'Obama Prepares Total Destruction of Iran' - Update - Iran Says UN is a Pawn of the US

[random new yorker]

The use of the quote function here is free for all Please don't hold back. It would also be good to hear your your views on US - Iranian relations.

My views on the issue actually line up quite well with Sam Lord Post 40. Post 40 only as i dont subscribe to a lot of what he says later on

The fact that Obama scotched the deal when Iran arranged to acquire enriched uranium in a swap with Turkey and Brazil (after being for it) worries me a little and until today have not read enough to understand his volte face. I could guess the Israeli Lobbying machine being well oiled and powerful in DC might have something to do w this decision but again ...speculation on my part here, i am not as well informed on the Obama-Iran-Brazil/Turkey issue as i like to be before drafting out an opinion.

So yea it is serious as it always is w the middle east but at the end of the day it is Election Year and there is no way Obama would risk having sky rocketing gas prices (at the very least....). Already the far right started hammering on that issue over here.

So my opinion is, if you want another war you've got to wait out at least another year.

[random new yorker]

But, but, but... criticising the imperial metropole is OUTRIGHT BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!

But but but Kid...maybe its time for bed no? No, just kidding..!

pls feel free to criticize the imperial metropolis big bad wolf is coming to get ya....now imagine that the big bad wolf comes dressed up as a big bad chinese dragon...

[random new yorker]

Such sensitivity.
It's true that there is much criticism of your government and it's policies here.
I find it interesting that you both have become so defensive.

If you take a look at the other threads, you will see that the VAST majority of posts are highly critical of the Irish government and it's policies.
People here call it as they see it.
And what most people see is unpleasant.
On both sides of the Atlantic.

"..both have become so defensive'
Ahem ok I like you too Griska.

My interest in this forum lies with the cultural stuff that gets published and as far as politics i check the international threads as it gives me a pretty good idea of what the european left is chaterin' about.

"Most people here call it as they see it"
Pls read my post above as my problem lies exactly with 'what you folks refuse to see"

[Count Bobulescu]

Oh dear Griska, here we go again. I have Irish and US citizenship. I lived in Ireland for 30 years until 1990. Believe I am the only US based regular weekly contributor to this forum, so my perspective is different from most others here. Far from being defensive, earlier today/yesterday I posted in the Afghan shooter thread, a link to another story that does not reflect well on the US military. Would someone with a defensive mindset do such a thing?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I only dispute issues when I believe someone has expressed an opinion that appears based on factually erroneous material. I keep saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and no-one is entitled to their own facts. Just recently the Baron implied that a military build up in the Gulf was linked to a US need for oil. I provided the latest list of the top 15 suppliers of oil to the US which shows the Gulf countries collectively at about 33%. US gets more from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil. I pointed out that Europe, India and China were much more dependent on the Gulf, and that they would be the primary beneficiaries if the US had to move to reopen the straits. And the US has to do it because no-one else can.

I think your accusations of defensiveness are sorely misplaced. To imply that people in the US do not tolerate criticism of the US Government is absurd. Because there are only two parties in the US the divisions are much sharper than in Ireland or Europe generally.

I think I may have touched a raw nerve with my earlier analysis.

PJ, ya nailed me! You’re right on the foreign policy discrepancy too, but as I’ve just pointed out, a surprising amount of international opinion on the US is based on inaccurate information.

[random new yorker]

Nope Actually I placed the Count in the East Coast Democrat camp, if there is such a category these days(Apologies Count for mentioning you in the third person as you're not online at the moment)
I'll sure he'll come on and straighten me out on that one presently.
On the subject of the site, I tend to think that the vast majority of posts and posters here are mainly concerned about politics and economics as they relate to Ireland specifically and more widely to the Euro crisis.
The good ol US of A rarely gets much attention except in an international context.
The international view of US foreign policy rarely coincides with the main stream view expressed by the US media

Usually I do better without the labels but if I had to pick one I'd go with Independent. I like to keep my options open.

"The international view of US foreign policy rarely coincides with the main stream view expressed by the US media" in 100% agreement....but there is a lot of gratuitous demonizing of the good ol US of A due to the same amount of ignorance about what goes on over here.

[Griska]

Oh dear Griska, here we go again. I have Irish and US citizenship. I lived in Ireland for 30 years until 1990. Believe I am the only US based regular weekly contributor to this forum, so my perspective is different from most others here. Far from being defensive, earlier today/yesterday I posted in the Afghan shooter thread, a link to another story that does not reflect well on the US military. Would someone with a defensive mindset do such a thing?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I only dispute issues when I believe someone has expressed an opinion that appears based on factually erroneous material. I keep saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and no-one is entitled to their own facts. Just recently the Baron implied that a military build up in the Gulf was linked to a US need for oil. I provided the latest list of the top 15 suppliers of oil to the US which shows the Gulf countries collectively at about 33%. US gets more from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil. I pointed out that Europe, India and China were much more dependent on the Gulf, and that they would be the primary beneficiaries if the US had to move to reopen the straits. And the US has to do it because no-one else can.

