LOL! Hezbollah endorses the Dems!

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Tough break Dems. It's not too late to nominate Sheikh Abdullah Azzam to run for President. Sure he's dead, but at least he's more alive than any of the current candidates.

So our enemies are despeate to see a Democrat administration?

Heh. Best damned campaign ad Bush could hope for.

OMG-WTF-BBQ!

I see Carl Rove has finally perfected the GOP mind control ray. :)

This is going to be REALLY funny to watch some of the Dems RUN from this one.

It will also be REALLY repulsive to see some of them RUN to it. :(

i heard that al Zawahiri is coming out for Nader

This means almost as much as David Duke's membership in the Republican Party.

Finally, more moderate Democratic endorsements... I'm sure we'll see his endorsement in DNC commercials, YEAH RIGHT! The RNC should actually run his name and picture(with his glowing Jihad credentials, eg. holocaust denial), with his democrat endorsing quote, then "Friends don't let friends vote democrat." Hmmm... Is this because both organizations are attempting to get back on the proverbial "roadmaps?"

This story has got to be Photoshopped. PDM? Anybody? Bueller?

From the article:

"This administration is the stupidest and most violent of all the American administrations ... We are suffering from a range of American pressures that are the heaviest since - well, I don't know, I wasn't alive in the 16th century." That was the message of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara this week, in a meeting he held with Syrian journalists to mark the country's Press Day.

Happy 427th Birthday, America!

*geez louise*

But then, only 1% of the US population are Muslims...
Will the AOL Warner Saudi connection try to influence floating voters by subliminal messages? It will be interesting to see who financially supported the Dems...

On target as usual.

Dam Dems

I wonder how Hizballah would feel if Joe Lieberman got the Democratic nomination?

This means almost as much as David Duke's membership in the Republican Party.

Normally, yes.

But, if you haven't noticed, we're at war. And one of our enemies has just declared that he, really, really, really would like it if we elected politicians he expects to go easier on his side.

It says something about the rhetoric of the Democrats that the head of Hizb'allah thinks they would go easy on him and his fellow terrorists, that he thinks they would abandon Iraq to the wolves.

I think Joe Leiberman should run this as his campaign ad. Or do the Muslims not realize that one of the Dems is a devout Jew?

someguy:

Didn't you know? Muslims were horribly oppressed by the founding of Jamestown:

[Link: www.apva.org...]

#6 jamie:

Robert Crawford has a good point there. It's more like the equivalent of Himmler endorsing the Republican running against Roosevelt in '44.

Well, you know what they say: As goes Hizbollah, so goes California.

Robert Crawford: From your link:

The Far East has its Mecca...but America's only shrines are her altars of patriotism -

Yeah, a sharp stick in the eye, alright.

Me, I think Mecca's fine right where it is.

Yeah the Pali endorsement did wonders for the Labor Party in the last Israeli elections. Keep 'em coming Islamofascists. Hamas will no doubt endorse Howard Dean tomorrow.

Man, if I were Bush I'd be running campaign ads with this quote starting today.

Why wouldn't a terrorist group support the Democrats? Aren't the democrats the biggest supporters of terrorism and anti-Semitism nowadays???

#12- I think that if Joe Lieberman were to become the Dem's candidate, there would be a conspiracy between Hizballah and the DNC to assassinate him for his conservative viewpoints and for his religious faith. They'd want to put a radical racist in his place, like Al Sharpton, who sees nothing wrong with Islamic terrorism

#16 someguy

The 1944 Republican Presidential nominee was Thomas E. Dewey. He would have told Himmler what he could do with his endorsement. Tact was something that Dewey lacked. Let's see if any of the Democrats wanting the top job come out against this endorsement. I think the silence will be deafening.

On other wonderful political news from the Please, Please, Please be true Department:

Report: Powell won't serve a second Bush term

US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his top deputy have told the White House they will not serve a second term if President Bush is re-elected, The Washington Post reported.

Citing "sources familiar with the conversation," the paper said in a story for Monday's editions that Powell deputy Richard L. Armitage recently told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that he and Powell will leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration.

Of course, he will probably replace him with Ibrahim Hooper at the insistence of CAIR.

Thanks, Charles!

It surely tells you something about the strength of the Administration when sophisticated enemies abroad look to a Democratic replacement as their only hope for survival.

Tasty Manatees- Archive

As a former Democrat, I'm saddened to see how they've painted themselves into a box. They need some bold new thinking. I can supply it:

The two greatest threats to our society are 1) terrorism and 2) global warming. BOTH are in large part due to our excessive reliance on foreign oil. The Republican party (and the Democrat too, for that matter) is in cahoots with big oil, Saudi Arabia, the automotive industry, etc. Therefore, they are not in a good position to take the decisive actions that are necessary to free us from these twin threats.

We must undertake a radical restructuring of our society so that people live much closer to their place of work, or live in little suburban villages clustered near a train station. We must have smaller, more fuel efficient cars and houses. We may have to build some more nuclear generators. And so forth.

Then we will be in a position to stop buying Saudi oil, and watch the source of terrorism slowly (or not so slowly) die. And we will live in a better planet, without having to watch the oceans rise and inundate our coasts.

#22 BIG:

I don't think it's too to cue crickets right now, do you?

Hisb'Allah, in it's infinite wisdom, has inevitably sided with the winners. The resounding success of the Paleolithestine Intifuckup is but one example.

All is lost for Dubya.

The 1944 Republican Presidential nominee was Thomas E. Dewey. He would have told Himmler what he could do with his endorsement. Tact was something that Dewey lacked. Let's see if any of the Democrats wanting the top job come out against this endorsement. I think the silence will be deafening.

LOL! It would be hysterical (but highly unlikely) if the Democratic candidate said "Hey pal you can take your endorsement, shove it up your ass and detonate it for all I care." The establishment would be appalled. Fly-over country would love it though.

Too EARLY, that is. :)

Well to be frank this isn't an "endorsement". It's true that the Democrats had better explain why Hezbollah's perception is that they would be weaker on them than the GOP and why this isn't so. But there's been no "endorsement" to turn down.

I see Carl Rove has finally perfected the GOP mind control ray. :)

The very one Dennis Kucinich was trying to ban....

#21 Jim B.

They'd want to put a radical racist in his place, like Al Sharpton, who sees nothing wrong with Islamic terrorism

Or else famed Arafish groper Jesse "Keep Hope Alive!" Jackson.

We must undertake a radical restructuring of our society so that people live much closer to their place of work, or live in little suburban villages clustered near a train station.

You and which army? Seriously, that's what it would take.

And what would happen to those who didn't want to go along with your plan? Personally, I don't want to live near where I work; I enjoy having trees and not having random gunfire/riots/muggings. And note: the closest residential neighborhood to where I work is where my dad grew up!

(And would that location be of the company that cuts my paycheck, or the office I go into to work? If I change jobs (or even assignments!), would I have to change homes, too? Or would we be required to relocate every time we change jobs in this Brave New World?)

#32 - Jesse supports Arafat????? Wow, and I thought his hymietown comment was offensive enought. What happened to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., where these bigoted radicals are taking his place and perverting his dream? Dr. King must be turning over in his grave whenever Jesse, Al or Farrakhan make some racist remark.

#25, I think you picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.
 

#29 someguy

I think a Democrat winning the WH in 2004 has about the chance as a snowball on the floor of Death Valley lasting a week in July.

I hate to admit it, but I kinda like Graham the best out of the Dems motley crew. At least he knows that the US has enemies.

#34 Jim B

"Jesse supports Arafat?????"

Going back at least 25 years.

#8
give me a minute
uploading right now

Hey! HonestReporting.com mentioned Charles' slideshow in their email today:

The ongoing Palestinian incitement of children to anti-Israeli hatred and violence lies at the heart of the current breakdown of peace efforts, and has even crossed the border into Israeli Arab communities. On July 31, Israeli police were forced to shut down an Israeli Arab summer camp whose entire "theme" was a call for genocide against Israeli Jews.

The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick submitted an analysis of this deeply troubling phenomenon and Israel's limitations in combating it.

Weblogger Charles Johnson, meanwhile, has assembled a disturbing slideshow of Palestinian encouragement of child violence and terror.

#34 Jim B.

Click on this link and follow it down to the bottom. Not the famous one I was looking for, but it'll do.

Photoshop time
Narallah for the DNC . I had to pick my favorite choice for the nomination :D
rock the vote PS

#33: Nothing coercive, Bob. I'm thinking bigger parking lots by commuter train stations. Higher taxes on gasoline (lower income tax, if you want, to make it revenue neutral). Tax breaks for offices in the city, to encourage companies to build there, rather than in the 'burbs. Changes in zoning laws. Stuff like that.

We will gradually be encouraged, by our indivudual choices, to make decisions that will benefit us all.

Or do you LIKE being dependent on foreign oil? Or maybe you just don't want to make any sacrifice? Brave American soldiers are DYING in our fight against terrorism and you don't want to change your lifestyle at all?

By the way, I'm a hypocrite, I live in the suburbs and drive to work. But at least I drive a small car (4 cylinder) from a small house in a close suburb.....

More history lessons from the helpful folks at Jihad Unlimited:

American pressures that are the heaviest since - well, I don't know, I wasn't alive in the 16th century ...

No, but you were there in spirit, you medieval Ba'athist clown. No, I take that back - the 16th century was much too enlightened for the likes of you.

BTW - I know James Carville reads Ha'aretz. This story ought to cheer him up.

#25
You're kidding, right?

#42 Shaikh Yerbouti. That is the best name ever.

I'm glad you have nothing "coercive" in mind! Quick question, will those taxes and zoning laws be voluntary or will they be enforced by the state?

As far as soldiers dying for foreign oil, don't you feel ashamed for opposing demostic exploration and production?

Tasty Manatees

"Domestic".

#36: BIG

I think a Democrat winning the WH in 2004 has about the chance as a snowball on the floor of Death Valley lasting a week in July.

I would not overestimate Bush's chances for a re-election, though I assume they are pretty good. But then, Less than half of US would vote to return Bush to White House: poll. It appears the thing is not over yet. I suppose the Dems will have an easier fight with a complacent president than with a determined one who takes his political opponents seriously. I hope he wins a second time.

Shaik,

Please explain how our so-called dependence upon ME oil encourages terrorism. Keep in mind that Saudis et al have other customers besides the US.

#42 Shaikh Yerbouti

Nothing coercive, Bob. I'm thinking bigger parking lots by commuter train stations. Higher taxes on gasoline (lower income tax, if you want, to make it revenue neutral). Tax breaks for offices in the city, to encourage companies to build there, rather than in the 'burbs. Changes in zoning laws. Stuff like that.

Seattle did that, sorta. Only one problem--when everthing is localed downtown, there is no place for houses. In order to rezone or restructure, then you have to not only build high-density housing in the city, but you have to convince people with kids and dogs and yards and pools and whatnot, that they want to move downtown (which usually lacks things like grocery stores) and have their kids/dogs play on pavement.

Also, even with all the greenies out here, people still drive even though the perfectly fine bus system runs into the city from a lot of locations.

And, in this case, they also are disputing over whether to put in a $2.something BILLION dollar monorail system to get around--since trains are dirty and no one is willing to give up any land for the betterment of the community. OH...and the enviornmental groups actually turn around and sue anyone trying to so much as build a bridge over a stream with "wildlife" in it.

As anyone can tell, I love this city. I'd really love to get away from it.

Won't work. What do you drive, by the way? And how far do you drive it?

I'm thinking bigger parking lots by commuter train stations.

What commuter train? There's no such thing here. And the busses suck.

Higher taxes on gasoline (lower income tax, if you want, to make it revenue neutral).

How about lower taxes all around, and less of government telling us what to do?

Tax breaks for offices in the city, to encourage companies to build there, rather than in the 'burbs.

Cities are dead. They're an old idea: centralize everything to keep communication and transportation costs down. Now, communication is dirt cheap and transportation nearly so. Why should we subsidize bad ideas?

Hell, 9-11 shows the folly of concentrating assets and management in cities. We should be giving tax breaks for business moving into the 'burbs and for telecommuting, not pumping money into the Dead Zones.

Changes in zoning laws.

Zoning laws: telling you what to do with your property.

Stuff like that.

Coercion by any other name is just as bad.

Here's an idea: Why not just let society develop as it wants, rather than imposing some grand vision on it? You know, let things just happen as a result of the collective decisions of billions of people?

It's called freedom, and it works.

At least the Dem's have a speaker to deliver their foriegn policy plank at their convention.

