GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I would think a destabilised Iraq would benefit Russia more than a stable and productive Iraq would... If the oil wells aren't pumping in Iraq, they're going to have to pump more in Russia.
Is my logic flawed?
If we tell Russia to help in Iraq we probably assured them that we would purchase more oil in the future. Capitalizism helps everyone. Open markets help everyone.
If you have a choice of buying OPEC oil at $57 a barrel and be pretty damned certain of supply, Iraqi oil at $15 a barrel but have a stacatto supply at very best, at worst a trickle of what it could be, or Russian oil at $35 a barrel and be pretty certain of supply, you'll buy Iraqi when it's there, and Russian otherwise.
The average asking price is $53 US a barrel (last I checked), it's up to individual sellers to set their prices. The American people are going to buy no matter what, same with the Germans, Brits and every other nation that has to import for reasons whatever.
As far as oil prices go, a de-stabilised Iraq is like a broken rudder in a gail-storm at sea. Prices are going to go with the prevailling wind.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:That, Would be a very, very bad move. It would ensure either complete de-stabilisation of the area because of the US's presence in a holy land (Iraq has 2-3 Muslim Holy sites IIRC I believe it's in Tikrit and Fallujah) and the closeness to Israel, it would appear to many that the US is beginning to try to wipe out Islam. I don't share that idea, but, it's pretty hard to argue with fanatics.
Also, before the war, CNN, TIME Magazine, CNBC and even Fox News pegged support for a unilateral invasion of Iraq at less than 43% (again, IIRC... I seem to remember Fox airing the survey once at like 11:45 pm. I was flipping through during a break on Leno. 
).
Either way, playing what if is a fun game, unproductive as it is. I know that at this point, if the US/UK did in fact appeal to the UN for help in Iraq (which I haven't seen a link or news report of, yet) Bush at al have squandered what respect, admiration and dignity the US had abroad since 9/11/01.
I shudder to think, but I've read more than a couple right wing blogs that have the notion that "the USA can now afford to do away with allies that do not fall in line." It seems that those ideals would have been crushed if there was an appeal to the UN. I don't think that dubya would like (in all his texan pride) to see the smug looks on some diplomat's faces.
Maybe the G8 will prove me wrong. Were it my butt in one of the seats there, I doubt I'd be reproachful, but I would sincerely ask what the original idea was, and then how could help be best administered. I respect a person that can admit when they're wrong, and after that, people's suffering and long-term stability take precidence.
Well just think about it, Im not a rocket scientist here, hell i just finished one year of college but, from what I know there is at least ONE base or camp or whatever in every country we have previously invaded. (If im mistaken please correct me)
Right after 9/11 I think I remember like 80 something % were in support of Bush and whatever he did. Of course that fell off as time progressed.
bliZsham wrote:Jbody2nr wrote:^^^ Yeah your probably right but, after 9/11 who's gonna argue with a war on terror, i.e. invasion of iraq. It was done with haste because there WAS a public outcry for it. It could have been planned better, but then again anything could be planned better.
And as a fact, the U.S. will probably never COMPLETELY withdraw from Iraq, we will probably set up some kind of base or outpost or something to keep an eye on Iran and the oil.
I'll argue with the 'War on Terror.' I never thought we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. People continually make links between Iraq and 9/11 even after the 9/11 commission (Remember them? They spent months trying to link Iraq to 9/11 but did so unsuccessfully) said that there are none. There have been more worldwide 'terrorist' attacks since the 'War on Terror' started than ever before. I don't think the war on terror will be any more successful than our wonderful war on drugs that locks up thousands of innocent people every day. Sure, having better intelligence and preventing events like 9/11 from happening again is great. But we had the intelligence, we just chose to ignore it. Maybe competence in all of our branches of government is something that we need to focus on as citizens. We need to stop voting people into office based on religion and start voting them in based upon their competence, intelligence, and ability to communicate with other nations effectively.
Yes they DID try to find links with Iraq and 9/11 but they found nothing. After an outright Attack on American soil by 'Terrorists' there wouldnt be that many people who would see differently with going after ANY terrorists. Of course the whitehouse pumped us full of B.S. while they were searching for WMD just to keep our support. Keep in mind we had hundreds of threat letters, videos etc come from many different terrorists its hard to pick out which one may be true. Again this is getting off topic. Dont want GAM to get pissed and yell at me again.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
mrgto wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I would think a destabilised Iraq would benefit Russia more than a stable and productive Iraq would... If the oil wells aren't pumping in Iraq, they're going to have to pump more in Russia.
Is my logic flawed?
If we tell Russia to help in Iraq we probably assured them that we would purchase more oil in the future. Capitalizism helps everyone. Open markets help everyone.
I think you've never heard of monopolies. You see in a monopoly, the only one to benefit is the company(or whatever else country etc) that has such monopoly. At this point, creating a free market only hurts said company. Where as before it had 100% market share, now it has maybe 30%(imaginary example number) market share, and has to reduce price to be competitive at that. Now the more competitors you have in any given market, the lesser market share you're gonna have(as you are gonna lose at least SOME potential business to each potential competitor).
Now the world oil market isn't quite a monopoly, but its close. OPEC is the big name of course, it has the biggest market share of oil(correct me if I'm wrong). Now Russia is a part of the market as well. It has it's own market share(but what that percentage is I don't know), now as Iraq emerges into the world oil market, and if it undercuts Russia, then the inevitable effect is that some of the oil that would have been purchased from Russia(courtesy of them undercutting OPEC), will be purchased in Iraq.
Now free market DOES help the consumer, and should Iraq be stabilized and production brought up to full strength, the world oil market CONSUMERS will begin to see the benefit. OPEC countries will not.
