Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

Russia 'Not Afraid' Of New Cold War

thoughtone

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Conservative, right wing chest thumping military tactics no longer apply in today's world.

source: MSNBC

Medvedev: We’re ‘not afraid’ of a new Cold War
West fumes as Russian president OKs recognition of rebel Georgia areas

updated 55 minutes ago

MOSCOW - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, speaking in the midst of one of the lowest points in the Russia-West relationship since the breakup of the Soviet Union 17 years ago, said Tuesday that his country did not seek a new Cold War — but neither was it afraid of one.

"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new Cold War," Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the ITAR-Tass news agency. "But we don't want it and in this situation everything depends on the position of our partners."

The statement comes hours after Medvedev recognized the independence of two Georgian rebel provinces, defying the West. The recognition — which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as "extremely unfortunate" — follows a short but intense war with Western-allied Georgia earlier this month.

If they want to preserve good relations with Russia in the West, they will understand the reason behind our decision," Medvedev said.

Medvedev said that he had signed a decree on the decision to recognize the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Few other nations are likely to follow the move.

Rice said the United States continued to regard both breakaway regions as "part of the internationally recognized borders of Georgia."

On the heels of Russia's first post-Soviet invasion of a foreign country, recognition was another stark demonstration of the Kremlin's determination to hold sway in lands where its clout is jeopardized by NATO's expansion and growing Western influence.

Meanwhile, the the United States dispatched military ships bearing aid to a port city still controlled by Russian troops.

‘Absolutely not acceptable’
Rice also accused Medvedev of failing to honor his nation's commitments under an internationally backed cease-fire.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Russia's recognition of the breakaway areas was "absolutely not acceptable." She insisted Medvedev's decision violates international agreements.

Medvedev said Georgia forced Russia's hand by launching an attack targeting South Ossetia on Aug. 7 in an apparent bid to seize control of the breakaway region.

In response, Russian tanks and troops drove deep into the U.S. ally's territory in a five-day war that Moscow saw as a justified response to a military threat in its backyard and the West viewed as a repeat of Soviet-style intervention in its vassal states.

"This is not an easy choice but this is the only chance to save people's lives," Medvedev said Tuesday in a televised address announcing Russia's recognition of the breakaway territories.

Russian forces have staked out positions beyond the de-facto borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The two territories have effectively ruled themselves following wars in the 1990s.

Georgia chose the least human way to achieve its goal — to absorb South Ossetia by eliminating a whole nation," Medvedev said.

Further weakening
Russia's military presence seems likely to further weaken Georgia, a Western ally in the Caucasus region, a major transit corridor for energy supplies to Europe and a strategic crossroads close to the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia and energy-rich Central Asia.

Medvedev ignored Western warnings against recognizing the independence claims of the two regions, which broke from Georgian government control in early 1990s wars and have run their own affairs with Russian support.

After Russia's parliament urged the move in unanimous votes Monday, the U.S. State Department said recognition would be "unacceptable" and President Bush urged the Kremlin against it.
 
So, you're saying "Conservative, right wing chest thumping military tactics no longer apply in today's world -- to justify the bloated military industrial complex" because Russia is or is not a threat ???

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
So, you're saying "Conservative, right wing chest thumping military tactics no longer apply in today's world -- to justify the bloated military industrial complex" because Russia is or is not a threat ???

QueEx
Click to expand...


How is Russia a threat to us?
 
QueEx said:
So, you're saying "Conservative, right wing chest thumping military tactics no longer apply in today's world -- to justify the bloated military industrial complex" because Russia is or is not a threat ???

QueEx
Click to expand...

thoughtone said:
How is Russia a threat to us?
Click to expand...

C'mon man; I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Did you say all that because you consider Russia a threat; or, did you say all that because you do not consider Russia a threat ???

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
C'mon man; I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Did you say all that because you consider Russia a threat; or, did you say all that because you do not consider Russia a threat ???

QueEx
Click to expand...

Again, what kind of threat are you getting at? Military as far as Russia attacking the United States or an economic threat. What are you getting at?
 
I'm not getting at anything. I was simply trying to understand the point you were making.

