked by the (now dead or removed) despots who used to hold them back, by burying them in the desert?
Still time to make a Tin-foil hat ready for when the Arabic version of "Life of Brian" hits youtube.
R makes me look ignorant by summing up my post, it's a common and useful tool used my newspapers everyday in the form of a headline, and a recognized tool of message boards...like this one. I've fixed my post to be more ignorant (by your definition).
that. Let China do it. 