I think your accusations of defensiveness are sorely misplaced. To imply that people in the US do not tolerate criticism of the US Government is absurd. Because there are only two parties in the US the divisions are much sharper than in Ireland or Europe generally.

I think I may have touched a raw nerve with my earlier analysis.

PJ, ya nailed me! You’re right on the foreign policy discrepancy too, but as I’ve just pointed out, a surprising amount of international opinion on the US is based on inaccurate information.

You must know, Count, that reporting on U.S. matters in the U.S. is often infamously questionable.

Re. your claim that the U.S. is not reliant on oil from the Mid East:

The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production - the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates - compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fi...g_War_Oil.html

See also: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

Also, there are more than two parties in the U.S.

I think your ascertation that a left bias here colours the view of the U.S. is indeed defensive. Your exchange with randomnewyorker certainly suggests so.
I think views here are generally informed by sources other than the ones frequented by yourself.

[random new yorker]

You must know, Count, that reporting on U.S. matters in the U.S. is often infamously questionable.

Re. your claim that the U.S. is not reliant on oil from the Mid East:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fi...g_War_Oil.html

See also: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

Also, there are more than two parties in the U.S.

I think your ascertation that a left bias here colours the view of the U.S. is indeed defensive. Your exchange with randomnewyorker certainly suggests so.
I think views here are generally informed by sources other than the ones frequented by yourself.

We all agree that reporting on US foreign policy in the US's MAIN stream media is deficient. BUT some of the very best unbiased reporting on the US's foreign policy is also generated in the US (pls take my word on this although you might think we are all dumb, some of us are actually able to read a couple of other languages).

"You claim that the US is not reliant on oil from the mid east"
This is where i believe you shot yourself in the foot. Your left bias does color your view of the US. You see, that is not what I read. Count said that we (in the US) rely on about 33% of oil coming from the mid east. 33% is one third of our needs, so hardly 'the US is not reliant on oil from the mid east' .. My understanding of what he said is that others will benefit even more if the US intervenes in the strait...the US gains in its geopolitical influence, in keeping a global economy functioning...etc

Re Bias, we both live with our biases on either side of the Atlantic..One doesn't live to mid life without falling into some sort of bias one way or another. I accept I have my own and that is why i check this forum when i can, to check out and maybe 'learn' from your other biases out there.

Here i will be unapologetic and will 'defend' the Count as I am absolutely sure he knows that there are more than two political parties in the US. What he meant was that there are only two parties that MATTER to our political process.


'i think views are usually informed by sources other than the ones frequented by yourself' i simply find offensive given that even I have been amazed at the quality of the stuff he digs out to post here for your benefit.

[C. Flower]

Oh dear Griska, here we go again. I have Irish and US citizenship. I lived in Ireland for 30 years until 1990. Believe I am the only US based regular weekly contributor to this forum, so my perspective is different from most others here. Far from being defensive, earlier today/yesterday I posted in the Afghan shooter thread, a link to another story that does not reflect well on the US military. Would someone with a defensive mindset do such a thing?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I only dispute issues when I believe someone has expressed an opinion that appears based on factually erroneous material. I keep saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and no-one is entitled to their own facts. Just recently the Baron implied that a military build up in the Gulf was linked to a US need for oil. I provided the latest list of the top 15 suppliers of oil to the US which shows the Gulf countries collectively at about 33%. US gets more from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil. I pointed out that Europe, India and China were much more dependent on the Gulf, and that they would be the primary beneficiaries if the US had to move to reopen the straits. And the US has to do it because no-one else can.

I think your accusations of defensiveness are sorely misplaced. To imply that people in the US do not tolerate criticism of the US Government is absurd. Because there are only two parties in the US the divisions are much sharper than in Ireland or Europe generally.

I think I may have touched a raw nerve with my earlier analysis.

PJ, ya nailed me! You’re right on the foreign policy discrepancy too, but as I’ve just pointed out, a surprising amount of international opinion on the US is based on inaccurate information.

33% is a highly significant proportion of the total supply.

European deals have been displaced by the US in the past - the French lost out badly I think as a result of the fall of Saddam's regime.

This is in a context in which US home-based oil supplies have steadily dwindled over the last decade, as a proportion of the total used by the US.

I have been amazed at the quality of the stuff he digs out to post here for your benefit.

I'm also appreciative of the quality of information and commentary posted by Count B.

[C. Flower]

Usually I do better without the labels but if I had to pick one I'd go with Independent. I like to keep my options open.