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
3A,

LOL; that was out of the blue. WHY ???

QueEx
Click to expand...

Just like there's people that don't agree with Bush down here, in Russia its 3 fold. However, its the other way around because its the people who have the money, and want to establish a market that will be profitable in the west. Putin is old KGB, so he still have some of the ideas of the old USSR. People in Russia see China, and other countries around the world, making money. They want a peace of that. Not to mention, the influence of Ukraine, and America in Russia. Before there's another cold war, there would be a civil war, trust me.
 
actinanass said:
Just like there's people that don't agree with Bush down here, in Russia its 3 fold. However, its the other way around because its the people who have the money, and want to establish a market that will be profitable in the west. Putin is old KGB, so he still have some of the ideas of the old USSR. People in Russia see China, and other countries around the world, making money. They want a peace of that. Not to mention, the influence of Ukraine, and America in Russia. Before there's another cold war, there would be a civil war, trust me.
Click to expand...

Profitable for whom? McSame and his war mongering, oil profiteering lobbyist, market speculator cronies have no intension of benefiting the so called west as you put it. Their main intention is to line their own pockets. The don't care if they employ any American workers, they just are looking to make money and move it over to tax shelters such as Dubai and Bahrain. In addition, McSame will use the American Military and risk American lives so his he can move American jobs to the lowest cost markets, while those that gave the most benefit the least.
 
source: msnbc

U.S. aid ship avoids Russian-held Georgia port
Tensions persist after Moscow defies West, recognizes Georgia rebel areas

BATUMI, Georgia - A U.S. military ship carrying humanitarian aid docked at the Georgian Black Sea port of Batumi on Wednesday, avoiding the port of Poti, which is still controlled by Russian forces.

The move came amid escalating tensions between Russia and Georgia's Western allies. Batumi, where the Coast Guard cutter Dallas docked, is well south of the zone of fighting in this month's war between Russia and Georgia.

The United States and European nations have assailed Russia's recognition of two Georgian territories as separate nations Tuesday, and Moscow has also criticized the United States for bringing humanitarian aid into Georgia on military ships.

The U.S. embassy changed its version of events several times in the last 24 hours. At first, it announced Tuesday that its aid ship would dock Wednesday at Poti. Then early Wednesday, the embassy said that plans had changed, and the ship would dock at Batumi.

Later in the day, the U.S. Embassy retracted its earlier statement that an aid ship would dock in Poti. The spokesperson would not allow their name to be used.

Poti's port reportedly suffered heavy damage from the Russian military. In addition, Russian troops have established checkpoints on the northern approach to the city and a U.S. ship docking there could have been seen as a direct challenge.

"The decision of where to send aid was made at the highest level of the Pentagon and the only decision was to send it to Batumi," a U.S. Embassy spokesman told The Associated Press on condition of not being further identified.

Recognition from Russia
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday recognized the regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. Western leaders assailed Russia for violating Georgia's territorial sovereignty.

Although Western nations have called the Russian military presence in Poti a clear violation of an European Union-brokered cease-fire, a top Russian general countered Tuesday that using warships to deliver aid was "devilish."

"The heightened activity of NATO ships in the Black Sea perplexes us," Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said in Moscow.

Russian troops reportedly still in 'security zones'
Many of the Russian forces that drove deep into Georgia after fighting broke out Aug. 7 in the separatist region of South Ossetia have pulled back, but hundreds at least are estimated to still be manning checkpoints that Russia calls "security zones" inside Georgia proper.

In a move that angered Russia, the U.S. sent the missile destroyer USS McFaul to Batumi to deliver 34 tons of humanitarian aid on Sunday.

The McFaul left Batumi on Tuesday but planned to remain in the Black Sea area, said Commander Scott Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 6th Fleet in Naples, Italy.

In Moscow, the deputy head of the Russian military's general staff lashed out at the U.S. naval operation. "We are worried" about the way aid is delivered on warships, Nogovitsyn said. "This is devilish."

"This aid could be bought at any flea market," he added.