If you like, ask a cable company(who provides cable modem service) how much DSL providers benefit them, or vise versa ask a DSL provider how much cable modem service providers benefits them... and be prepared for tremendous laughter and/or cursing.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Jbody2nr wrote:
Well just think about it, Im not a rocket scientist here, hell i just finished one year of college but, from what I know there is at least ONE base or camp or whatever in every country we have previously invaded. (If im mistaken please correct me)
Not In Iraq... Not pre-invasion at any rate. If you want to find Al-queda camps you'll find them in Pakistan now, as well as Kashmir.
There was communication between Iraq and Al-queda, but there really was nothing other than cursory talks...
Hussein had a secular dictatorship, and no real interest in radicalised Islam. Usama Bin Laden had wanted Iraq's large military as a willing ally, but he hates secular regimes (remember, he's a fundamentalist that wants all governments to be one government under his ideals of Islam), and on pure ideological differences, they had not common ground, and given they would each gladly stab each other in the back for the chance to grab the power the other had. It didn't make sense to risk an alliance that wouldn't really bring either any benefit, and would likely be the end of one or both of them...
Now, Hussein did say that he would give some odd sum (I think it was $25,000) to each of the families of the 9/11 hijackers... but that never really materialised into anything substantial.
Quote:
Right after 9/11 I think I remember like 80 something % were in support of Bush and whatever he did. Of course that fell off as time progressed.
True... however, post-9/11/01 he was acting like a president should. Get the country back on your feet, get the economy rolling, fix the problems that lead to 9/11/01 (even though its a bit dubious... HLSA isn't doing anything that the INS, CIA, FBI, NSA, NSIA hadn't already been doing, but I digress.
Quote:
Yes they DID try to find links with Iraq and 9/11 but they found nothing. After an outright Attack on American soil by 'Terrorists' there wouldnt be that many people who would see differently with going after ANY terrorists. Of course the whitehouse pumped us full of B.S. while they were searching for WMD just to keep our support. Keep in mind we had hundreds of threat letters, videos etc come from many different terrorists its hard to pick out which one may be true. Again this is getting off topic. Dont want GAM to get pissed and yell at me again.
I won't yell... I don't get pissed off THAT much.. just keep subjects germaine to the topic, and all is cool by me
The links that were found were tenuous at best. There were communications, but I already 'splained that.
It's hinkey, but I'm still not convinced by what evidence I see (I work with NCIC (the FBI's criminal database) that there are anymore terrorists operating in the US that are of foreign birth. The bigger threat is from anti-government/anarchist groups that have their home and potential martyrs on US soil. The Anthrax letter scare was found to be rooted more likely in those organisations than al-queda.
I regards to Iraq, now, the greatest threat is from Fedayeen Hussein troops that are trianed guerilla fighters, and Al-queda. There may be splinter groups, but they're not a threat to security on US soil.
The WMD threat from Iraq was spurrious at best, and until I see conclusive proof, the only people that were in danger were the Saudis, Iranians and Israelis. None of them have anything close to a lilly-white dress of innocence either
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^ Actually what I was trying to convey here wast that the United States has established bases in countries we have fought in.
And as for Fedayeen, I dont think he is anymore of a threat than the kid that puts the thumbtack in your seat in third grade. We should shift our focus elsewhere now but not withdraw from Iraq just yet.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Perhaps to capturing Bin Laden??
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
^^^^indeed
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
^^^ Agreed.
And Fedayeen Hussein actually use the same tactics, weapons etc as the Mujahadeen and al-queda (ie. CIA small unit training).
One of the reasons it was farily easy to sweep into Iraq was because they were their elite fighters, and on march 18 they just laid out their uniforms, picked up the RPG's and AK-47's etc... and went off to wait for the invasion.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^^Hmmmm, i did not know that. And I dont know WHY?
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Probably because I've read a FEW more reports than you have
Actually, there's a lot of information contained in NCIC that is there "just in case" a Fedayeen unit infiltrates the USA. There's Tattoo markings on the upper arm or over the heart (a heart with a large F in script in the middle
http://www.windsorregt.ca/members1.html , not the NCIC file, but a very good photo nonetheless), and sometimes 3 dots between the knuckles on the fist (varies with sect, sometimes left hand, sometimes right, sometimes on the webbing between the thunmb and index finger).
There is limited intel openly available on there because of Need to know security tags. Until it becomes pertinent to an investigation (and I apply for clearance, then wait 6 months to get it), I can't get much other than the general information.
The information about the Fedayeen uniforms, however, was found when US Marines captured a school (IIRC) and they found hundreds of uniforms and packing crates for Kalashnikov type-rifles (47/74/100) and RPGs of soviet build, as well as soviet fragmentation grenades and other war sundries, MRE's and the like.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40523-2003Jul10¬Found=true">Here</a> is an article from 2003 with the information. At this point it's not known if Fedayeen Hussein (important: Fedayeen means "ready to die," and there are units in Al-queda that use the same name, in this instance, Fedayeen Hussein means literally "ready to die for Hussein") arestill in Iraq in large groups, or, if they have moved into Israel or possibly Syria/Lebanon to regroup or prepare a large scale attack. There have been no reported capturings of the group, and no reported killings in the last year.
You might be thinking of the Republican Guard, which was the largest regiment, but they were not radicalised in their support for Hussein, many of them surrendered during the invasion, knowing they wouldn't have any support, and frankly knowing better than to go bullets to broadway with the incurring forces, Brit or American.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Little did I realise, the Windsorreg.ca link has a few interesting Powerpoint slides about Al-queda and Jihaddists.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
