Hard News: The newest neocon catastrophe
176 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Surprising as it feels we appear to be in significant agreement. It certainly seems as if Georgia is the first of a number of Eastern European and Central Asian countries that are about to feel the reassertion of the Russia of old, reinvigorated under Vlad the Nasty. Not good at all, for anyone, except Vlad and his buddies.
Ukraine's Yushenko needs to be very careful, he has a very large Russian minority in his country. It would not be difficult at all for Vlad to engineer a collapse of Yushenko's regime.
No we are not James. You are oversimplifying the situation, and cartoonising it again with all this puerile Vlad / Barry Obambi twaddle. Nobody rationally, outside Americans-need-an-orgeville, thinks that Russia is going to roll through Eastern Europe again (forgetting conveniently that both the USA and the UK gave them the green light to do so in the first place all those years ago). However, the Ukraine is seriously risking a major confrontation if it flexes it's muscle over Sevastapol, encouraged by the current US administration (whose fairly hopeless Secretary of State, a proclaimed Russian Expert, has proved to be anything but) and pushes the bear. The rest is ludicrous US rightwing fantasy.
Except the alternative seems to be sitting in Teplitz on 2 October 1938. When neither precedent is good, take the least bad one.
Except the chances of NATO or anyone else actually sending the 82nd Airborne to defend Georgia are rationally nil, which the Russians know, so you end up with a flattened Georgia and an alliance technically at war with a nuclear armed nation. It's still nuts. Which is why saner minds than found in Washington right now said no to Nato membership.
-
Ignoring the folly of talking yourself into another cold war for no good reason of course.
Lotsa good reasons
a) it's good for the military and their industry, especially as Iraq looks like it might have an enforced withdrawal date.
b) it keeps the populace frightened and supportive
c) it gives the nutters someone to rail angrily and irrationally against, online, in print and in the bars of the USA
d) it's good for Hollywoodlots more good reasons I bet.....
-
According to this site, the current US consumption is around 20 million barrels of oil per day. By my math that means that the total US oil reserves could only ever provide around 3 years worth of oil if fully exploited.
It seems to me that a more prudent policy would be to drastically cut oil use rather than manically destroying what wilderness is left on the continent in the vain hope of securing the national interest from "The Russians".
The 'merkin love-affair with oil isn't going away easily. They've got their SUV habit to break, and Detroit in general needs a good beating with a clue-by-four. If they can gain three years' of time to get their heads around the concept of small cars with efficient engines, they'll take it.
Of course, that does assume that they'll use the gained time wisely. I wouldn't count on it. Detroit cannot operate at a profit even when it makes vehicles that have margins of 40% or more (like the large SUVs, such as the Tahoe), so how they'll cope with small, complex vehicles remains to be seen. Not that the demise of Chrysler, GM and Ford would be any great loss to the world. Toyota, Honda and all the other usual suspects will be more than willing to fill the space, with vehicles that don't wantonly rape the planet.
-
Not that the demise of Chrysler, GM and Ford would be any great loss to the world.
yes but any rush towards a new cold war is going to benefit these guys rather well.
Just borrow a few billion more from Japan and China and everyone in those Detroit boardrooms will happy for a few more years.
Sadly, it doesn't seem to matter how much money they borrow and spend on defence, the US power influence just about everywhere has waned..South America, Asia, and the Middle East and Western Europe in no smart part to the Iraq mess. That Polish deal might piss a few people off (notably Russia) but it can also be seen as a rather desperate attempt to flex muscles in one of the few places where they can still do so unfettered.
-
Tony,
I am for all energy options. Conservation, ethanol, hybrids, electic vehicles and increased domestic production.
The US has more reserves than 20B barrels, a lot of the OCS hasn't had seismic done yet, so who knows how much is out there. Due to the price elasticity of oil, the US would only need to reduce its imports of of oil by 2 or 3 million barrels a day to have quite an impact on the price of oil. During the Asian contagen of the late 90s, demand for oil fell 10%, the price fell by 75%This is a good summary of drilling options available:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128096.html
As for the environmental aspect, follow this link to get an idea of the BS spread about ANWAR
http://reasonbellpundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/pictures-of-anwr-to-make-case-for.html
As for the American love affair with the car, no it wont go away any time soon, and why the hell would it? Am I going to wait for a bus in 35 C heat and 95% humidity? Fuck that. The US is a big big country and cities are big. In higher density cites metros work, but not in most cities. Cars are a necessity. Lets have more fuel efficient cars, great. But if you are upset about increasing oil consumption right now, get pissed off at the Chinese and Indians, not the Yanks.
-
Simon,
Poor darling, did I upset your delicate senses? How sad. Don't take life so seriosuly, its tedious.
BTW we are in agreement on the Ukraine. Very strange, but there it is.