Although he did not link it with the U.S. ships, Nogovitsyn said a unit of Russian naval ships was off Sukhumi — the capital of another separatist Georgian region, Abkhazia, on the Black Sea north of Poti. He said the ships were observing the pullout of Russian troops from Georgia.

The United States and other Western countries have given substantial military aid to Georgia, angering Russia, which regards Georgia as part of its historical sphere of influence. Russia also has complained bitterly about aspirations by Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.
 
thoughtone said:
Profitable for whom? McSame and his war mongering, oil profiteering lobbyist, market speculator cronies have no intension of benefiting the so called west as you put it. Their main intention is to line their own pockets. The don't care if they employ any American workers, they just are looking to make money and move it over to tax shelters such as Dubai and Bahrain. In addition, McSame will use the American Military and risk American lives so his he can move American jobs to the lowest cost markets, while those that gave the most benefit the least.
Click to expand...

first of all, you make it look like the Left haven't made deals with such people. When I say WEST, I'm speaking all of western civilization, not just the United States. Love it our hate it, when it all said and done, either party will get that money if it was available.

With that being said, this is the main reason why Russia would be in a civil war before a cold war. Their business class wants to expand like China on the most part. They do not need Putin to fuck shit up *in which he is doing*.

BTW, I find it funny that liberals would whine about losing American jobs, however, when it comes to drilling for our own oil *something that would bring a lot of money to a lot of middle class families* we can't do that. Don't be a hypocrite Thought...please don't...
 
actinanass said:
first of all, you make it look like the Left haven't made deals with such people. When I say WEST, I'm speaking all of western civilization, not just the United States. Love it our hate it, when it all said and done, either party will get that money if it was available.

With that being said, this is the main reason why Russia would be in a civil war before a cold war. Their business class wants to expand like China on the most part. They do not need Putin to fuck shit up *in which he is doing*.

BTW, I find it funny that liberals would whine about losing American jobs, however, when it comes to drilling for our own oil *something that would bring a lot of money to a lot of middle class families* we can't do that. Don't be a hypocrite Thought...please don't...
Click to expand...

I have no issue with drilling for oil in the United States. But there is no guarantee that it will be sold to Americans. Free market you know. Just another right wing republican attempt to muddy the issue.


source: The Seattle Times

Where would ANWR oil go?

By Warren Cornwall

Seattle Times staff reporter

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens stood on the floor of the Senate a month ago and urged his colleagues to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Do it to boost our domestic oil supplies, he said. Do it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

What Stevens did not mention was this: Alaskan oil could wind up being sold overseas.

The Senate vote, which gave Stevens a 51-49 victory, makes no promise the oil pumped from the wildlife refuge (ANWR) has to be sold to domestic refineries.

Some pro-drilling forces say a final bill could ban refuge oil from going overseas, a restriction contained in an energy bill now before the House that would open ANWR to oil exploration. Such a ban, however, wouldn't apply to other Alaskan oil. And a similar pledge was reversed in the past.

As Congress again considers opening the refuge in a quest for oil, the prospect of exporting Alaskan crude poses a political conundrum for those who say drilling is a way to get more oil to domestic markets.

Detractors have jumped on the issue, charging that claims the refuge must be drilled to satisfy a domestic thirst for energy are hypocritical.

"If we are going to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the Washington Democrat who led efforts last month to block drilling in the refuge.

While Stevens, a Republican, could not be reached for comment, his spokeswoman Courtney Schikora Boone said that if ANWR is opened up, exporting oil "could happen."

"But it would not be something we would push for because we consider domestic oil production in the United States to be a national-security issue. We believe our dependence on foreign oil makes us weaker in the world," she said.

In the Senate, a proposal to open the refuge to drilling is contained in a budget resolution, which must be reconciled with the House version. The House, meanwhile, is expected to vote this week on the overall energy bill, which would allow drilling in ANWR.

Even without an export ban, drilling proponents say the talk of exports is an empty political ploy, and that it's highly unlikely there would ever be enough oil to warrant selling Alaskan crude to foreign consumers.

"Talk about exporting ANWR oil to foreign countries is a red herring," said John Katz, head of Alaska's Washington, D.C., office. "In fact, there's a huge demand on the U.S. West Coast and that's where Alaska oil goes and will go."