"The international view of US foreign policy rarely coincides with the main stream view expressed by the US media" in 100% agreement....but there is a lot of gratuitous demonizing of the good ol US of A due to the same amount of ignorance about what goes on over here.

Imo, the best way to correct perceived bias is by presenting the alternative view, backed up with sound, well attributed information.

[Griska]

[quote=random new yorker;236304]

We all agree that reporting on US foreign policy in the US's MAIN stream media is deficient. BUT some of the very best unbiased reporting on the US's foreign policy is also generated in the US (pls take my word on this although you might think we are all dumb, some of us are actually able to read a couple of other languages).

Never did I, nor to my knowledge, anybody else here express the view that American people are "dumb". A touch defensive, perhaps?

"You claim that the US is not reliant on oil from the mid east"
This is where i believe you shot yourself in the foot. Your left bias does color your view of the US. You see, that is not what I read. Count said that we (in the US) rely on about 33% of oil coming from the mid east. 33% is one third of our needs, so hardly 'the US is not reliant on oil from the mid east' .. My understanding of what he said is that others will benefit even more if the US intervenes in the strait...the US gains in its geopolitical influence, in keeping a global economy functioning...etc

Again:

The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fi...g_War_Oil.html

Re Bias, we both live with our biases on either side of the Atlantic..One doesn't live to mid life without falling into some sort of bias one way or another. I accept I have my own and that is why i check this forum when i can, to check out and maybe 'learn' from your other biases out there.

Quite.

Here i will be unapologetic and will 'defend' the Count as I am absolutely sure he knows that there are more than two political parties in the US. What he meant was that there are only two parties that MATTER to our political process.

I will also be unapologetic and "defend the Count. He is more than capable of expressing what he means to say, and what he said was that there are only two parties in the U.S.

'i think views are usually informed by sources other than the ones frequented by yourself' i simply find offensive given that even I have been amazed at the quality of the stuff he digs out to post here for your benefit.

I fully acknowledge the fact that the Count posts informative sources here.
I was not denigrating nor dismissing the quality of these.
I was merely pointing out that we would tend to access more sources based in Europe.
Perfectly natural, I'm sure you'll agree.
Not a

[random new yorker]

This is in a context in which US home-based oil supplies have steadily dwindled over the last decade, as a proportion of the total used by the US.

Home based oil supplies in the US have steadily dwindled over the last two decades at the very least (I don't even need to check the numbers) and it will continue to dwindle as oil is a FINITE resource. Just attended a talk yesterday on Biofuels and can quote 'it will be there for us and for our children but at the pace we consume, it will hardly be there for our grandchildren if we don't turn our air conditioners off... '. Sorry no links for that kind of info at this time.

I can assure you that at the top levels (independently of what you might read/not read in main stream media) there is an understanding that trillions of dollars must be spent in the next half a century to develop/promote/use alternative and renewable energy sources. This understanding is shared by both sides of the isle and measures are being acted upon at the State level. There is also a good understanding about the urgency that we need to start spending the money now.


Yr link above doesn't work.

[random new yorker]

[quote=Griska;236314]

I was merely pointing out that we would tend to access more sources based in Europe.
Perfectly natural, I'm sure you'll agree.

Agreed.

I may be a touch defensive after reading all about carpet bombings posted earlier on the thread. You do understand that NY is the first target, so yea, a bit defensive here. And unapologetic. (re dumb americans, i hear this all the time when i go to europe and have seen it posted/implied here too).

Still your reasoning re the oil numbers is hard to compute. i don't get your point. You are quoting a R Fisk article talking Bush's policy that is almost 10 years old. You copied/pasted this and it lost its meaning.

Lets compute more recent numbers:
US Oil imports in 2009: 10,400,000 barrels per day
US Oil consumption in 2009: 18,690,000 barrels per day
in 2009 the USA imported about 55.64% of the oil we consumed which is about the number that RF quotes for 2001.
A 0.64% increase in 11 years.

Do you care to post here an opinion a bit more recent perhaps?

You about to tell me that Ireland wouldn't do all in its power to defend its 'vital interests' if it had the means to do so? and pls i am not heading down the road of defending the US's tactics or methods...but all things being said, would you/Ireland do it?

[Count Bobulescu]

Jeez Griska congrats, you manage to pack a lot of generalizations and inaccuracies into one post of relatively few words.
No media US or European or other is perfect, but I don’t believe the US is any “worse” than the European, in fact I’d say it’s better because of the 1st Amendment protections. If you’ve been following the N.I. phone hacking, you’ll know that when the Guardian was at the end of its rope because of UK libel laws it turned to the NYT to keep the story alive.

With respect to the oil links you provided, did you even read them? On March 23, 2012 the “Debate” is still arguing over Bush and Iraq oil. Look at the Iraq oil import figures below.