As a still-loyal Democrat, I like Sheikh Yerbuti's suggestion in 25. I think the Democrats, if they had an ounce of sense, could very easily run a "Bush is too soft on terrorism" campaign. Bush did a good job in Iraq, but he is pretty much coddling Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, by looking the other way as the Saudis continue to support terrorism and the Pakistanis continue to provide nuclear weapons assistance to the remaining members of the Axis of Evil. These two regimes are the biggest sources of Islamic terrorism in the world, and yet they are also our closest allies. That should make every American very uncomfortable, I think.

We supported some very unsavory characters during the cold war, but whatever you may think of the morality of that strategy, there is absolutely no doubt that it worked. Supporting certain dictators very clearly advanced the national security interests of the US and our allies. But I cannot see how our current relationship with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is advancing our national security at all.

52 Anant writes:

Bush did a good job in Iraq, but he is pretty much coddling Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, by looking the other way as the Saudis continue to support terrorism and the Pakistanis continue to provide nuclear weapons assistance to the remaining members of the Axis of Evil.

These two regimes are the biggest sources of Islamic terrorism in the world

I think Iran surpasses them both, albeit probably not by that much.

Don't leave our Persian cousins out of a perfectly good conversation about exporters of Islamic/international terrorism.

If Powell is leaving after this term, maybe Pres. Bush will put in someone tougher into State and will start cleaning house. Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz would be awesome, especially if Rummy's got Frank J.'s Chomps to do the enforcing.

Now, is it the "political/social" arm or the "militant" arm of Hizb'Allah supporting the Dems?

They are two different things.

(/sarcasm)

I can't imagine the Democrats trumpeting this sort of thing too loudly. Though it might not hurt for Bush to do so.

Robert Crawford #50,

Here's an idea: Why not just let society develop as it wants, rather than imposing some grand vision on it? You know, let things just happen as a result of the collective decisions of billions of people?

While this is a nice, radical libertarian ideal, it's not really very practical. Government exists in order to encourage and discourage certain kinds of behavior; one of its prime functions is to provide national security (i.e. DoD) and to provide intra-national security (i.e. police, fire depts). If we just let things happen as a result of collective decisions, each person would reckon that their little contribution to defense, police, etc. would be so insignificant that they could withdraw it and become a free rider; in short, it would approach the situation of a Crisis in the Commons where everyone overgrazes the common grasses. It is simply not possible for government to have no influence on our lives.

If you accept that the government has a place in defending national security, Shaikh Yerbouti posits (and I agree) that foreign oil is a national security risk. For azul93gt's concern - if oil demand is reduced significantly (and the US has the power to do this), the Saudis (and friends) would be forced to either lower prices or to reduce production in order to maintain the same price per barrel. Either way, they would lose a vital source of funds which subsidize (via zakat) OBL and friends. If you believe in strong national defense, you should also believe in reducing the advantages of our enemies.

Going back a second to letting things happen as billions of decisions together, probably the worst possible example of this is motorized transportation. The entire highway system in the US was mandated by Ike's government, who saw the defense benefits to having a great system of highways criss-crossing the country when they attacked Germany. The cost of highway upkeep is a huge subsidy to both the oil and automobile industries, neither of which bear the costs for highway maintenance.

Anant writes:

if they had an ounce of sense, could very easily run a "Bush is too soft on terrorism" campaign

They cannot credibly make this platform, with the possible exception of Holy Joe. The Democrats have been critical that we are too hard on terrorism (Patriot Act, losing the "good will" we got from 9/11 in France, offending Muslims through our "unilateral" wars, not giving the Muslims "grievances" a proper air). No this is not Scoop Jackson's Democratic Party.

The democrats have retreated to the dark recesses of their party base who are soaked in leftism. Moderates like Gephart, Lieberman and Kerry (a haughty French looking candidate who by the way, served in Vietnam), cannot sound too aggressive on terrorism or they will alienate what has turned out to be the party's most active base. Democrats are now much more likely to nominate Howard Dean, than Dick Gephart. The only way those "moderates" can compete is to chase him down into the gutter. That will not resonate two Novembers from now.

The Democrats are rightly focussing on domestic policy where their horrible spend spend spend tax tax tax policies are only slightly worse than Bush's spend spend spend, cut tax cut tax cut tax policy.

Any Democrat who challenges via the too soft on terrorism channel is in for a nice sunday surprise.

#13, 16

Ignoring for a moment that Nasrallah came out against Bush, not for the Dems, the Democratic Party can't help it if a crackpot wants to come out against their opponent. The Weekly Standard ran a rather funny piece about the problems Virginia Democrats face in Lyndon LaRouche and his gang of moonbats calling themselves Democrats ([Link: tinyurl.com...] They're free to call themselves whatever they want, just as Nasrallah is free to call for Bush's ouster. Neither is a reflection on the actual Democratic Party. Moreover, there is more than a hint of disingenuity in posing this quote as a Democratic endorsement--rather, Nasrallah is cheering for Bush's defeat. The two are not synonymous.

Bush has started dangerously coming close to the Eurotrash policy of appeasing the Palestinian terrorists. If you add that to his stunning reversal of the Clinton economic boom and his hard charge against civil liberties like reproductive freedom, then I'm left with fewer reasons to vote for him, Nasrallah or no Nasrallah.

To put Hizbollah's desire for Bush to exit office on the Democratic Party is nothing short of dishonest.

OT, my HonestReporting e-mail just included a nod to Charles's slideshow. Bravo, Charles!

#52

I'll agree with you on Saudi Arabia. Now that we have a better foothold deeper in the Middle East, we shouldn't be there. Last I heard though, we're leaving. The problem with SA is the oil though. We have to get away from dependence on their oil before we can completely stop coddling them.

As for Pakistan. Well, I don't *like* that we're there, but they are "helping" us with the W.O.T. by allowing us to move troops through, and flyover their country.
I guess sometimes we have to deal with some people that we'd rather not have to deal with. However, I would expect that once Pakistan has outlived it's usefulness in the W.O.T. you can probably expect our coddling of them to decrease drastically.

This is pretty wild, I'm not entirely sure I believe it though...

Afghan women form Burqa Band...

Also a juicy quote from the article regarding the Religion of Mysogyny and Mayhem:

Recorded western music is tolerated but concerts are unheard of. While Kurt and his colleagues were in Afghanistan, fundamentalist gunmen burst in on a party and fired on the band, killing two musicians.

Wow. Now that's a tough crowd.

It is simply not possible for government to have no influence on our lives.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I didn't argue for anarchy. Primarily for people to stop trying to use the state to create their idea of Utopia.

The cost of highway upkeep is a huge subsidy to both the oil and automobile industries, neither of which bear the costs for highway maintenance.

It's also a subsidy to every other damned industry in the country. And, oddly, it's a subsidy paid by all the users of the highway system, individuals and corporations alike. It happens to be one of the rare areas where the government makes a good coordinating agent to do something private industry couldn't do as easily.

BTW -- I instinctively dislike any "let's remake society" ideas. Historically those ideas universally end in tragedy.

As for an "oil weapon" against the Saudis: Sorry, but until people stop blocking drilling in the great swamp known as ANWAR, I refuse to take the idea of American oil independence seriously.

Jamie:

Bush has started dangerously coming close to the Eurotrash policy of appeasing the Palestinian terrorists.

Proof?

One thing I'm getting annoyed at: There are those here at LGF that think anything short of immediately bombing Arafat is "appeasing the Palestinians".

If Bush is doing so much to appease the Palestinians, why are they calling for his defeat?

#53

I agree that Iran is much more vocal in its opposition to the US and Israel, but they don't have the kind of capabilities that Pakistan does. I look at this this way; Iran is very loud and very vocal about being our enemy, but they aren't actually very powerful. Compared to Pakistan, they are a paper tiger. Pakistan, on the other hand, claims to be our friend, but at the same time has been actively helping the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and has been passing nuke technology to NK and Iran. Their words may be nice, but by their actions, I think, they are a much bigger threat to us than Iran is. We worried about Saddam giving his WMD to terrorists or rogue states, and ignored the fact that Pakistan has ALREADY given WMD technology to two other states, and these are only the incidents we know about. What's to say that they won't give the technology to Al-Quaeda? What's to say that they have not already done so?

#59
As I mentioned above, I don't really think that Pakistan is really helping us all that much. Yeah, they toss us a few minor Al-Quaeda functionaries every now and then, but then at the same time, they are actively helping the Taliban and Al-Quaeda make a comeback in Afghanistan.

I guess my point is this; we DID need Pakistan airspace to launch our attack against Afghanistan. But I don't think we needed to pay them off for it. Pakistan arguably has greater links to 9/11 than any other country, with perhaps the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the fact that Pakistan had been arming and funding AQ and the Taliban for years. We shouldn't have had to say, "help us out and we'll pay you." We should have said, "help us out, and maybe we won't kill you." We would have been very justified in doing so, and I am convinced, from what I have read about Pakistan in both the Indian and Pakistan media, that such a threat would have worked.

Either Bush and co have been completely hoodwinked by Musharraf, or, worse, they are aware of what he is doing and are choosing to ignore it. Neither possibility gives me much confidence in this administration's national security credentials, which is why I think there may be an opportunity for somebody to run on this issue. I agree that some of the more lefty Dem candidates would not be able to pull this off, but somoene like Joe Lieberman, whose national security and anti-Islamist credentials cannot be questioned, might be able to do it.

Tasty: I stole the name.

I am very happy that my (nonvoluntarily paid) taxes were spent on our technologically advanced weapons that demolished the Iraqi Army with relatively little loss of life. How do you libertarians out there plan to pay for our national defense?

Yes, nuclear reactors, off shore drilling, exploitation of the arctic wildlife preserve...whatever it takes to squeeze the House of Saud dry, then stamp on its lifeless evil carcass. So I differ from the Sierra club here.

I drove a '94 Toyota Corolla until May, when I bought a 4 cyl Passat. I need a wagon, otherwise maybe I would have bought a hybrid. I drive 9 miles to work 3 days a week, but I have to drive out to a "satellite" in the suburbs 2 days a week, which is more like 30 miles each way. But as I said, I'm a HYPOCRITE.

I was in Italy a few years ago. Charming apartments with flower boxes but no lawns right up to the sidewalks, busy streets full of pedestrians walking to a cafe for coffee, wine or whatever at all hours of the day and night, tiny cars honking at eachother...why have millions of Italians made such different decisions than Americans?

But anyway, you people (except for Anant) are missing my biggest point.. SaudisBush is too soft on the Saudis...we have to take the fight to the heart of the enemy....

I was in Italy a few years ago. Charming apartments with flower boxes but no lawns right up to the sidewalks, busy streets full of pedestrians walking to a cafe for coffee, wine or whatever at all hours of the day and night, tiny cars honking at eachother...why have millions of Italians made such different decisions than Americans?

Because they're different people, in a different place, with different priorities and circumstances.

Honestly, it's that simple. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Kerry served in Vietnam? Who knew?!

#62 Robert Crawford

There are those here at LGF that think anything short of immediately bombing Arafat is "appeasing the Palestinians".

I probably fall in to your category, though I (predictably) disagree with the categorisation.

I think that negotiating, legitimising and giving money to a known terrorist like Arafat is insane, without a doubt. And you could easily call it appeasment:

ap·pease·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pzmnt)
n.

1. a) An act of appeasing.
b) The condition of being appeased.
2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

[Link: dictionary.reference.com...]

Arafat has done zilch to deserve any kind of concessions, from Israel or the US, yet terrorism continues. There's nothing at all that leads me to believe the roadmap will succeed where [insert ME peace deal here failed.] There's more terrorism than ever, yet Bush appears to be promising the world to the palestinians.

Why? What possible motive could Bush have, during a war presidency against Arab Muslim terrorists, to give concessions to the Palestinians?

I think what's going on now is appeasement, I just don't understand why it's happening.

Colt (67),

My best guess is that we are not so much appeasing the Palestinians as we are appeasing "our friends the Saudis."

The Road Map used to be the "Saudi peace plan" unveiled to Thomas Friedman. (Before that, it had other incarnations, I mean it's a recycled set of ideas). But Saudi backing may explain it, partially.

63 Anant:

Pakistan has the bomb, true. And yes, they've distributed technology to some dangerous folks. And their support (both financial and educational/training) for the Muslim/Kashmir terrorists is well known. They are also one assasination away from being the most dangerous country on the planet.

Iran might not be more powerful militarily, but financially they're stronger than you think. They've also been steadily funding Hizbollah and most of the other Palestinian groups. In fact, Hizbollah is often referred to in newscopy as "Iranian-backed" despite their necessary support from Syria.

The Karine-A was an Iranian ship.

But we're arguing two-sides of the same coin. They all must be stopped.

Merriam-Webster's definition is a little more precise, also the French connection is amusing as I've said before:

Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Middle French apaisier, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace -- more at PEACE
Date: 14th century
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM
2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY
3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

[Link: www.m-w.com...]