"It's called trade"
Drilling opponents, meanwhile, also leave some parts of the export issue unmentioned.

Much of the oil would likely wind up in West Coast refineries that once consumed far more Alaskan oil than they do now. And while several prominent oil economists were split over the likelihood of Alaskan crude exports, none considered exports a problem.

"It's called trade," said Philip Verleger, an energy analyst who thinks exports are possible.

The debate echoes from three decades ago, when the country was reeling from the Arab oil embargo of 1973.

As the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was authorized that same year to open Alaska's North Slope oil fields, Congress banned exporting the oil amid concerns that it might wind up being shipped overseas while Americans stood in lines at gas stations.

Soon after, oil companies and Alaskan leaders started lobbying to lift the export ban, arguing it threatened to flood West Coast refineries, artificially depressed the price of Alaskan oil and forced oil shipments to parts of the U.S. that lay much farther from Alaska than Asian ports.

The ban was overturned in 1995, an effort led by Alaska's congressional delegation, including Rep. Don Young and Stevens.

Stevens at the time hailed the decision as a "great victory for Alaska" that would encourage further oil development and create more jobs.

"This ban is unconstitutional and unjust. Lifting the ban would mean Alaska could sell its oil on the world market, which would increase state revenues by as much as $700 million," he said in a press release.

The end to the export ban never produced the big jump in foreign shipments some predicted, though it did boost prices for Alaskan oil, according to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office.

Just 4 percent of North Slope oil trickled to Asia between 1996 and 2000, before the flow shut off almost entirely. Since then, the only export was a single tanker in 2004, which delivered a load of oil to China en route to getting repaired at an Asian port.

The reason is that Alaskan oil fields aren't gushing crude as they once did. Alaskan oil production was cut in half between the 1988 peak and 2000. Now West Coast refineries soak up nearly every drop, according to data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

Washington is one of the major destination points for that oil. A string of refineries near Anacortes and Bellingham rely on Alaska for more than 90 percent of their crude oil, according to a 2004 report from the Seattle and Pierce County chambers of commerce.

Debate renewed
The prospect of another surge of Alaskan oil has revived the export debate, though this time backers of drilling aren't talking about exporting oil.

If the refuge is opened to drilling, it could raise Alaskan oil production from roughly 908,000 barrels of oil a day in 2004 to between 1.1 million and 2.1 million barrels per day in 2025, according to Energy Information Administration estimates.

A glut of Alaskan oil could be more than West Coast refineries can use, said Verleger, a senior fellow for the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C.

At their 1991 peak, West Coast refineries used 1.44 million barrels of Alaskan oil a day. While refineries have increased overall production since then, at this point it's not enough to process the potential increase in Alaskan crude if ANWR is opened.

"It is possible if they were to find a lot of oil in ANWR — and once they start drilling there they may move outside that little area — that the oil couldn't go to any place in the United States," Verleger said.

That could change if refineries make Alaskan oil a much larger percentage of their overall crude-oil supplies, or if refineries are expanded by the 2020s, when oil production from the refuge could peak if it's opened soon.

Sam Van Vactor, a Portland-based energy consultant who studies the West Coast oil market, said oil discoveries in the refuge probably wouldn't be big enough to trigger pressure for exports.

Even with an export ban on refuge oil, Alaskan oil could still be sold overseas. If the refuge oil were to meet all the domestic needs of West Coast markets, producers could put oil extracted from other North Slope oil fields that aren't subject to an export ban on tankers bound for Asia, Van Vactor said.

But he saw little reason for concern: Because oil is traded around the globe, the U.S. is in a better strategic position if it has more oil to trade, Van Vactor said.

"The companies don't like to argue this, I think, because they seem to think the American public doesn't understand economics very well. So they use these security and supply arguments that don't really make a lot of sense," Van Vactor said.

Cantwell countered that oil exports from Alaska, even if they don't trouble economists, do nothing to reduce U.S. reliance on a global petroleum network.

"If you're thinking about security, this isn't going to answer the question," she said. "The best solution is to get off of dependence on fossil fuels in general."