Aug 2011 US petroleum imports top 15 suppliers (thousands of bpd) Middle East accounts for about 23% of total not the 33% I said earlier.

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/pe...nt/import.html

CANADA 2,829
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479
MEXICO 1,192
VENEZUELA 806
RUSSIA 592
NIGERIA 580
COLOMBIA 529
IRAQ 404
ECUADOR 305
ANGOLA 304
ALGERIA 291
VIRGIN ISLANDS 189
BRAZIL 188
ARUBA 149
KUWAIT 145

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

Where will China get its oil?
China’s ability to provide for its own needs is limited by the fact that its proven oil reserves are small in relation to its consumption. At current production rates they are likely to last for less than two decades. Though during the 1970s and 1980s China was a net oil exporter, it became a net oil importer in 1993 and is growingly dependent on foreign oil. China currently imports 32% of its oil and is expected to double its need for imported oil between now and 2010. A report by the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2030, Chinese oil imports will equal imports by the U.S. today.

China's expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. But despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. Though historically China has had no long-standing strategic interests in the Middle East, its relationship with the region from where most of its oil comes is becoming increasingly important.

Lots of international stats here.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/

From the front page of today’s NYT.

5) America is inching towards energy independence. "Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show. Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more." Clifford Krauss and Eric Lipton in The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/bu...n-america.html

Note to RNY. I'm a big fan of Amory Lovins and RMI.

[Griska]

[quote=random new yorker;236324]

Still your reasoning re the oil numbers is hard to compute. i don't get your point. You are quoting a R Fisk article talking Bush's policy that is almost 10 years old. You copied/pasted this and it lost its meaning.

Lets compute more recent numbers:
US Oil imports in 2009: 10,400,000 barrels per day
US Oil consumption in 2009: 18,690,000 barrels per day
in 2009 the USA imported about 55.64% of the oil we consumed which is about the number that RF quotes for 2001.
A 0.64% increase in 11 years.

Do you care to post here an opinion a bit more recent perhaps?

You about to tell me that Ireland wouldn't do all in its power to defend its 'vital interests' if it had the means to do so? and pls i am not heading down the road of defending the US's tactics or methods...but all things being said, would you/Ireland do it?

I don't know.
Ireland is doing a decent job in not defending it's vital interests as we speak.

[quote=Count Bobulescu;236329]

Jeez Griska congrats, you manage to pack a lot of generalizations and inaccuracies into one post of relatively few words.
No media US or European or other is perfect, but I don’t believe the US is any “worse” than the European, in fact I’d say it’s better because of the 1st Amendment protections. If you’ve been following the N.I. phone hacking, you’ll know that when the Guardian was at the end of its rope because of UK libel laws it turned to the NYT to keep the story alive.

Maybe. But I do know Greg Pallast reckons American media won't employ him.
He ruffles too many feathers, apparently.

With respect to the oil links you provided, did you even read them? On March 23, 2012 the “Debate” is still arguing over Bush and Iraq oil. Look at the Iraq oil import figures below.

Aug 2011 US petroleum imports top 15 suppliers (thousands of bpd) Middle East accounts for about 23% of total not the 33% I said earlier.

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/pe...nt/import.html

CANADA 2,829
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479
MEXICO 1,192
VENEZUELA 806
RUSSIA 592
NIGERIA 580
COLOMBIA 529
IRAQ 404
ECUADOR 305
ANGOLA 304
ALGERIA 291
VIRGIN ISLANDS 189
BRAZIL 188
ARUBA 149
KUWAIT 145

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

Lots of international stats here.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/

From the front page of today’s NYT.

I am aware the article is ten years old.
Has there been a dramatic change in American Mid East policy since?
The U.S. are still entrenched in the region.

“Western producers like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are enjoying their
best access to Iraq’s southern oil fields since 1972,” Business Week
noted in its issue of March 4th of last year. (1972 was the year
Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq’s oil fields.)

http://countercurrents.org/ross190112.htm
That's from this year, folks.


As is this:

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

[random new yorker]

Note to RNY. I'm a big fan of Amory Lovins and RMI.

On spending a day schmoozin’ w the intellect of the Love-ins, Amory Lovins is indeed a powerhouse of a man.. .. the talk was on soft energy technologies (sweet sorghum renewables given that sugar cane likes growing in Brazil, not here). Output is as efficient as sugar cane although it is not enough of a market for the big players. Some innovation and empirical inventiveness/naiveté needed cos all machinery available is for processing sugar cane. Question: How many acres (in states) would we be able to commit to this technology…. answer: Two Rhode Island (s)…hmmm, not big enough, the VC will not be thrilled.. But the fact is that these renewable sources can be implemented at the site where the energy is needed are gaining traction and Venture Capitalist attention... i started calling it ‘boutique energy sources’ just for fun…