This is one of the best threads I've seen on LGF in a good long while. Thanks to all of you for your perceptive and thoughtful comments.

Back to Bush and the WoT: Sorry if this may have already been linked several days ago, but Lee Harris wrote an article for TCS that was meant as a follow-up to his Policy Review article on Al-Qaeda last year. His argument as I understand it is that the very fact that there have been NO al-qaeda attacks on us since 9-11 actually has the potential to leave him in a politically vulnerable position.
From The Clausewitz Curse:

But while this unfortunate episode has run its course, the underlying problem remains: Due to the on-going threat of a second attack, any administration has the duty to caution Americans of the danger of such an event. But the problem here is that such warnings, when they prove unwarranted, tend to diminish the credibility of the one who issues the warning -- the boy who cried wolf effect eventually takes over -- a difficulty that we would not encounter if our enemy were pursuing a Clausewitzian war of terror, in which we would assuredly not need constant reminders to be on our guard, simply because they would always keep us on our guard.

And this means that it is entirely up to the present administration to keep Americans alert to the standing danger of further attack. But this very duty places the current -- and indeed any -- administration in an odd bind, a bind made worse by the very metaphor of war as it is currently deployed. For the enemy's failure to play his part in the traditional narrative of wartime -- one in which there is an ongoing exchange of blows -- places any administration in the position of needing to manufacture a sense of war footing among its population.

But this manufacturing of a sense of normal wartime is not something that any previous administration was required to undertake -- this, after all, was the traditional job of the enemy. And this leaves the present administration vulnerable in ways that no other wartime administration has ever been vulnerable, for by its effort to keep Americans merely prepared the administration runs the risk of appearing to overreact -- and again simply because there is nothing that the enemy is doing to react to.

#62 Robert,

Hoo boy, where to start.

Let's begin with Abu Mazen the Holocaust Denier being feted at 1600 Penn. Surely you don't deny that he is A) toothless, and B) a puppet for Arafat.

Next, let's look at the Road Map. It explicitly calls for a side-by-side course of action for both Jersualem and Ramallah. This wipes out the land-for-peace principle, and forces Israel to offer concessions without first getting peace. Bush let them move the goalposts.

Continuing on with the Road Map, the Palestinians have failed in every way, and yet Israel is still expected to move on with their end of the agreement. They had to accept a bullshit "cease-fire" instead of the Road Map-demanded dismantling of terror groups, and Bush didn't say boo.

Today's AP wire reports, "After his meeting with Bush, Abbas received a strongly worded endorsement. Abbas and members of his government said they were encouraged by the warm reception, and some of them said privately that it appeared Bush accepted their position that the militants could be disarmed by persuasion and not force."

This cease-fire will prove itself to be like any other--Israel ceases, and the Palestinians fire. What Bush should have done was flatly announce that Israel was not obliged to meet its obligations as long as the Palestinians flatly refuse to meet theirs. The PA fails to dismantle terror groups, appoints a puppet of the terrorist Arafat, and Bush rolls out the red carpet.

It has been a true disappointment to say the least.

#68 Marianne

I suspect you're right, but I'm going to be off and on the PC so I only want to do one issue at a time :-)

That said, there is a history of the US helping the Arab League out.

#68

Yes, I agree that Iran is much stronger than Pakistan financially, by virtue of their oil wealth.

Which is why I'm worried about the pakistan-saudi axis, rather than just one country or the other. Pakistan has technical know-how but no money. Saudi Arabia has money but no technical know-how. Combine Saudi money with Pakistani science, and toss in a generous helping of Wahabism, and you have a HUGE problem.

I agree that we are, to some extent, arguing two sides of the same coin. They must all be stopped. I worry about two things, though:

1) Will Bush EVER be willing to challenge the Saudis, or is he too compromised by his close relationship with the ruling family?

2) Even if we assume that Bush will eventually challenge Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, will it be too late? By the time we are done with Iran and Syria, the terrorists may already have a nuke, courtesy of Pakistan science and Saudi money.

I think that the Saud-Pakistani axis is a far greater threat to us, right now, than either Iran or Syria (or, for that matter, Iraq). Which is why I think we need to hit them right now, even though it may be a lot more difficult to do so

To add to Jamie's list, the State Dept is considering threats to loans to Israel unless they don't stop with the wall (search the Telegraph, I don't have time, sorry). Contrast that with the $20 million from State to the PA, who've done nothing of the roadmap.

I agree with 61. Here in the Bay Area we are constantly harrangued for not riding buses or riding bikes instead of driving. We are told we are killing the planet by living in single family houses with parking. Well, sorry, but I have no interest in living in a tiny apt in the city next to the housing projects, with the local vagrants lounging in doorways all day. Nor do I have any interest in riding dirty buses or riding a bike to do my errands. This is not utopia, folks. Americans voted long ago for the burbs and that's where almost all the vitality and innovation is. Cities that used to be burbs are now cities themselves, with their own burbs. This is the US as it exists today. We have to find a way to be less dependent on oil thru things like hybrid cars. (come on, if 90% of people in California alone drove hybrids, we could save a lot of gas.) We can put solar panels on our roofs, make them mandatory in all new housing. It has to start somewhere if we are to every be rid of the Saudis.

Speculation on the editorial page of the WSJ about Hillary running in '04.

Hillary, she's the one. It's not exactly my place, as one who joined the vast right-wing conspiracy as soon as she advertised it, to endorse Sen. Clinton. But in recent polls among Democrats she swamps the announced candidates if her name is included. She's been stumping the country with book signings, and is headed to California to save Gray Davis.
Since her health-care fiasco, too, she's learned something about triangulation. She did vote for the war resolution, and has been cautiously supportive since. Her husband, of course, recently said that when he left the presidency Iraq had unaccounted-for stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and dismissed as minor Democratic complaints about the 16 words in President Bush's State of the Union address.
At a confab of liberal lawyers last week, Mrs. Clinton made an intriguing comment that the depredations of the Bush administration "can no longer be observed from the sidelines." Onetime inside adviser Dick Morris has predicted she'll run this year if the Bush approval rating dips below 50%. It dropped to 56% in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, down from 62% in May.

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

Robert Crawford #61,

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I didn't argue for anarchy. Primarily for people to stop trying to use the state to create their idea of Utopia.

OK, I'm sorry if I misread your argument.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that people shouldn't use the State to create their Utopia, though, when clearly you're aware that the highway system ended up being a system that is State-sponsored that has created many people's Utopia.

[The highway system] happens to be one of the rare areas where the government makes a good coordinating agent to do something private industry couldn't do as easily.

There are others too. Government can provide incentives for things like hybrid engines if it wants to encourage that behavior.

BTW -- I instinctively dislike any "let's remake society" ideas. Historically those ideas universally end in tragedy.

Almost any idea can be defined as a "let's remake society" idea. To take one, the highway system that was created has vastly remade society. And it's hard to define it as a failure by any standard.

To be sure, there are many that have ended in tragedy. Generally, though, they've been more coercive in nature and less incentive-based.

As for an "oil weapon" against the Saudis: Sorry, but until people stop blocking drilling in the great swamp known as ANWAR, I refuse to take the idea of American oil independence seriously.

I'm in favor of drilling in ANWAR and in favor of American oil independence. That doesn't mean that if ANWAR doesn't get the necessary votes that I necessarily can't be in favor of energy independence (or at least reduced dependence).

#67 Colt:

I think Robert's really onto something in his #62. As I said the other night in so many words, these problems are centuries--if not millenia--old. What we have before us is not a series of wind sprints, but more like a series of Tour de Frances; only on foot and mostly mountain stages. (Hope that didn't' offend, Charles! :))

Marianne: OT, but you asked me the other day what I meant by the word "tranzi." Sorry, but I was offline when you did and it was several hours later when I saw your post. It means Transnational Progressivist, and this link will take you to a very interesting explanation of what a "tranzi" is. (DANGER WILL ROBINSON!! 14-PAGE PDF FILE AHEAD!!) =)

#56

The cost of highway upkeep is a huge subsidy to both the oil and automobile industries, neither of which bear the costs for highway maintenance.

Not true. Example: New York State Thruway (I90-I990, etc). The tolls that exist today on the system not only paid off the bonds issued for the initial construction, they more than pay for all the Thruway Authority's road maintenance. In fact, there was talk of removing the toll booths on the I90 proper about 7 years ago when the bonds were officially paid off.

The real problem: NYS Thruway tolls fund the NYC Port Authority. The Port Authority is a sink-hole of debt that even the tolls from the Thruway can't cover (This is before 9/11; it's even worse now for obvious reasons).

Before you go and say that road maintenance & such is not properly funded, you should look around and keep counting. Between gas taxes, tolls, and other assorted fees here in NY our road maintenance and such is more than covered by the actual users of the road. If it wasn't for government fiscal mis-management I highly doubt we'd even have the problems with maintenance costs today.

Tristan

BTW: Keep in mind thanks to the US Interstate system, more goods are hauled more cheaply more quickly by tractor-trailers than ever was by rail. EVERYONE uses the Interstate system in some indirect form.

Shaikh Yerbouti, Id love to see you try to go camping for one week with 2 kids, a dog, tent, ice chest, lantern, diving, fishing equipment and 2 quad cycles in a hybrid car.

Right-wing Arab-Christian, Anis Shorrosh, summarized Muslim tactics for the "takeover of America by 2020." His projection is false, but his articulation of tactics is apt. The destruction of America is central to Wahabi thinking. In fact, defunct websites claim that the prediction is prophesied by Mohammed, as recorded in Hadith. In the "Khurasaan prophecy" a huge army of killer muslims, carrying "black flags," will arise in Khurasaan (sections of Iran and Afghanistan), and destroy Islam's enemies. It doesn't have to make sense. The importance is that many muslims believe this crap and live according to their supposedly prescribed role in this scheme. All West-muslims must be placed under extreme constraints, at the earliest opportunity. Suspected islamofascists need to be shot on sight.

[Link: islam-in-focus.com...]

And the opposing viewpoint:

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

74 Anant:

My take, FWIW, on Pakistan, is that we've sacrificed our principles (see Marianne's post #70) for political expediency where the WoT is concerned.

Meaning, we've temporarily abandoned attempts to have a stronger alliance with India, because the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were camped out just to the North of Pakistan and we needed a place to launch our campaign against them.

On the other hand, it would be disingenuous for the U.S. to scream at Pakistan for backing the Taliban in the first place, because IIRC, so did we.

I'm pretty sure our "alliance" with Pakistan will stand until we kill or collect Bin Laden and Al-Zawahri and/or Musharraff's throat gets cut. After that, perhaps the alliance will be "conditional" on better behavior - although we've seen how poor a strategy that's been with the Saudis - who've refused to reform at all.

As for those Saudis, our connection with them has been an absolute disaster for everything other than the price of oil.

Several LGF'ers (Geepers and Model 4 in particular), have made quality arguments backing the Bush strategy on keeping the redacted 28 pages of the joint-congressional 9-11 commission report classified.

And, while I detest the House of Saud and their chumminess with the House of Bush, it has been fun watching them sweat and seethe over the past week. We'll see how strong that "alliance" holds if and when the pages become declassified.

#76 Scott

(come on, if 90% of people in California alone drove hybrids, we could save a lot of gas.)

No thanks on the hybrid,

I guess conservation of petroleum has some merit, but I'm not one that subscribes to heavy-handed conservation efforts such as increased CAFE standards.

I particularly don't see how US petroleum conservation effects islamic terrorism.

#63 Anant

Iran is very loud and very vocal about being our enemy, but they aren't actually very powerful.

C'mon, before 9/11 Iranian backed groups are credited for the vast majority of American lives lost to terrorism.

Not powerful?

In recent years Iran, has taken a number of steps to escalate its involvement in international terrorism. First, Iran has significantly revamped its security and intelligence agencies to provide logistical support to terrorist groups. Second, Iran has founded and funded forums through which Middle Eastern terrorist groups have cooperated to attack Israeli and Western interests worldwide. Third, Iran has provided terrorist groups with specialist military training in sophisticated weapons such as anti-tank and surface-to-surface missiles.

Iran has particularly encouraged cooperation between Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank and Gaza and Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon in order to increase the sophistication and intensity of attacks on Israel.

I can't know for sure, but I thought Musharaf has generally sided with logic and reason as much as possible without triggering an Islamic led military coup. From what I have read, there is a large portion of the Paki security services that are fundamentalist, and they have probably been the ones sending technology to the Iranians and NorKorComs.

Hey guys,

I would love to join in on the hybrid/saudi oil debate, but I must be going home. I'll step into my 4wd, 8cyl Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer and drive 20 miles to my home.

BTW, why do gas stations always have American Flags when the product they are selling comes from over seas?

Someguy (79)

It means Transnational Progressivist, and this link will take you to a very interesting explanation of what a "tranzi" is.