Katz, the Alaska lobbyist, said that while he considered exports a nonissue, they could make sense in economic terms.

"The problem is that in political terms it takes eight seconds to say, 'Well, they're exporting Alaskan oil abroad.' And it takes a long time to explain how oil is fungible and an export in one place might lead to an import in another place."
 
thoughtone said:
I have no issue with drilling for oil in the United States. But there is no guarantee that it will be sold to Americans. Free market you know. Just another right wing republican attempt to muddy the issue.


source: The Seattle Times

Where would ANWR oil go?

By Warren Cornwall

Seattle Times staff reporter

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens stood on the floor of the Senate a month ago and urged his colleagues to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Do it to boost our domestic oil supplies, he said. Do it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

What Stevens did not mention was this: Alaskan oil could wind up being sold overseas.

The Senate vote, which gave Stevens a 51-49 victory, makes no promise the oil pumped from the wildlife refuge (ANWR) has to be sold to domestic refineries.

Some pro-drilling forces say a final bill could ban refuge oil from going overseas, a restriction contained in an energy bill now before the House that would open ANWR to oil exploration. Such a ban, however, wouldn't apply to other Alaskan oil. And a similar pledge was reversed in the past.

As Congress again considers opening the refuge in a quest for oil, the prospect of exporting Alaskan crude poses a political conundrum for those who say drilling is a way to get more oil to domestic markets.

Detractors have jumped on the issue, charging that claims the refuge must be drilled to satisfy a domestic thirst for energy are hypocritical.

"If we are going to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the Washington Democrat who led efforts last month to block drilling in the refuge.

While Stevens, a Republican, could not be reached for comment, his spokeswoman Courtney Schikora Boone said that if ANWR is opened up, exporting oil "could happen."

"But it would not be something we would push for because we consider domestic oil production in the United States to be a national-security issue. We believe our dependence on foreign oil makes us weaker in the world," she said.

In the Senate, a proposal to open the refuge to drilling is contained in a budget resolution, which must be reconciled with the House version. The House, meanwhile, is expected to vote this week on the overall energy bill, which would allow drilling in ANWR.

Even without an export ban, drilling proponents say the talk of exports is an empty political ploy, and that it's highly unlikely there would ever be enough oil to warrant selling Alaskan crude to foreign consumers.

"Talk about exporting ANWR oil to foreign countries is a red herring," said John Katz, head of Alaska's Washington, D.C., office. "In fact, there's a huge demand on the U.S. West Coast and that's where Alaska oil goes and will go."

"It's called trade"
Drilling opponents, meanwhile, also leave some parts of the export issue unmentioned.

Much of the oil would likely wind up in West Coast refineries that once consumed far more Alaskan oil than they do now. And while several prominent oil economists were split over the likelihood of Alaskan crude exports, none considered exports a problem.

"It's called trade," said Philip Verleger, an energy analyst who thinks exports are possible.

The debate echoes from three decades ago, when the country was reeling from the Arab oil embargo of 1973.

As the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was authorized that same year to open Alaska's North Slope oil fields, Congress banned exporting the oil amid concerns that it might wind up being shipped overseas while Americans stood in lines at gas stations.

Soon after, oil companies and Alaskan leaders started lobbying to lift the export ban, arguing it threatened to flood West Coast refineries, artificially depressed the price of Alaskan oil and forced oil shipments to parts of the U.S. that lay much farther from Alaska than Asian ports.

The ban was overturned in 1995, an effort led by Alaska's congressional delegation, including Rep. Don Young and Stevens.

Stevens at the time hailed the decision as a "great victory for Alaska" that would encourage further oil development and create more jobs.

"This ban is unconstitutional and unjust. Lifting the ban would mean Alaska could sell its oil on the world market, which would increase state revenues by as much as $700 million," he said in a press release.

The end to the export ban never produced the big jump in foreign shipments some predicted, though it did boost prices for Alaskan oil, according to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office.

Just 4 percent of North Slope oil trickled to Asia between 1996 and 2000, before the flow shut off almost entirely. Since then, the only export was a single tanker in 2004, which delivered a load of oil to China en route to getting repaired at an Asian port.