I did not, nor has anyone of which I am aware suggested or implied Russian tanks will be rolling over Eastern Europe. They don't need to. Putin has already done all of the following: turning off the gas or oil in winter, a bit of polonium here or there, some of the stuff that they tried to kill Yushenko with, thrown his oponents in jail on made up charges, potted a few journalists, and now he has invaded a country with the apparent intention to take it over. None of that is a right wing fantasy, each has already happened.I was amused to see your reference to the UK and the USA green lighting Stalin's tanks into Eastern Europe (as if they had much choice). I wouldn't have thought a leftie would want to open the door on that sad chapter of history, of Roosevelt's liking of Stalin, "Uncle Joe", and how he thought he could influence Stalin by being nice to him and having a few nice chats. The same man who had just killed 20 or 30 million of his own people.
What is is about liberals and lefties that makes them think horrid bastards and mass murderers will become putty in their hands with a nice chat or two? Roosevelt thought that, so did Carter and now Barry is picking up that batton again. I mean to say, WTF? Why can't libs learn from history?
-
But if you are upset about increasing oil consumption right now, get pissed off at the Chinese and Indians, not the Yanks.
But on the other hand I can see why our getting pissed off with the Chinese and the Indians might seem a little illogical to them (and to me, actually). We, after all, have been hogging the resources and messing up the environment for a long time - and also advertising our one-eyed, greedy life style as elegant, sophisticated and desirable.
-
As for the American love affair with the car, no it wont go away any time soon, and why the hell would it?
I never said "car", I said "SUV". I understand that public transport isn't always an option (helloooo, I live in Auckland!). That doesn't mean my alternative needs to weigh enough to require a light-truck driver's licence, and get single-digit mpg. Detroit doesn't know how to build truly efficient cars, either (American hybrids? Anyone? No, didn't think so), but the ones they do build are still better than SUVs.
if you are upset about increasing oil consumption right now, get pissed off at the Chinese and Indians, not the Yanks.
The Chinese have only just, barely, maybe, passed the Americans as the world's largest oil consumer. Consider that they have roughly four times as many people, and you'll understand why I have no sympathy for that argument. India isn't even close to either of them, so why bring them into it at all?
American consumption per-capita is far ahead of any other country on earth. Kiwis aren't close to perfect, but we're still well behind the US (and several other members of the OECD). -
Poor darling, did I upset your delicate senses? How sad. Don't take life so seriosuly, its tedious.
BTW we are in agreement on the Ukraine. Very strange, but there it is.Don't talk such twaddle again James. Narrow cartoonish and quite racist barry obambi and vlads type comments do nobody any favours especially. They just give you an aura of ignorance. Like your 'now he has invaded a country with the apparent intention to take it over' thing..which one in particular? If you are refering to Georgia, outside fruit loop central, it's pretty much accepted that Georgia, for whatever ill advised reason, pulled a trigger. To date, no-one has taken over anything.
But you said that, then earlier you said "I did not, nor has anyone of which I am aware suggested or implied Russian tanks will be rolling over Eastern Europe."...then you say exactly that????? Which one is it James? Make your mind up.
And no we don't agree on Ukraine. Ukraine has a deal with Russia to lease out the navy base in the Crimea. They are making noises about taking it back with US encouragement. Russia, at the moment seems to want two things: that deal to be upheld, and the US to stop interferring with nations on it's front door. a bit like the US with Cuba and Central America in the 1980s. So I'm guessing the US is okay with Cuba taking back a little bit of their sovereign territory despite a treaty.
That last part of your post was just bizarre paranoid ranting..quite odd..swinging once again at the 'libs': it's Roosevelt's fault, it's Carter's fault.....I keep thinking of that old 50's movie with Americans running around the desert in a mad panic screaming "them! them!, them!" your view of past events is so blinkered in your narrow, goodies and badies, libs and the like it seems to be a vacuum once you move beyond those parameters.
Everything in your 'history' is black and white, but the world didn't and doesn't work work like that..sorry.You washed that blood off your hands from Iraq yet James? Because no matter who you try and shift the blame to, much of the world looks at people like you and still sees it. They think of you and your ilk as the contemporary 'horrid bastards'.
You are throwing swings from inside a moral vacuum, with rendition, torture, tens of thousands still in prisons without charge..and you have the nerve to accuse 'vlad'.....
Thank god your time is passing.
-
Just to clarify James...if that is your position on the Ukraine...that the US should perhaps stop interfering as it's simply destabilising with mischief, then we agree.
-
The concluding paragraphs of the Stratfor briefing:
The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.
The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.
Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).
In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.
The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.
-
Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.
Sure but I don't think at any time soon you'll see the Russians roll into any of the CIS states and formerly annex again. But there is little doubt that the Russian Empire, call it what you will, still sees the region now called the CIS as it's exclusive and legitimate zone of influence and resents any mischievous interference in a zone that it has dominated and ruled for half a millenia.
Either the US administration is intentionally trying to prod, and I think the rest of NATO, who are at best wary of Bush anyway, are very concerned about this, or, simply, almost too simply to believe if it wasn't for events of recent years, their grasp on the history of the region is not strong.
Both ways, Rice's claim to be a Russian expert looks increasingly shaky...it would've been hard to have mis-read the situation more from a US perspective, and be more impotent. I thought Steve Bell was good today.