I had no idea there was such a thing. I printed out the document and will read the document my first chance. Thanks!

If there were any mystery as to why Islamists like Nasrallah support the Dems or the American left, it is dispelled in today's Opinion Journal article A Moral Failure

On Sept. 11, 2001, there was, in the U.S., a massacre of innocents. There's no other acceptable way of putting this: some 3,000 people (and, as anyone can figure, it could have been many more) struck down by an act of mass murder without any possible justification, an act of gross moral criminality. What was the left's response? In fact, this goes well beyond the left if what is meant by that is people and organizations of socialist persuasion. It included a wide sector of liberal opinion as well. Still, I shall just speak here, for short, of the left. The response on the part of much of it was excuse and apologia.

At best you might get some lip service paid to the events of September 11 having been, well, you know, unfortunate--the preliminary "yes" before the soon-to-follow "but" (or, as Christopher Hitchens has called it, "throat clearing"). And then you'd get all the stuff about root causes, deep grievances, the role of U.S. foreign policy in creating these; and a subtext, or indeed text, whose meaning was America's comeuppance. This was not a discourse worthy of a democratically committed or principled left, and the would-be defense of it by its proponents, that they were merely trying to explain and not to excuse what happened, was itself a pathetic excuse. If any of the root-cause and grievance themes truly had been able to account for what happened on September 11, you'd have a hard time understanding why, say, the Chileans after that earlier September 11 (I mean of 1973), or other movements fighting against oppression and injustice, have not resorted to the random mass murder of civilians.

Why this miserable response? In a nutshell, it was a displacement of the left's most fundamental values by a misguided strategic choice, namely, opposition to the U.S., come what may. This dictated the apologetic mumbling about the mass murder of U.S. citizens, and it dictated that the U.S. must be opposed in what it was about to do in hitting back at al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.

Hat tip: extreme Catholic

#84

Dead Right. Any loss of oil sales to the US will be made up for by sales to China, Japan, EU, etc. There won't be any impact on the ME oil barons, but if the US enforces stupid policies to decrease oil use, we will see an incredible impact on the US economy which will translate to an impact on the world economy. Anybody else remember the impact of the oil embargo in the 70's and Jimmy Carter's stupid policies. Remember 20% interest rates.

You're welcome, Marianne! :)

#85

The article you cited mentioned a bunch of stuff that Iran has started to do recently. Pakistan has been doing ALL of that stuff for years.

Plus, Pakistan has nukes.

The day Iran detonates a nuke of its own is the day I'll start worrying about them seriously. As long as Pakistan has nukes, I consider them to be a far greater threat to the US than any other Islamic nation

#87 Big

BTW, why do gas stations always have American Flags when the product they are selling comes from over seas?

The US does still have a domestic petroleum industry.

Maybe the flags signify where the oil was refined? [/sarcasm]

#92,

I’m not saying Pakistan is not dangerous. That would be a ridiculous statement. Same goes for Iran, pal.

The best thing anyone can voluntarily do to reduce dependence on Middle East petroleum is to support the nuclear industry and domestic oil drilling at every occasion.

As long as farmers have to drive tractors to plant and harvest their crops, and truckers have to get the crops to market, we are going to need oil. As long as the bus ride that would get me to work in HOU takes 3 hours round trip and costs $7, while I can drive that in 1 1/2 hours roundtrip, at under $3/day for gas, I'm going to drive.

The electric car sounds wonderful, as does the hydrogen fuel cell. I know hydrogen comes from water, but guess what, it doesn't happen spontaneously. ( Big discussion, terms like Gibbs Free Energy, and the like). Electricity to charge the batteries or generate the hydrogen has to come from oil, gas, coal or nuclear. I suppose if you covered the entire California desert in solar cells, you could support an all electric/hydrogen LA commute. Windmills have some potential, but you need a lot of them, taking up a lot of space, away from people.

Now, I'm taking a few minutes away from my job, helping produce natural gas and crude oil here in Texas and Louisiana. Democrats shouldn't be whining about blood for oil, or troops in the ME for oil, as long as they won't allow the US to produce the oil it needs.
One other bit of bad news, as long as there is an Iraqi resistance ( and it is in the Iranians and Saudi's interests that the resistance continues) that sabotages Iraqi oil production facilities, we will remain dependent on Saudi oil. Oil is liquid. We can theoretically stop buying Saudi crude, and buy more Iranian or Venezuelan or whatever, but the countries that were buying Iranian/Venezuelan or whatever will just buy Saudi crude in its step.

Opening the entire Gulf of Mexico, ANWR and offshore East Coast would be a good start reducing our dependence on the Arab equivalent of the Beverly Hillbillies.

OT: Schools Reconsidering Sheik's Donations

More bad pub for Sheikh Zayed - a round up of his scholastic "inroads" in the U.S.

#92 Anant

But wouldn't it be nice if we could prevent Iran from gaining nukes?

Go, Ed!

Colt-I downloaded the Tranzi piece. From the look of it, it seems like the Tranzis want a global government that will do its best to blame everything on us and make us pay for it. Reading the part about the Durban conference reminded me of how insane that little party was, and why I was so glad we didn't participate in it at any serious level. There was an LGF thread last week about the fact that it seems like every left, looney, victimization club armed with really bad ideas has taken over most of the left, at least here in the US. They are symbolized by the Indymedia crowd. The complete disconnect from anything real is amazing. Here we are in the West, with half the world lining up to get in, and we are somehow evil and everyone hates us. Oh well, as children we always disliked the rich kids, but we sure wanted all the stuff they had.

#100 scott in east bay:

Actually, I left that for Marianne because she had asked me what "tranzi" meant. For something in the same vein, check out the article I linked to in '89.

BTW and OT, how's the weather there? I'm grew up in Hayward and my sister still lives there.

Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday dear Atomic Redneck & SoCalJustiiiiiice,

Happy birthday to you!

Shaikh Yerbouti,

Global warming (i.e. warming caused by human activity) is a farce. It is junk science in the tradition of Eugenics, the Malthusian "Population Bomb" hypothesis, and the widely accepted theories in the 1960's that human activities would trigger global cooling. The Sahara desert used to be a relatively well watered grassland region. It simply didn't exist at the dawn of the Egyptian civilization. The creation of the Sahara desert was an inexorably slow one, lasting several milennia. Could this be blamed on the activities of man? Certainly there were no heavy industries or SUV's in Pharaonic Egypt, so what was the culprit? As a history minor I can tell you that the climate of the world was actually warmer 1,000 years ago, at the time of Viking exploration, than it has been during our lifetimes. And back then human beings were not causing global warming by burning huge amounts of natural gas or oil. This “Medieval Warm Period” from about 800 to 1300 A.D. was entirely natural.
"Cold snaps" have had dramatic and largely negative impacts on human history. Significantly cooler temperatures in central and northern Europe led to the migrations of German peoples to warmer climates of Southern Europe. These invasions destabilized and later destroyed the Roman Empire, ushering in nearly five centuries of anarchy. In America the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore routinely froze shut each winter, paralyzing trans-Atlantic commerce. The Arctic Ice Pack moved so far south that Eskimos fishing along its edge were witnessed dragging their kayaks ashore in northern Scotland.

We democrats need endorsements from famous people wherever we can get them. Osama, Saddam, and Mullah Omar are still on the fence, but we are courting them as well. The entire Umma
may go democratic! Eat your heart out Bushies.

Drudge is reporting that the WaPo story about Powell and Armitage declining to stay on if Bush wins a second term is pure unadulturated BS:

No Basis for Washington Post Story

PRESS RELEASE FROM STATE: Regarding the story in today's Washington Post about Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage, there was no conversation between the Deputy Secretary and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice concerning any plans for "stepping down." There is no basis for the story. As Secretary Powell has always said, he and Deputy Secretary Armitage serve at the pleasure of the President, and will continue to do so.

###

"This is gossip and rumor," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker when asked about The Washington Post story. "The story purports to describe a conversation that took place. That conversation never took place."

###

WHITE HOUSE: Scott McClellan just announced that Secy Powell and Deputy Secy Armitage will be arriving at the Crawford Ranch tomorrow evening for dinner with the President. The two will overnight in Crawford and then will meet again with the President on Wednesday and have lunch before heading back to DC...

Republican: Don't worry about conservation, drill more oil, build more nuclear generators!

Democrat: There are not enough resources in U.S. to make a difference...we have to conserve oil!

Republican: But conservation is also insufficient to free us from dependence on foreign oil.

The Shaikh Yerbouti Plan: Drill AND Conserve, and to Hell with the Saudis!

I agree that Pakistan and Iran are also major threats. It's a tough call to say which is the greatest. But remember that it is Saudi money and Saudi ideology (Wahhabism) that has funded the madrassas of Pakistan and in countless other ways spread the virus of agresssive, militant Islamism throughout much of the world.

Thanks Geepers - for that wonderful rendition of an age-old classic.

OT - I think I may have found a new sport for Coventbabe to enjoy:

Camel Racing Comes to Sizzling Britain

someguy-the weather is fine, about 68 and clear, with the usual fogfalls coming in from the Pacific. Thanks for the link, and sorry if I thanked the wrong guy before! I skimmed the WSJ piece as well. Downloads to read thru on BART.

Atomic Redneck

Before I went to college and worked in the oil/gas business, I was a reactor operator on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.

Back during Operation Earnest Will, right after the USS Samuel B Roberts hit an Iranian mine, we were only hours away from launching the beloved "alpha strike" against Iran. Didn't do it, but we ( as in the USN, not my particular ship) did sink half their navy, and blew up one of their offshore platforms.

I haven't become a mink rancher yet, or gone baby seal hunting, but I have held some very un-PC jobs.

#103 Dirk Diggler,

You are right.

Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

#96 Ed Moran

First off, well said.

And IMO you missed one other prime off limits drillsite: offshore Southern CA. Although the SUV driving populace in CA would see ANWAR littered with pumping units and refineries before allowing anyone to test in their waters. Occidental tried in the courts for 25 years before giving up.

Now, please get back to work producing domestic oil & gas. Everyone on this thread is counting on you.

Seth ZOG, are you Seth Monroe the famed right-wing farker who would have kicked Tarvuz's ass like a screaming little girl?

Hey,

It’s only natural that the

Religion of Peace.

Would support the

Party of Peace.

jj

Has this been posted yet?

Schools Reconsidering Sheik's Donations

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, Calif. - Parents were excited when a $15,000 pledge that would enable them to keep class sizes down at the elementary school came in from halfway around the world. But now they are wondering whether to return the money.

They began having second thoughts after learning that the donor — Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, president of the United Arab Emirates — has ties to a think tank that critics say promotes anti-American and anti-Semitic views.

"We want to answer the question: Who is the sheik?" said Kathy Druian, a parent fund-raiser at Los Flores Elementary School in Orange County.

The final paragraph is fascinating:

"If you decide not to have relations with anyone who does have anti-Israeli politics or anti-Zionist sentiments, you will never have relations anywhere in the Arab world," he said.

Telling it like it is.

#25,

I've got some newer thinking. Global warming may be caused by variations in the Sun's output. You got a fix for that?

In addition global temperatures have yet to returm to their average value from the little ice age we had in the 1500s. Does that mean the global average temperature of the last 2,000 years is too hot?

To reach the temperature of the Middle Ages optimum global temperatures would need to rise about 1.5 deg C. Just about what they are expected to reach in from "global warming". Is the optimum temperature for agriculture a bad idea?

Global temperatures were declining from about 1950 to 1975 just as global CO2 was rising. How is that possible?

Water vapor has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2. Yet all the interactions of water with the weather are not fully understood. How accurate is the global warming model?

[Link: www.oism.org...]

================

Republicans for Sharpton

[Link: www.republicansforsharpton.com...]

Goodness, he's a looker!

Many thanks, Geepers.

#115 M. Simon

That is a great site. Found my new political voice! Al on the issues:

Iraq

" We've been misled by this Republican administration. I've never seen Saddam Hussein. I've never seen Osama binLaden. And as far as we all know, neither one of them ever existed. The Iraqis and Afghanis could be wonderful people for all I know."

North Korea

" Here is another case where the current administration may have lied to us. North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. When I become President, I will support a fruitful dialogue with Jong ill...Mr. Jong...Joong...The President of North Korea.

103 Dirk Diggler:

Sir, you are correct. and 110 Talcott, a Harvard study in April also said the same thing. ( I wish I could supply a link, but I need to look through Andrew Sullivan.com)

As far as domestic oil it is a lot cheaper for America to import Saudi oil than to rely on domestic reserves. The Saudis could sell a barrel at about 2 dollars a barrel and make a big profit. American producers need to sell oil at 27 dollars to make a profit. Saudi oil is the best crude in the world, and the easiest to get out of the ground.