The reason is that Alaskan oil fields aren't gushing crude as they once did. Alaskan oil production was cut in half between the 1988 peak and 2000. Now West Coast refineries soak up nearly every drop, according to data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

Washington is one of the major destination points for that oil. A string of refineries near Anacortes and Bellingham rely on Alaska for more than 90 percent of their crude oil, according to a 2004 report from the Seattle and Pierce County chambers of commerce.

Debate renewed
The prospect of another surge of Alaskan oil has revived the export debate, though this time backers of drilling aren't talking about exporting oil.

If the refuge is opened to drilling, it could raise Alaskan oil production from roughly 908,000 barrels of oil a day in 2004 to between 1.1 million and 2.1 million barrels per day in 2025, according to Energy Information Administration estimates.

A glut of Alaskan oil could be more than West Coast refineries can use, said Verleger, a senior fellow for the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C.

At their 1991 peak, West Coast refineries used 1.44 million barrels of Alaskan oil a day. While refineries have increased overall production since then, at this point it's not enough to process the potential increase in Alaskan crude if ANWR is opened.

"It is possible if they were to find a lot of oil in ANWR — and once they start drilling there they may move outside that little area — that the oil couldn't go to any place in the United States," Verleger said.

That could change if refineries make Alaskan oil a much larger percentage of their overall crude-oil supplies, or if refineries are expanded by the 2020s, when oil production from the refuge could peak if it's opened soon.

Sam Van Vactor, a Portland-based energy consultant who studies the West Coast oil market, said oil discoveries in the refuge probably wouldn't be big enough to trigger pressure for exports.

Even with an export ban on refuge oil, Alaskan oil could still be sold overseas. If the refuge oil were to meet all the domestic needs of West Coast markets, producers could put oil extracted from other North Slope oil fields that aren't subject to an export ban on tankers bound for Asia, Van Vactor said.

But he saw little reason for concern: Because oil is traded around the globe, the U.S. is in a better strategic position if it has more oil to trade, Van Vactor said.

"The companies don't like to argue this, I think, because they seem to think the American public doesn't understand economics very well. So they use these security and supply arguments that don't really make a lot of sense," Van Vactor said.

Cantwell countered that oil exports from Alaska, even if they don't trouble economists, do nothing to reduce U.S. reliance on a global petroleum network.

"If you're thinking about security, this isn't going to answer the question," she said. "The best solution is to get off of dependence on fossil fuels in general."

Katz, the Alaska lobbyist, said that while he considered exports a nonissue, they could make sense in economic terms.

"The problem is that in political terms it takes eight seconds to say, 'Well, they're exporting Alaskan oil abroad.' And it takes a long time to explain how oil is fungible and an export in one place might lead to an import in another place."
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who its sold too, gas will be cheaper because the world supply will grow. Not to mention, the jobs, and how many new communities would grow.

When it comes to money, both parties have their hands on whatever. Its not just a republican thing, trust me.
 
actinanass said:
It doesn't matter who its sold too, gas will be cheaper because the world supply will grow. Not to mention, the jobs, and how many new communities would grow.

When it comes to money, both parties have their hands on whatever. Its not just a republican thing, trust me.
Click to expand...

It's futile discussing this with you. All you do is repeat talking points. At the most the US will add 2 million barrels a day for our use if every drop is sold to the US. We currently consume 20 million barrels a day. That is a 10% increase being optimistic. 45% of that is used for automobile use. That is not going to increase the job base significantly or lower prices, especially since we will still have to buy oil to supplement the increase demand. The only real way to decrease oil prices is to lower demand by increasing public transportation (something no one is seriously talking about) and developing alternate energy sources. I know right wingers are afraid of change, but that is the reality!

source: IT News

source: Energy Information Administration


 
thoughtone said:
It's futile discussing this with you. All you do is repeat talking points. At the most the US will add 2 million barrels a day for our use if every drop is sold to the US. We currently consume 20 million barrels a day. That is a 10% increase being optimistic. 45% of that is used for automobile use. That is not going to increase the job base significantly or lower prices, especially since we will still have to buy oil to supplement the increase demand. The only real way to decrease oil prices is to lower demand by increasing public transportation (something no one is seriously talking about) and developing alternate energy sources. I know right wingers are afraid of change, but that is the reality!

source: IT News

source: Energy Information Administration
Click to expand...