-
As for the environmental aspect, follow this link to get an idea of the BS spread about ANWAR
Please. Nine photos do not an environmental study make. ANWR is a wildlife refuge. It's very purpose is to provide wilderness without development. It is not there to provide pretty photographs for rich tourists on their holidays. It provides an ecological function. One which is exceptional in Alaska today due to the massive development that has occurred in the state since its settlement in the early 19th century. Today less than 16% of Alaska is composed of unimpacted wilderness.
You are talking about a 2000 acre development in the middle of a wilderness refuge - a national park. For what? Less than 10% of annual US oil consumption as far as I can tell.
As an aside, in my role a professional ecologist, I would be very interested if you were able to point me to any data indicating that a development such as an oil rig has no impact on wildlife, despite what the nine photos on the link you posted might be trying to suggest. The scientific literature currently suggests the opposite.
-
Less than 10% of annual US oil consumption as far as I can tell.
Should be:
Less than 10% of US oil consumption every year as far as I can tell.
That is ANWR could provide 10% per annum of the US oil requirements.
-
RB,
Good to see you are reading Stratfor. I have subscribed to them for years (2002 I think) They are big picture thinkers who have a lot of good contacts in all manner of obscure places, so they are well worth reading.
Not saying I agree with everything they write, but they are a very good input into understanding any geopolitical issue. Vastly superior to any MSM outlet, and most blogs.
Georgia is a great move for Putin in so many ways as Strator outlines. Not much at all the US can do, makes the US and Europe look weak, scares the shit out of FSU and Eastern European countries, and regains complete control of oil & gas leaving the Central Asian region.
Putin will be very pleased that Georgia took his bait. -
Russell, Jane Clifton says you're not a real journalist. Have you just been pretending? You certainly fooled me...
-
Tony,
So a 2000 acre development on a coastal plain is going to impact an area the size of South Carolina? I mean, please.Massive development in Alaska, less than 16% unimpacted? Is that a joke? Have you ever been to Alaska? It is so huge its hard to describe. Do you include "impacted" as having been flown over by a plane at least once within the last 50 years.
And yes, 10% of US supply is very worthwhile. There are no magic bullets out there, some increased production here, some conservation there and some new technology over there, US energy policy needs to grow and be an "all of the above" effort. And btw, some of the strongest proponents of drilling in ANWAR are Alaskans themselves.
-
And yes, 10% of US supply is very worthwhile.
And you guys could cut your demand by that much by not being so gluttonous. Try walking down to the Crusty Burger store to get your Chicken fried steak burger with double cheese and fries instead of taking the Hummer. Compulsory liposuction could supply enough energy to run half of all your wars. ;-)
-
Scheunemann pops up in The Bag's image analysis 14 August.
-
Steve Barnes:
And you guys could cut your demand by that much by not being so gluttonous. Try walking down to the Crusty Burger store to get your Chicken fried steak burger with double cheese and fries instead of taking the Hummer. Compulsory liposuction could supply enough energy to run half of all your wars. ;-)
Reminds me of this gem from ex-GOP Arianna Huffington:
-
DeepRed wrote :
1 dead American ≈ 2 dead Europeans ≈ 5 dead Asians ≈ 50 dead Arabs ≈ 1000 dead Africans, and so forth.
Stuff.co.nz world section today :
Hundreds flee as Grand Canyon floods
Three die in NSW snowfields
Five dead in UK light aircraft collision
Baghdad suicide bomber kills many
So, for New Zealand media today we see that :
Americans in danger >= 3 dead Aussies >= 5 dead Brits >= "many" dead elsewhereWhy can't NZ newspapers sift out the news that is important to the American domestic market, but has little or no relevancy here in NZ ?
-
James
Massive development in Alaska, less than 16% unimpacted? Is that a joke? Have you ever been to Alaska? It is so huge its hard to describe. Do you include "impacted" as having been flown over by a plane at least once within the last 50 years.
Again, anecdotes aside, there are technical definitions of unimpacted that are used by professional ecologists. These definitions usually revolve around the percentage of original species remaining in an area. Alaska has been heavily logged over the past century and the forests have experienced an intensified fire regime and more recently a huge infestation of spruce bark beetle. All of these factors contribute to the figure of 16% unimpacted habitat in Alaska. You can see how other states compare at the federal governments National Atlas.
And btw, some of the strongest proponents of drilling in ANWAR are Alaskans themselves.
I assume that you are aware that the state pays every citizen of Alaska a dividend each year from a fund set up to collect taxes on oil company activities. The state collects so much money that there is no income tax or sales tax in Alaska. Alaskans are pro drilling because they are oil junkies. I'm not sure that I'd want oil junkies having the last word on drilling for more oil in a national park.
-
Tony, this may be of interest to you..but then I'm guessing that you knew large parts of this already.
-
Tony, this may be of interest to you..but then I'm guessing that you knew large parts of this already.
Hey thanks Simon, I hadn't seen that. It's a good collection of refutations for some of the pro-drilling claims that we hear parroted more and more stridently lately.
-
Again, anecdotes aside,
Oh Tony, you're not going to give us facts are you? How intellectually arrogant of you...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.