As far as Iran's production and economy. They are poorer than they were in the 1970s under the Shah, and their one asset, oil, is a declining asset. They are running out of supplies and their refineries dont get the business they used to.

Americans need cars because America is a continential space,unlike Italy. It would take about four hours to reach the southern part of Italy from Denmark. Compare the distances in the United States to that.

#96 Ed Moran,

Windmills will ultimately supply all America's electrical needs. The mills will be set up to coexist with existing farmland. Farmers may actually make more money from wind than from agriculture. Wind is currently less expensive than natural gas electricity. When the 3 MW peak units go into serial production (starting in 2004) they will produce kWhs at the same cost as coal. When 6 MW units go into production kWhs will cost 2/3 of coal. This is unsubsidized.

With current technology we could generate all of America's electrical needs from solar cells in an area less than 100 miles on a side. Trouble is we have no economical storage (super fly wheels are coming). And the price would be way too high. For now.

Solar makes sense for commercial demand metered electricity to offset air conditioning loads.

Ed Moran,

I'm a nuke too. That's the "atomic" part of atomic redneck. I'm a desert rat if you recognize the nickname. I work down the road from where you probably trained. Many initials and numbers.

Hey, just look who won the 2001 Zayed International Prize for the Environment.

Prizes
As well as receiving the zayed International Prize for the Environment medals and certificates of appreciation, prize money of $1 million is allocated as follows:

Category 1 winner – US $500,000
Category 2 winner – US $300,000
Category 3 winner – US $200,000

Winners

2001
Category 1 Winner - Former US President Jimmy Carter
Category 2 Winners - Prof. Mohammed El Kassas and The World Commission on Dams
Category 3 Winners - Ms. Yolanda Kakabadse and Mr. Stephan Schmidheiny

[Link: www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae...]

#121

I trained in beautiful upstate New York, and I suspect Nevada and Utah is as close as I've ever come to your home state. I drank Genesee Cream Ales at prototype. I heard stories about long bus rides and -20F cold in spudland.

#120
I don't have time to check all you have said. I do suspect if windmills were as great as you say, Exxon et al would be building them. That is one of the joys of capitalism, if something works people will invest in it. I have driven through the windmill farms between the SJV and San Francisco. They take up a lot of territory for the amount of electricity they produce. I've also heard there have been some environmental issues with birds and windmills. They have some in West Texas, I know that. Windmills have to be close enough to the populations they serve to keep the I^2R losses manageable.

Well, in about 5 minutes I'll drive my ~20 mpg city ( pretty good, really for a 140k mile V-6 4 door) 1993 Buick Skylark home.

*/Touching poetic tribute to Zayed from Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum./*

Myself, For Al Aqsa, I Sacrifice

Scorned the faces of the enemy
Whose blood is cold

Myself, for Al Aqsa, I sacrifice
Where the Prophet prostrated

And I raise with my voice the call
Oh, our people steadfast

No matter how long it takes
Al Aqsa to us is returning

A billion Muslims
Their conscience asleep

A billion Muslims, futile
Their influence waning

A billion counted
We need but one

The martyr fell, and seems
Lawless is the hateful

The child for help cries
And death for him lies waiting

And the world watches
Of their aggression a witness

The blood of childhood sang
The melody of glory everlasting

The sound of stones echoes
With promises of victory

With the aggressor began
And the criminal, the infidel

A word of honour
How often said by zayed*

‘Never relinquish the mosque
And for our right we fight’

The midnight journey of the Prophet of guidance
And his ascension to the heavens

Aggression, though strutting
Its end is certain

Triumphs whoever stands firm
And for his right fights

*His Highness Sheikh zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, President of the UAE.

That poem was so beautiful I think I'll convert.

Just kidding

Some Sheikh Zayed quotes from J.D.'s link:

The Arabs always call for peace… We, as Arabs, want a just and comprehensive peace that corresponds to the hopes and dreams of all people in the region, including the Palestinian people, who are still suffering from instability, oppression and homelessness.

The reception of General Joseph Orr, Supreme Commander of the American Central Force (24/5/1992)

Camels exhibit a number of unique characteristics and are of great importance to the UAE’s heritage. The attention given to them stretches back thousands of years and is a part of the care we give to the heritage of this land.

1st International Seminar on Camels (2/2/1992)

Somewhat OT:

I don't have time these days to read many threads on LGF, and someone has probably mentioned this before, but let me chime in to recommend Dore Gold's "Hatred's Kingdom," a fascinating and even almost sympathetic (!) telling of the sorry history of Wahhabism...

Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab (I've probably not got the name quite right) was formulating his puritanical and cruel interpretation of Islam right around the time of our Revolutionary War...

The Islamists never tire of citing historical justifications for their aggressiveness, ("The Crusades," the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and so on ad nauseam), but they never seem to recall anything about what Muslims have done to other Muslims.

Gold retells the story, for example, of the destruction of the Iraqui Shi'ite city of Karbala (famous again in the present war) by the early Wahhabis. What these savages did to their co-religionists (the Wahhabis justified their actions on the grounds that the Shi'ites were "polytheists," of all things!) was beyond appalling.

As Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing!

Jamie Irons

Ed, since you're a fan, this one's for you.(Just kidding)

To the soul of the child martyr, Mohammed Al Durra

Pressed back, without supporter
A child defenceless, confronting aggression

Hiding, the bullets of tyrants
Have no mercy for a child, so young

Seeking shelter, slaughter him the criminals
Savages, whose tyranny never waned

Oh Mohammed, in Paradise of the eternal
Oh Mohammed, your voice reverberates throughout

Oh Mohammed, with you, the God of the Worlds
Whose mercy enfolds you forever

Oh Mohammed, who saw you grieved
And all, if we could, would sacrifice

A thousand million, the Muslims
All for you, Mohammed, fathers

Alas, where is the peace of the just?
The peace you seek is futile

Lost it, without doubt, the usurpers
When allowed their hatred to renew

And boiled the blood of Arabs, East and West
When Sharon visited the mosque

Oh Arabs, comrades for years
Bury that which passed, as became

Our greatest concern, to defend against aggressors
Who against Al Aqsa their aggression began

My nation, would that you unite
In lines, terrified then the enemies

Follow zayed, the leader of the wise
Who called for unity and initiated

Oh Saladin, oh the greatest conquerors
Oh Omar, oh the dignified and the generous

The state of the nation allures the greedy
We seek naught but unity to satisfy

Ed Moran (#123),

Exxon et al would be building them.

No way dude. You sell a windmill and you're done.

Your gas tank gets empty. And then Exxon can sell you more gas, over and over and over again.

Ed: Too true. Cold weather and long bus rides, but great hunting. We brought in an interviewee from Florida in January. By the time she reached the site, she didn't even want to see it, she just wanted to go home. I didn't know they had navy nuke training in New York. Learn something new everyday.

#130

Your gas tank gets empty. And then Exxon can sell you more gas, over and over and over again.

It doesn't have to be Exxon. If these windmills were viable some other capitalist enterprise would be all over it. Just like coal competes with nuke or gas.

#132 azu93gt

Someone like General Electric?

[Link: www.gepower.com...]

Here's Stephen den Beste's take on windpower from USS Clueless.

Wind: It isn't where we need it, and it isn't when we need it, and there ain't enough of it. The power grid has to
adjust its energy generation to match consumption, and we can't turn the wind on when we need more energy. The
source is diffuse and it requires a massive investment to make and install all the windmills. There are not all that many
appropriate sites where the wind is regularly strong and a lot of the places where that's true (e.g. the Columbia River
Gorge) are protected areas. Windmill farms are an eyesore, and they kill a lot of birds. (A lot of birds.) The
equipment is large, complicated and will require a lot of repair to keep working; the resulting energy will be
inadequate and unreasonably expensive per unit energy yield. And I'm still not convinced that it won't take years
before any given windmill finally yields as much total energy as it took to make it, transport it and install it. Ireland is
making a massive investment in wind power, but when they're finished and have fully deployed all sites it's only going
to generate 520 megawatts, when the wind is blowing. That's one eighth of the power generated by The Dalles
Dam.

He has thoroughly covered all of the current alternative energy sources and concluded that none of them are economic and scalable. The articles are available by searching his archives. They're well worth reading.

It's funny how everyone here can yuck it up real good about this comment. The obvious meaning of this statement is if people keep getting killed in Iraq that could sink W's presidency. This of course would be interpreted as a victory in terror camps. Meanwhile W is still giving handies to Saudi Princes in Crawford, and everyone goes on and on about his bold leadership. Reading what is being said about the "28 pages" his leadership almost sounds like Ann Coulter's favorite T word.

brilliant thread

i am starting to get that lizzard-minion thingee here

Atomic Redneck - SdB articles are a great analysis. The key point of transportation, maintenance, and repair isn't mentioned in popular news articles about the "miracle" of wind power/biomass/huge solar arrays/etc.

Speaking of 2004....An absolute moron announced today that he is not going to run again. Thank God.

And like someone else said, "Build it and they will come." If windmills on my mind could produce electricity cheaper than nuclear/hydro, then some enterprising capitalist would have done it.

Or did the car makers buy up the patent again and lock it away like they did with the secret formula to make gas from water?

The answer isn't solar.

Any more than its wind.

Or fuel cells, biodiesel, atomic or crystallized methane.

We get what? 15% of our oil from SA? Who wouldn't like to see us get say, ... 15% of our electricity from wind?

Geepers:

Who wouldn't like to see us get say, ... 15% of our electricity from wind?

I'd rather have the 115% we'd get if we stopped dicking around with "Enviro-fantasy of the Month" toy technology, and built some more nuke plants.

Quite simply, the Steven den Beste analysis is based on gasoline prices being roughly what they are today. If gasoline prices are changed, that will reduce demand and increase the potential for another technology to be profitable.

Nuclear power, especially now that pebble-bed reactors are possible, seems like it would be one partial solution.

Can any of the pro-let's-have-lots-of-oil-consumption folks explain how this isn't a national security risk? And why we shouldn't try to discourage that sort of behavior through some sort of taxation while trying to encourage other sorts of behavior, e.g. nuclear, wind, generic technology A? The current argument, in its various variations, is that currently none of these are economically viable. Given the national security concerns, shouldn't the government be trying to reduce our national security risk, even if it means higher costs for some of us who need/want gas-guzzlers? Or do our selfish wants/needs trump the government's mandate for defense?

We need to increase taxes on gasoline.

Because higher gasoline prices will encourage conservation.

Otherwise, cheap gasoline prices will lead to excessive demand.

Which will deplete our gasoline stocks, resulting in shortages.

And this could result in higher gasoline prices.

************************

THIS SYLLOGISM HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY GREENIES FOR A BRAIN-FREE ENVIRONMENT

Glen Wishard (#115),

Agreed, but newquler has tarred by the enviros to the point its unlikely it could ever be "sold" to the public.

iowahawk #143,

I appreciate the laws of supply and demand. Taxes, rather than moving along the curves of supply and demand, shift the curves.

How many times has the government raised taxes to fix a problem and the problem is not fixed and they keep the money and ask for more? Or, how many times does one have to be screwed before you learn that the government is not the solution.

jj

Geepers:

Agreed, but newquler has tarred by the enviros to the point its unlikely it could ever be "sold" to the public.

Plain and simple, the enviros object to nuclear power on religious grounds.

Unfortunately the Establishment Clause provides no protection against Green-head religions, so they are free to shove their bizarre religious beliefs down everybody's throat. In the case of California, they can even demand that the Federal government force neighboring regions to subsidize their State Religion.

Eventually we'll be forced to observe their primitive dietary laws, too. After eating tofu and soybeans for a few months, our will to resist will crumble and we'll submit to all-out indoctrination. And everybody will live happily ever after, in between the Witchcraft scares and the cholera epidemics.

Sorry, didn't have a chance to read the whole thread. But Charles' post not only is right, but it goes the other way, too.

Happened to post some stuff at daily kos--another pro-terrorist post by Steve Gilliard and his minions. Some guy completely sympathetic to terrorists, including 9-11 and, of course, Palestinian "freedom fighters" killing those evil, US-backed Jews.

Guy can't wait to boot Bush out next fall and elect a Democrat that will "let Israel fend for itself" and other steaming bs. It's shocking--terrorists for Dems and Dems for terrorists. I need a shower.

#142 Ariel

...Can any of the pro-let's-have-lots-of-oil-consumption folks explain how this isn't a national security risk? And why we shouldn't try to discourage that sort of behavior through some sort of taxation...

How would reduced oil consumption by the US correlate with reduced security risks for the US? We import a lot of products from a lot of different countries not only oil.