Silly me, I thought speculation was driving the price of oil up. How do you kill speculation about demand? BUILD SUPPLY! Something we are NOT doing like the Russians, and Chinese are doing. You can call it talking points, 75% of Americans call it fact.

Another thing, last time I checked, we choose how much oil we put in the world market. Meaning, if we build new refineries *something that needs to happen as well as drilling for new oil* we will have the control of our own supply, and ultimately gas prices. Correct me if I'm wrong on this part....

Now with that being said, I do believe we need to evolve our way of transportation. However, we need to let OUR market determine that.
 
actinanass said:
Silly me, I thought speculation was driving the price of oil up. How do you kill speculation about demand? BUILD SUPPLY! Something we are NOT doing like the Russians, and Chinese are doing. You can call it talking points, 75% of Americans call it fact.

Another thing, last time I checked, we choose how much oil we put in the world market. Meaning, if we build new refineries *something that needs to happen as well as drilling for new oil* we will have the control of our own supply, and ultimately gas prices. Correct me if I'm wrong on this part....

Now with that being said, I do believe we need to evolve our way of transportation. However, we need to let OUR market determine that.
Click to expand...

Speculation is what the oil companies have told you what is driving up oil. The price of gasoline hasn't risen dramatically in Europe, Japan, Mexico or Canada over the last year. If you do your research instead of buying everything world.net spews. Why has the price of gasoline fallen over the last month? Have the speculators gotten out of the oil market?
If supply is a major issue, what won't GW release oil from the strategic oil reserve? That would lower prices immediately. That would satisfy the short term mentality of the right.
If you understand economics 101, if the price of oil was in short supply, then we would have lines around the corner at gasoline stations. Last time I checked, there is plenty of gasoline being sold, with no shortages. Unlike the 1970s when there were actual shortages due to the OPECs oil embargo.
The argument about letting the market increase public transportation is a joke. Did the markets build the interstate highway system? In fact if you again do your research, there were cases where General Motors and other large companies conspired to have public rail systems dismantled. As in health care, where there is no profit in keep people healthy, the oil companies see no profit in having the public keep cars off of the roads. Ask yourself this, are we here for the economy or is the economy here for us?

Great American Streetcar Scandal

Gasoline Prices

Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States
 
<font size="5"><center>Russian leaders talk big,
but army and economy are weak</font size></center>


McClatchy Newspapers
By Tom Lasseter
September 11, 2008


MOSCOW — Russia's military is riddled with weakness. Its equipment is outdated. Its technology is decades behind the West. And its capacity for battlefield communications and intelligence gathering is terrible.

In short, Russia has a mid- to late-20th century military in a 21st century world.

That and more was revealed during Russia's war with U.S.-backed Georgia last month, when its troops routed the small Georgian army but looked woefully short of the fighting power of nations like the United States.

And to top things off, Russia's economy has recently been slammed by the double whammy of a plummeting stock market and falling currency as the effects of the global economic crunch were compounded by worried Western investors withdrawing billions of dollars in the aftermath of the Georgian war.

Instead of pausing, the Kremlin has charged ahead, warning and threatening the United States and its allies at every turn. Brushing aside American predictions that Moscow would isolate itself from the world by invading Georgia, the Kremlin this week announced joint training exercises with Venezuela — where President Hugo Chavez is an avowed foe of U.S. policy abroad.

News on Wednesday that two nuclear-capable Russian bombers, reportedly without nuclear weapons, had landed in Venezuela punctuated both the uncertainty and the gravity of the situation: Was this just a political jab by Moscow leaders, or is the Kremlin signaling it is willing to risk a fight despite its obvious weaknesses?

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has publicly said he has no desire for conflict. Russian generals under his government's command, meanwhile, say they might target U.S. missile defense shield sites in eastern Europe with ballistic missiles.