How would US use of less Saudi crude not hurt the US more than the Saudis? We'd just end up getting it resold to us at marked up prices from, for example, France. We're stuck with the mideast if we import oil or not. One could make an argument that dis-engagement from the Saudis/mideast could result in greater security risks.

133 Azu.... You're not part of the tulip conspiracy are ya? I lost thousands in the bulb bubble, and I don't care if it green, efficient or logical - if it Dutch I say gouda hell.

Opps.... if you are tooo....

I think wishful thinking can move cars.

Good night.

Windmills are too much of a liability factor . The towers are usually high enough so that if the guide wires snapped in a high wind the whole kit and kabboodle might end up in your neighbors living room. Solar power is the way to go. Some day their going to invent Solar Power paneling for your house Solar Power shingles for your roof and maybe Solar Power spraypaint (were you just tag an electrode on one end of the house and start painting ) .

#150 Shipman

133 Azu.... You're not part of the tulip conspiracy are ya? I lost thousands in the bulb bubble, and I don't care if it green, efficient or logical - if it Dutch I say gouda hell.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't even post #133.

I hate to change the subject, but I would very much like people to remember the terrorists aims during the upcoming election. Whether or not we can or should reduce our dependence on foreign oil, our enemies are sophisticated and very able to game our political system. I just hope that people remember Hezbollah when Howard Dean calls for bringing the boys home from the "quagmire" in Iraq.

Tasty Manatees

azul93gt #149,

How would reduced oil consumption by the US correlate with reduced security risks for the US? We import a lot of products from a lot of different countries not only oil.

By and large, the only thing we import from the Saudi entity is oil. The chief non-oil export from the Saudi entity is terrorism, which we also import, though not willingly. If we reduced the amount of oil we used, it would reduce the amount of money that the Saudis would have.

How would US use of less Saudi crude not hurt the US more than the Saudis? We'd just end up getting it resold to us at marked up prices from, for example, France.

Not true if we reduce our consumption. There's a difference between refusing to buy Arab crude (your scenario) and reducing our overall oil consumption (my scenario). In my scenario, the lower demand would require the Saudis/OPEC to either pump less oil (lower supply) or to charge less per barrel (same supply, lower demand). Either case would cause them to have a lower net amount of money.

Given the rather large cost of 9/11 and the assumption that additional 9/11s could occur, it's hard to think of how using less Saudi crude would hurt the US more then shifting toward other energy sources.

We're stuck with the mideast if we import oil or not.

How's that?

One could make an argument that dis-engagement from the Saudis/mideast could result in greater security risks.

I can see some arguments for this. What would yours be?

It's a strange news day. Just as Hizb'Allah has come out in support of the Dems, the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini has stated he supports the U.S. troops in Iraq, has condemned the Iranian mullahs, and says he wants a secular democracy in Iran.

I read this not in "The Onion" but in the dead tree version of the WSJ (sorry, no link). The grandson has fled to Iraq, where he is denouncing the Iranian leadership. This is very good news, since he enjoys a great deal of prestige among Shia Muslims and could seriously offset the rabble rousing by some of the Iraq mullahs. The only thing that irritated me is that this guy says he'd be willing to work with the US government, but nobody has contacted him.

Get a move on guys! This would be great propaganda !
Not to mention the fact that it is making hell just a bit hotter for Grandpa.

#155 Ariel

If we reduced the amount of oil we used, it would reduce the amount of money that the Saudis would have.

I have several problems with this.

#1 We're not the only people that import oil from Saudi Arabia. In all likelyhood other nations would make up much of the losses from US withdrawal from that market.

#2 The Saudi may end up with less money, but by any count they'd still be filthy rich. Sponsoring terrorism can also be done on a budget.

#3 I don't accept that continued use of Saudi crude results in future WTC events. We can buy crude and fight terrorism.

#4 I think that the notion of isolationism or selective isolationism has pretty much been discredited as a viable security option.

#5 I believe in the marketplace. The idea of the govt. artificially manipulating supply and demand on such a grand scale is dangerous and frankly smacks of communism.

#6 The problem isn't the oil it's the Saudis/Wahhabis. Let's deal with them directly.

Can someone please explain the supposed benefit with regard to the War on Terror of our reducing our dependence on foreign oil?

Let's assume the unlikely event that we could completely eliminate this dependence without severely harming our economy (harming the economy is, of course, an al Qaeda goal). The reduction in aggregate demand due to the absence of the U.S. from the oil market might put downard pressure on oil prices. Let's also assume that OPEC, as a cartel, could not manipulate the price back to the earlier level.

However, if memory serves, Saudi Arabia is the lowest-cost supplier of the highest-quality oil. They can sell as much oil as they can extract from the ground at whatever market price prevails. So, where's the benefit? Am I missing something?

I'm all for drilling in ANWR, additional offshore exploration and the construction of additional nuclear plants. But I fail to see how any of these further our goals in this war.

Hmm, azul93gt and I seem to engaging in harmonic contrariness.

azul93gt #157,

#1 We're not the only people that import oil from Saudi Arabia. In all likelyhood other nations would make up much of the losses from US withdrawal from that market.

You're positing that France's aggregate oil demand would increase if the US reduced its demand? I would propose that the more likely scenario is for OPEC to restrict output and keep prices roughly stable, which wouldn't cause an upsurge in demand. On the off chance that OPEC decides to maintain output but accept lower prices, some countries would see an upswing in demand. However, the entire demand quantity of the US could not be made up, which would result in a net loss for OPEC/the Saudis.

#2 The Saudi may end up with less money, but by any count they'd still be filthy rich. Sponsoring terrorism can also be done on a budget.

Actually, the Saudi entity is starting to face a cash-crunch. Saudi citizens don't work for a living, really, and princes get budgets ranging from $500K/annum on up (IIRC) depending on how close they are to the center of the family. But one of the problems the Saudis have is that they've had many children but none of them have ever had to do any honest labor. So now there's a large, rapidly growing population which is seeing a very fast decline in GDP/capita. Taking away a good chunk of this might make the Saudi entity reconsider sponsorship of terrorism.

#3 I don't accept that continued use of Saudi crude results in future WTC events. We can buy crude and fight terrorism.

Yes. But reducing crude purchases will help the fight in terrorism. Terrorism does require a budget, and much of it comes from the Saudi entity.

#4 I think that the notion of isolationism or selective isolationism has pretty much been discredited as a viable security option.

I agree.

#5 I believe in the marketplace. The idea of the govt. artificially manipulating supply and demand on such a grand scale is dangerous and frankly smacks of communism.

I believe in the marketplace too. But I also believe the government has to encourage some sorts of behavior. For example, the government provides a tax deduction for mortgages in order to encourage people to purchase houses. The government provides a deduction for education in order to encourage people to educate themselves.

#6 The problem isn't the oil it's the Saudis/Wahhabis. Let's deal with them directly.

I think we should do both.

The Saudis are sitting on 10% of the world's best known oil reserves They're going to get paid one way or the other by someone. Let's not over analyze. Even less wealthy countries like Iran can sponsor terrorism. It's a cheap enterprise as compared to the real military budget.

A 15% reduction in US consumption would not exclusively come out of the Saudi imports. It would likely be spread around equally.

Thanks Ariel I wuz running out of steam.

You people who think that we can end terrorism by no buying foreign oil are fantasizing. The fact is that terrorism is dirt cheap. The 9/11 attack is estimated to have cost a few hundred thousand bucks.

If we never bought another ounce of Saudi oil, they would still have plenty of money to finance 9/11 style attacks until the end of time. That is the nature of asymmetrical warfare.

Lefties that conflate these two issues are simply doing so because they want to tell us how to live our lives and they are using terrorism as a vehicle for their moral grandstanding.

We are six months to two years from being able to deal with the problem of the House of Sa'ud and their links to terrorism. In order to deal with Saudi Arabia we must have, on hand, a replacement for that crude. Not so much for the American economy but the World's. Our economy would survive, it'd be a hit but we could make it. The Asian economy would collapse. I'm talking widespread famine type collapse.
We finish cleaning out the Baathists and imported splodeydopes and jihadis in Iraq and get those oil fields repaired, modernised and producing full steam, we can eaily deal with the House of Sa'ud or Iraq, or both and we'll have the troops, bases, ports and airfields to support and supply them.
None of this would be possible without liberating Iraq.
It's that simple. Look at the map. Saudi Arabia has our forces surrounding them from Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and those American Lakes known as the Red Sea and Perian Gulf.
Iran is caught between our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. As an added bonus, Syria is stuck between the Izzies and our troops in Iraq.
What is needed is time. Time to consalidate the victory in Iraq and time to rest and refit the troops. Time to repair the oil fields and pipeline equipment. Time to build the cruise missiles and smart bombs used up on the Baathists.
Dubya is a Texan. He knows what to do with a rattlesnake problem. You kill the individual snakes, sure. You don't really get a handle on the problem, though, until you find the den, pour it full of gasoline and light it off.
Six months to two years. Then it's bye bye to the House of Sa'ud, bye bye to the Mad Mullahs of Iran (if the Iranian people don't rise up and hang them. Without the Mad Mullahs and the House of Sa'ud, Arafishface will last about five minutes, less if the Izzies just happen to have birds over Ramallah with the right bombload.

Americans need cars because America is a continential space,unlike Italy. It would take about four hours to reach the southern part of Italy from Denmark. Compare the distances in the United States to that.

Heh, gotta love that American grip on geography!

Well, Europe is well ahead on energy efficiency, for many reasons beyond ancient cart tracks, so if there are any kudos in using energy sparingly, send them this way. For once.

Meanwhile, get real. Hitting the Saudis with reduced US oil sales, whether covered by new domestic sources or lower consumption or both, would raise tensions and do nothing to stop terrorist attacks. Attacks are cheap - even 9/11 cost little more than a piece of a Stealth bomber. And those attacks are on the way anyway, courtesy of the people who are already fired up, regardless of what America does. Turn even a handful (say 19) of the many run of the mill haters into statistically much more unusual attackers via an extra crisis (we are talking about increasing economic stress here) at your peril.

The only oil weapon leverage might come from a stronger head-butting position in Saudi relations. But surely achieving that position depends on more - or less - than oil and driving habits. Why not start head-butting now, just as we all are? It might work. What's stopping us? This is still a good question which Bush loyalists seem to struggle to answer with more than the "don't play poker with W" argument or timetable conjecture ("we will get the Saudis after Iran" etc.), which is seductive but often contradicted by the facts to date and still not very convincing if you’re really pissed off about Saudi.

Oil is not the answer. The alternative to business as usual - oil war - sucks for both sides. Sure, America could replace the Saudis as suppliers, and vice versa, but the disruption would be difficult and costly. It would also bring no security gains, provided the White House does the first job it has, right now: protecting the American people, whatever oil habits they may have.

Starve 'em if you want. You may find they only fight harder, instead of typically leaving the job to Palis, Afghans and others who don't live on oil at all – or on relative pittances from the potentates - but fight all the same, whatever the potentates (let alone the West) may think. Where does that leave you?

Boycotts suck. So go ahead if you must, nail some poor slob’s shitty refinery job in Saudi. Yep, that’ll make him love America. Uh huh.

HA #164,

You people who think that we can end terrorism by no buying foreign oil are fantasizing. The fact is that terrorism is dirt cheap. The 9/11 attack is estimated to have cost a few hundred thousand bucks.

Meanwhile, in my fantasy and the 9/11 lawsuit, Saudi donations to OBL are in the hundreds of millions. I think I recall reading that the AQ terrorist network probably has operating costs in the hundreds of millions a year. So while terrorism is cheap compared to an ordinary military, if a government has serious money issues (as the Saudis do), taking away some of that money will make it even harder to sponsor terrorism. It's not as though they have that much other money.

If we never bought another ounce of Saudi oil, they would still have plenty of money to finance 9/11 style attacks until the end of time.

Sure, if they wanted to be hanging from lampposts the next day. That's their problem: they have a restive population distracted by an external threat ("Zionists" and "Crusaders") and pacified with dollars.

I very much doubt that AQ, in its current fragmented "use the local haters on the cheap" form, needs hundreds of millions to operate.

Even if it did, there are surely plenty of people in Saudi who will give their last riyal for the cause. And they do have plenty of riyals, and dollars, and so on. Hundreds of millions is nothing in the Magic Kingdom.

Taking their money away - lots and lots of it, regardless of individual guilt, as opposed to justified strikes on the attacks finance network itself - is a poor idea whose time has passed.

#159 Rayra

Hello, I enjoy your posts :-)

As I understand it, most of the southern CA offshore coast has yet to be explored due to state and fed regulations, so the reserve estimates are inconclusive.

However, my point was that, except for THUMS (your turn to google) island off Long Beach, some directional wells, platforms and piers north of Oxnard and the ever famous platforms off Santa Barbara, the SoCal offshore area is extremely undeveloped by industry standards.

You may be right, WTF do I know, my area of geological expertise is the mid-continent areas of the Arkoma and Anadarko basins.

With supporters like the Hezbollah, Dr.Dean and his wife- Dr Judy Steinberg M.D., would do well if they change their medical specialty to pathology.

159 rayra:

I'd like to see linkage on this, unless it is some extension of the fact we backed the Mujahadeen against the Soviets for 10yrs

okay.

Just got back from vacation, and haven't had time to read the comments here yet. Please allow me to Pyle on with a "Sooprahz, sooprahz, sooprahz!" Now Nasrallah is spoiled by the kid gloves our leftist press treats him with, so imagine the money and favors moving behind the scenes by smoother operatives. Yes, I meant the Saudis. Hopefully the GOP is keeping a very watchful eye out for such maneuvers. Not that both parties aren't dirty with oil tick funds, but directly trying to finance a candidate would be a huge scandal.

It's really coming home to roost. It's kind of hard to want the West to lose the War on Terror, and claim to not want the jihadis to win. And shirking our responsibilities in this arena amounts to granting carte blanche to the murderers of Americans and Israelis. And Australians, Kenyans, Indians, Russians, Phillipinos, etc.

I dunno, I guess I'm a simpleton. The way I figure, you buy gas for the car, some of the money goes to SA, and some of that money goes to fund madrassas in Pakistan, Wahhabi preachers in American prisons, imams in Indonesia, whatever. What's not to like with this picture?

azul93gt:

The Saudis are sitting on 10% of the world's best known oil reserves

Hey, I think you just put your finger on the problem. They could just as easily be sitting in refugee camps in Greenland. The cool air might even cure them of That Ol' Time Desert Religion.

...you buy gas for the car, some of the money goes to SA, and some of that money goes to fund madrassas in Pakistan, Wahhabi preachers in American prisons, imams in Indonesia, whatever. What's not to like with this picture? - The Sheik

Other people in other countries even people in the oh so energy conscious continent of Europe buy gas too. The Saudis will never be deprived of dough as long as we allow them to occupy the world's best known oil reserves. If you want to boot them off their land let us know.

Sure, if they wanted to be hanging from lampposts the next day. That's their problem: they have a restive population distracted by an external threat ("Zionists" and "Crusaders") and pacified with dollars. - Ariel

Did the Iraqi population manage to get Saddam deposed (on their own). He was blowing money like crazy on cheap French and Russian arms.

Well, Europe is well ahead on energy efficiency, for many reasons beyond ancient cart tracks, so if there are any kudos in using energy sparingly, send them this way. For once.- Pond

Europe may well be more energy efficient. They also don't have the standard of living enjoyed here in the US. I've been to Europe and I've seen the cheap little cars that average people have, and even those are hard to come by for most people. Also gas is around ~$4.50/gal, which would be intolerable for the US in our present reality.

Anyway it's a moot point the American citizen would never stand still for a dramatic increase in gasoline prices. We still have a little freedom left.

Charles--The way you presented this story is both irresponsible ("speaks volumes") and inaccurate. This pro-Israel Democrat is done with LGF.

All of you posters who say "Democrat Party" instead of Democratic--you're cretins.

Finally, if you want to know what American family has the strongest personal ties to the Saudis, going back decades--hey, that's easy.

It's the Bush family.

Goodbye Charles. For those of you who don't like what I've just said, don't bother to respond. I won't be back.

May God keep and protect the Jewish people.

I looked up the world oil demand at the DOE Energy Information Administration wedsite. eia

On average in 2002, the US and territories used 20.02 million barrels per day. Europe used 15.34 mb/d (I know this is wrong, but I can't remember the right abbrev.) Other countries used 42.20 mb/d. The US used 25% of the world's oil shipments. The US only imports 24% of the oil consumed. Of the US oil consumption, only 37% is used for motor vehicle gasoline, which is mostly private cars. If we stopped using cars completely, we would save 37% of 24% of 25% of the world oil of which some fraction comes from Saudi Arabia. Drop in the bucket. [I'm in way over my head on the math here. Will someone please rescue me?]

Basically, it boils down to the fact that gas conservation in the US has a pinprick effect on Saudi Arabia. And, given the population growth in Asia, they would be more than happy to scoop up any excess supply. Remember, OPEC limits oil supply to increase prices. There is always excess demand.

Atomic -

Saudi supplies currently cover around 10% of US crude consumption. If driving accounts for 37% of consumption, it follows that a fuel use reduction of 27% by US drivers alone would, in theory anyway, allow the US to drop Saudi as a supplier.

Not that I am advocating dropping them, far from it. I don't think it would be a wise move.

Still, it would be nice to see some better use of leverage than we seem to be getting. Look at it from the Saudi side: around a quarter of their output goes to the US. That's a lot of weight to throw around - on the US side. For their part, the Saudis were badly burned by the consequences of the oil shocks of the 70s (nuke investments being one of them, of course) and don’t look keen to use the oil weapon again anytime soon. Actually, they need foreign investment and expertise in their fields and infrastructure as well as foreign sales. The ties that could bind…

Instead, this AM we hear Powell roll out the "our good friends the Saudis" line again. OK, this is a sensitive area, but a spell of silence at least could be golden. Instead we get "friends", time and time again. Talk about unsavoury ME political endorsements.

yerbooti--I'd love to see solar panels on all homes and businesses in my part of the country (dry, sunny southwest). Unfortunately, they are not cost-effective as yet. I did read a great article in either Discover or Popular Science about one company that is working to make solar fit both of my criteria. I read somewhere that 70% of all imported oil is burned to make electricity, so solar power development would radically reduce our need to import oil. The whole "no SUV, move to the inner city and suffer" argument is a red herring

Actually, transportation accounts for 67% of US oil consumption. Electric power generation makes up just 7% of demand.

Actually the main economic problem with both solar and wind power isn't the generation, it's the batteries required to store the power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. I looked into solar power for my house. A reasonably sized unit (still too small to fully power my house, but enough for a few lights, the furnace, the well pump, the refrigerator) would cost about $20K. That's 20 years of electricity from the power company. Those economics don't make any sense. A windmill is about $10K and you have to live in a place with an average wind of about 10 mph or better. About $5K of that cost (for either unit) is for the battery storage.

Atomic Redneck #177,

If we stopped using cars completely, we would save 37% of 24% of 25% of the world oil of which some fraction comes from Saudi Arabia. Drop in the bucket. [I'm in way over my head on the math here. Will someone please rescue me?]

If I read this correctly, and I assume that the Saudi entity supplies 15% of oil for us, it would reduce overall US oil imports from Saudi by a mere 0.3%. So, yes, we're not talking a big reduction here. However, I'm not sure we should be multiplying by the 24%, since we really want to know world oil consumption decline and not US import decline. That would change world oil consumption from Saudi by about 1.4%. Still not a lot. I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly since I'm pretty tired today.

You are right that stopping cars completely is not a realistic scenario. However, reducing some of non-car oil usage (that other 63%) could make a difference. A co-ordinated campaign with Europe and Japan could help reduce some of the 75% of imported oil that goes to non-US places.

While the reduction in Saudi oil would end up being very little in overall terms, the fact that the Saudis already have financial troubles would make that small amount significant. However small it would be, they would feel its pain.

azul93gt #175,

Did the Iraqi population manage to get Saddam deposed (on their own). He was blowing money like crazy on cheap French and Russian arms.

Good point. I'm not sure that the Saudis would fall immediately. But, as Ralph Peters would say, the Shah always falls. The problem with the Saudi family is that they are seen, in the Arab world, as being propped up by the US, much as the Shah was. OTOH, Saddam was seen as being the only Arab leader who had the cojones to stand up to the US. A popular uprising against him would have been much harder for this reason.

More info on oil imports and exports from the DOE.

Saudi Arabia is a key oil supplier to the United States, Europe, and Japan; however, in recent years, Western Hemisphere producers (Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico) have challenged Saudi Arabia's dominance in the U.S. market. Asia now takes over 40% of Saudi Arabia's crude oil exports, as well as the majority of its refined petroleum product exports. The United States is Saudi Arabia's second largest oil export market, followed by OECD Europe. During 2002, Saudi Arabia exported 1.55 million bbl/d of oil (mainly crude) to the United States. For this time period, Saudi Arabia ranked second (after Canada, and just ahead of Mexico and Venezuela) as a source of total (crude plus refined products) U.S. oil imports, and first for crude only (ahead of Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela). Saudi Arabia is eager to maintain and even expand its market share in the United States for a variety of economic and strategic reasons. During 2002, Saudi Arabia's share of U.S. crude oil imports was 16.8% (down from 17.3% during 2001).

The major problem with the conservation hurting SA scenarios is the assumption that no other country is going to pick up the oil that we wouldn't be buying from SA. (And the assumption that we would stop buying the oil from SA instead of say, Venezuela.) The advantage the Saudis have is that they have high-grade oil that is as cheap, or cheaper, than other sources. Europe and Asia might reduce the oil they buy from Russia or the North Sea by 17% to buy up the Saudi oil that we would not buy. Then we would hurt Russia or Britain rather than SA.

More oil info (same source as before):

Saudi light $25.69 per bbl
Iranian light $26.00 per bbl
Nigeria light $28.31 per bbl
Venezuela Tia Juana light $27.99 per bbl
UK Brent Blend $28.33 pbbl
Canada Canadian Par $30.27 pbbl
Canada Lloyd Blend $21.71 pbbl
Mexico $25.03 pbbl
Russia $27.59 pbbl

I tried to stick with the same grade for the first four, but the non-OPEC information used different gradings. So, this comparison is rough but it's an idea. Other than the Canadian Lloyd Blend, SA oil is the same price or cheaper than other sources. US oil companies will only stop buying SA oil if they are forced, either through boycotts or laws. Other countries will be happy to pick up whatever supplies we chose not to buy.

Atomic Redneck #183, #184,

Good posts, even though I still disagree at the ultimate point. I think that the Republican idea that we have to drill more but never conserve is a bit kooky on the last point; I think that the Democratic idea that we have to conserve more but never drill is a bit kooky on the last point. Shrinking overall oil demand from the Saudis will be hard to do since, you are right, they are the lowest cost source. However, if we shrink overall world demand (or even slow the rate of growth and/or just our component of the demand), we will be shrinking part of the money that the Saudis rely on for their jihad. Even if oil is a complete commodity, if we can slow our use of it through a variety of methods (drilling, conserving, other technologies) it will have a negative impact on Saudi ability to finance terrorism, however slight it might be.

I wouldn't propose this as the only element to the strategy against them. Obviously, there are many other ways that pressure needs to be applied, from freezing assets of those involved to attacking the terrorists themselves. But I believe that it's one component to a successful strategy.

Ariel, I agree completely that conservation and searching for new sources of energy are both good and both needed. But, I get fairly hot under the collar when people (mostly city folk) make sweeping generalizations about how people should live and how the government should force (or persuade by picking my pocket) whatever is the Utopian ideal of the moment. I have a high-mileage econobox car for highway driving. I also have a 3/4 ton pickup truck that I use to haul wood to run my wood stove so that I don't have to use electricity. My new house is going to have a windmill for supplemental power because it makes sense.

Conservation is good, where it makes sense. Forcing people to live a certain way because the folks with the power think that is the way it should be is totalitarianism. One of the reasons I live in Idaho is because folks generally leave you alone and let you live your life the way that you want.

Atomic Redneck,

I guess we agree more then we disagree.

Forcing people to live a certain way because the folks with the power think that is the way it should be is totalitarianism.

Do you think that in WWII, when everything was marshalled for the war effort, that it was a light form of totalitarianism? In my mind, that's what a mild reduction in our oil usage (+drilling +nuclear +other sources) would be the most basic first steps of.

Actually Ariel, I had Shaikh Yerbouti's comments in #25 and others about a "radical restructuring of society" in mind much more than your support for encouraging conservation. Yes, I do think that the US government went way beyond it's allowed powers with the controls that it implemented during WWII and the Civil War also. However, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. Under war-time conditions, I don't have a problem with the government making necessary short-term power grabs. But, they must be necessary (which I don't think radical restructuring or forced conservation is), effective (ditto), short-term (which radical restructuring wouldn't be) and put in place through the government process (which radical changes won't win enough votes in Congress). Totalitarianism was probably a bad and emotionally-loaded choice of words, but forced resettlement of the population as in "We must undertake a radical restructuring of our society so that people live much closer to their place of work, or live in little suburban villages clustered near a train station." would require totalitarian methods. The American people won't move voluntarily from their single-family homes in the suburbs.

Atomic, you misunderstood my first post. I guess I didn't express myself well.