"It's a very dangerous time," said James Townsend Jr., who from 2003 to 2006 was the director of European and NATO policy for the secretary of defense and is now director of the international security program at the Atlantic Council of the United States, a think tank. "It's made dangerous by uncertainty, it's made dangerous by the possibility of miscalculation."

Russia observers differ on the implications of the standoff.

Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired Russian major general who ran a premier military think tank from 1993 to 2001, said the maneuvers by the United States and Russia after the Georgian war have been political posturing, and the idea that Russia and the West would get into an armed confrontation is "absurd."

Some pro-Western analysts, however, say that Russian leadership is testing how far it can go in reclaiming parts of the former Soviet Union, or at least reducing Western influence in the region, at a time when the United States is perceived as being weak and Europe divided. They also say the Kremlin is in danger of overplaying its hand.

During the fighting in Georgia, Russian officers in the field frequently relied on cell phones or old radios, and they were unable to establish tactical command centers close to the front. The air force and ground forces were badly out of synch, and some soldiers complained to reporters that they hadn't eaten in a few days.

Their American counterparts would have been able to quickly establish satellite uplinks, visual feeds from unmanned aerial drones — which the Russians weren't able to use at all — and real-time communications between all branches of the military.

The Soviet-designed T-72 tanks that rolled into Georgia — there were newer tanks as well, but the T-72s seemed most prominent — are prone to breaking down and are considered several rungs below American battle tanks.

"Military equipment is very old, and at the same time it's absolutely clear that Russia has no resources to change it," said Alexander Goltz, a military analyst in Moscow. "For all of the '90s we had no money to produce new military equipment ... the whole chain of subcontractors was destroyed."

But former military officers, and officials connected with the Kremlin, emphasize that Russia is in the same league as America when it comes to nuclear missile stockpiles.

Pavel Zolotarev, a retired Russian major general and deputy director of a government-funded institute that studies the United States and Canada, reminded a reporter of nuclear realities.

"As far as general forces, the American army far surpasses the Russian army in terms of equipment," Zolotarev said. "An army is made up of different kinds of forces. If we compare the nuclear forces of these two sides, then we have parity. We can destroy each other five or six times."

Amid all the heated words, it's important to step back and see Russia for what it really is, said Robert Hunter, the U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Clinton and now a senior adviser at the RAND Corp.

"I don't believe that Russia is a great power again. ... Russia is Saudi Arabia with trees," Hunter said. "In reality, Russia is a second-rate military power and will be for some time."

Hunter said that to try to understand Russia's recent actions, it helps to keep in mind that it has felt besieged lately. Kremlin leaders have been unhappy about U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, and American backing for the NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia.

Given those tensions, Hunter said, the White House should allow the Kremlin some room to vent, as long as it doesn't go too far, and not provoke it toward bigger displays of military aggression.

"Most of it I would keep my mouth shut about," he said. "If they want to steer off to Venezuela, be my guest."



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52313.html
 
<font size="3">



As stocks and oil prices fall, Russians worry about the ruble

Russians Buying BILLIONS of Dollars to Forestall Economic Collapse</font size>
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/56171.html


<font size="3">
Russians told all is well as economy sinks

Oil prices have plunged from a high earlier this year of $147 a barrel
to the $70s this week, dangerously close to the minimum needed to
sustain Russia's national budget. </font size>
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/54534.html


<font size="3">
Financial crisis forces fire sales of Russian businesses, banks</font size>

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53996.html


`
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MCP
Putin draws new red line on long-range missiles
Replies
1
Views
208
MCP
MCP
MCP
Palestinians flood back to northern Gaza after Israeli withdrawal as truce holds
Replies
2
Views
150
MCP
MCP
MCP
Sudan in danger of self-destructing as conflict and famine reign
Replies
1
Views
280
doe moe
doe moe
MCP
West African military leaders prepare to exit Ecowas regional bloc, raising concerns for stability
Replies
0
Views
249
MCP
MCP
MCP
African migration: 5 trends and what’s driving them
Replies
1
Views
360
nm09
N
Back
Top