Here in Boston, the highest priced real estate is on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and the South End. People WANT to live in these areas because there are beautiful old buildings, it's stylish, close to theater, nightlife and whatnot.

Due to some terribly misguided policies dating back at least to 1945, many other American cities have been allowed to deteriorate into skyscraper office deserts that are isolated after 5 PM except for druggies, rats and hookers.

If it is possible to reverse some of these policies, many people will, OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, choose to return to the cities, and we will have the radical restructuring of society that I have in mind.

No totalitarianism needed!

OK, well, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the extent to which we believe in conservation, etc?

Atomic Redneck: You hit the nail on the head. Most of those squealing for more conservation are the same ones that choose to live in massive cities, and can't be bothered to think that the rest of the country doesn't have the same surroundings, needs and desires. Ah, if only we required them to take flights across America periodically (and not just up and down the northeastern seaboard) sitting in window seats. "See that? Green, green, green, mountain, river, crops, forest. Stop twitching, that patch of brown over there is called 'wheat,' and it's a grain staple we use to make bread. See how blue and clear the sky is, and how white the clouds are?"

I can't speak for Ariel, but truth to be told, if we did a total regime change in Saudi Arabia and still sold the oil there in a similar fashion, most of the same folks would still say we needed to buy less oil. Ask how much this lessened our need to conserve they'd say "Not a single drop." The line about indirectly funding terror is just a selling point, and with that angle removed, the goals would still be the same just for different reasons.

The problem is that most of the arguments end up being either religious (well, based on faith, not facts) and/or anti-capitalist. Folks in the ME or communist countries can belch filth into the air and these folks never lose a wink of sleep over this 'global problem.' Bush can fund research into hybrid/ fuel cell/ perpetual motion engines and be greeted with a yawn. Wind farms on the table for the rich liberal areas in the NE are being fought by, well, rich liberals with Sierra Club and Greenpeace membership cards who suddenly don't want "renewables." And if wind/tidal power ever looks likely to materialize on a large scale, mark my words we'll then hear how it poses a massive threat by depleting stored up atmospheric/oceanic currents and disrupting weather patterns and the ecosphere.

The world was supposed to run out of oil completely by 1995, a situation that's been "twenty years away" for decades now. Mainstream eco-groups have now decided that that Lie wasn't Big enough, so have said that we'll consume all the resources on the Earth, and those of two other Earth-like planets in 50 years. Which means again we'll have used up not just the oil, but practically everything else here in, yep, twenty years. Mainstream eco-groups have been busted time and again for putting out fraudulent data and anecdotes, while burying any news that goes against their dogma.

When we needed planes, we invented them. Same with space travel, vaccines, computers and sit-coms. We'll conserve when left to our own devices out of natural desires to live in clean areas (look at our cleanliness next to countries that use less power), and the money that's to be made from efficiency gains in response to the energy market. Enviro-minded folks have netted us some gains, but they fail to realize that statistically all of us want and work towards healthy and sustainable energy policy. The activists' more recent lies, exaggerations and political agenda have exposed them and caused a huge credibility gap, leaving most Americans turning to common sense and the "invisible hand" for solutions to "problems" that range from the marginal to the fictitious.

shaikh - You live in Boston? I live in Boston! At least on the weekends.

Thanks Ariel and Shaikh. I think we're all heading for the same goal by different paths. I enjoyed the discussion. I don't think that people will ever voluntarily move back to the big cities and I don't think that concentrating targets like that is a good idea after 9/11 either. But, different strokes for different folks. I'm a happy rural redneck and if some folks like cities that suits me just find.

Model4, I agree completely. I've been watching the rich folks in Sun Valley and Jackson Hole for years. They're the most perfect examples of the "I've got mine now close the door behind me" syndrome I've ever seen.

Umm, if it's not clear, I put Ariel and like-minded people in "common sense" camp. Those folks I don't mind disagreeing (and agreeing) with because they're being principled and open in their approach and recommended solutions, as well as honestly representing their take on the situation.

Model4 #191,

Yows! Tough post to reply to.

Most of those squealing for more conservation are the same ones that choose to live in massive cities, and can't be bothered to think that the rest of the country doesn't have the same surroundings, needs and desires. Ah, if only we required them to take flights across America periodically (and not just up and down the northeastern seaboard) sitting in window seats.

I spend about half of my time in a place that's too rural for even Robert Brandtjen (Little Rock) and the other half in a place that I guess qualifies as a massive city (Boston). I understand that people who don't live in Boston might need a car; I have never needed one and am quite happy to live without one (though my girlfriend does have one and I use it). If I lived full time in Little Rock, I can't imagine living without a car. Nor would I want to mandate others doing so.

However, it is also true that many of the richer parts of the country happen to be in the same areas as cities. IMO, cities (and their surrounding areas) would be the best targets for higher oil prices (as long as arbitrage could be prevented). Many of those who live in cities have the option to take public transportation but choose not too for a variety of reasons.

I can't speak for Ariel, but truth to be told, if we did a total regime change in Saudi Arabia and still sold the oil there in a similar fashion, most of the same folks would still say we needed to buy less oil.

I also would take this position. Even though I think that the Saudi entity is truly evil, I also happen to believe in using the minimum amount of energy possible. I'm careful to turn the lights off before I leave my apartment and scold my girlfriend whenever she forgets to turn the fans off, let alone the AC. There are a lot of good reasons not to waste energy; the most compelling one, however, has to do with the Saudi entity.

Folks in the ME or communist countries can belch filth into the air and these folks never lose a wink of sleep over this 'global problem.'

OK, so I'm not one and the same with these nutters, that's for sure.

Bush can fund research into hybrid/ fuel cell/ perpetual motion engines and be greeted with a yawn.

If Bush wanted to fund a perpetual motion machine, I'd call for impeachment! But as to the rest, I think that there should be research, tax credits, etc to help out these ideas.

Wind farms on the table for the rich liberal areas in the NE are being fought by, well, rich liberals with Sierra Club and Greenpeace membership cards who suddenly don't want "renewables."

This is particularly horrible. I remember reading a WSJ article about how the windmills off Cape Cod are not liked by some Sierra Club types because they destroy the view. In other words, NIMB and then they're fine.

The world was supposed to run out of oil completely by 1995, a situation that's been "twenty years away" for decades now.

Actually, this isn't just based on environmentalists. In a class I took in college, we learned that there's a part of the tax code which sets lower tax rates if an oil field has twenty-five years or less worth of oil then if it has more then twenty-five years. Suddenly, every oil field in America had twenty-five years of oil left and about five years worth of oil was found every five years. It's a real mystery (to the IRS anyway).

I agree that the environmentalists need to stick to the facts, though, if they ever want to convince folks.

When we needed planes, we invented them. Same with space travel, vaccines, computers and sit-coms.

I'm not sure I agree here. I'd say we need a cure for AIDS, Islamofascism, and a few other pathologies, but I haven't seen any danger of them being invented yet.

I like HI-PO V8's, and I'm personally not going to go overboard with gasoline conservation until the market place dictates that it is prudent. (i.e. significantly higher gasoline prices). That is the natural market place supply and demand function that will cause conservation. When the oil reserves run out in about +100 years or whatever other forms of fuel will become viable.

You're advocating that the govt. socially engineer society with the tax code, but then you point out one of the typical problems that result from that.

However, it is also true that many of the richer parts of the country happen to be in the same areas as cities. IMO, cities (and their surrounding areas) would be the best targets for higher oil prices

we learned that there's a part of the tax code which sets lower tax rates if an oil field has twenty-five years or less worth of oil then if it has more then twenty-five years. Suddenly, every oil field in America had twenty-five years of oil left and about five years worth of oil was found every five years.

- Ariel

azul93gt #197,

I'm aware that there are some problems with government social engineering. So should we have no more social engineering? Drop mortgage tax deductions, child tax credits, federal support for roads, etc? Or is it possible to have some social engineering while being alert to the fact that undesirable (side) effects may occur?

Actually I am for minimizing taxes and govt. regulations whenever and wherever possible, but that's just me. Before the govt. can redistribute or provide incentives for something the govt. first has to take away from someone and penalize something else.

Although I'm not for fed control of our roadways (rememeber that Jimmy Carter 55 mph national speed limit). How does federal support for roads fall into the category of govt. social engineering?

Ariel:

there's a part of the tax code which sets lower tax rates if an oil field has twenty-five years or less worth of oil

Awesome info! That does explain in less than nefarious terms why some orgs are constantly doing the Chicken Little routine. And great point about AIDS, etc, to say that necessity doesn't always immediately get knocked up to become the mother of invention.

If and when we get rid of the shrill and dishonest poseurs who dominate conservation advocacy, we can continue to make real progress, without the public being wary of being taken for a ride, or too jaded to listen. Spokesmen like yourself who are realistic about the costs, benefits, risks and unknowns should be the ones we're hearing from.

azul93gt #199,

How does federal support for roads fall into the category of govt. social engineering?

Because it's fundamentally the same thing to have government provide a deduction for mortgages as it is to have government provide reduced costs (in the form of good roads) for people to live far from their workplace.

Model4 #200,

Thank you. And thanks for the challenges; I appreciate them a great deal.

Roosevelt originally proposed a highway system in order to boost the economy. Eisenhower, however, viewed the importance of a highway system as crucial to our defense capabilities.

The National Highway System
What is the National Highway System?
It is approximately 160,000 miles (256,000 kilometers) of roadway important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. The National Highway System (NHS) includes the following subsystems of roadways (note that a specific highway route may be on more than one subsystem):

Interstate : The Eisenhower Interstate System of highways retains its separate identity within the NHS.
Other Principal Arterials: These are highways in rural and urban areas which provide access between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility.
Strategic Highway Network(STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are important to the United States' strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes...

Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: These are highways which provide access between major military installations and highways which are part of the Strategic Highway Network...
The National Highway System (NHS) includes the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS was developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in cooperation with the states, local officials, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

[Link: www.fhwa.dot.gov...]

Regarding wind generators: Power companies are obligated to purchase any power you may generate from a "windmill" on your property. I've looked into it as I own some property that I've considered using for that purpose.

Ariel-

Because it's fundamentally the same thing to have government provide a deduction for mortgages as it is to have government provide reduced costs (in the form of good roads) for people to live far from their workplace.

I look upon the interstate highway system a little differently. When I'm driving down the road I don't think that I'm being subsidized by Big Bro.

#1 The endusers of the interstate highway system and state highways are the people that pay for it through income taxes, fuel taxes, licensing, tolls, etc.

#2 The interstate highways aren't primarily for commuting. If interstates didn't exist state highways would serve the purpose for commuting. Many interstates replaced state highways.

#3 You can argue this, but I don't think that the govt. built the roadways particularly the interstate highway system with the intent to socially engineer suburbia.

#4 It would be near impossible for private enterprise to create a privately owned roadway system. I think must people would agree that the govt. should see that roadway infrastructure is created and maintained.

azul93gt #204,

#1 - Yes, but that's also true for mortgage deductions. And even moreso, since those purchasing homes are more likely to be wealthier (and thus paying more taxes) then those not purchasing homes.

#2 - Agreed. Theoretically, they're primarily for defense. Theoretically, the child tax credit is for people to be able to afford things for their children. Do some people have more children as a consequence? Possibly. And does this have a social engineering aspect? Probably.

#3 - Agreed.

#4 - Agreed.

None of these points change that the highway system (whether intra-state or interstate) is a federally or state financed program which effectively subsidizes the car and oil industries. If the government refused to do it, The car and oil industries would have to form a coalition to do it themselves or face certain (long-term) bankruptcy.

The follwing is where I tend to disagree with you. I think you're somewhat comparing apples & oranges. The ability to travel in the common conveyance of the day, the car, is a basic human right to me. However, I'm not knowledgeable enough in the law to historically substantiate this assertion. The government locking or coercing you down to the land smacks of serfdom to me. It's too much of an intrusion into the citizen's freedom.

Now if we agree that travel is necessary we're going to need either private or public roadways. We have apparently as a society decided perhaps even before the advent of the car that public govt. controlled roads are the way to go. The govt. does have many legitimate uses, and that's one of them. We're not anarchists.

The idea that the state and fed roads are a collossal subsidy for the petroleum and auto industry is like saying to me that our national defence (another legit govt. responsibility) is just a collossal subsidy for the likes of GE and Northrop-Grumman or our enlisted men.

azul93gt,

The govt. does have many legitimate uses, and that's one of them. We're not anarchists.

Agreed.

The idea that the state and fed roads are a collossal subsidy for the petroleum and auto industry is like saying to me that our national defence (another legit govt. responsibility) is just a collossal subsidy for the likes of GE and Northrop-Grumman or our enlisted men.

Defense is different. A government exists because it can defend itself, not because it can provide incentives for housing or cars.

In any case, can we agree to disagree?