PDA

View Full Version : Just Plain in Over His Head!!!!



road kill
02-03-2011, 08:50 AM
US response to Egypt draws criticism in Israel


Feb 3, 7:26 AM (ET)

By AMY TEIBEL


JERUSALEM (AP) - President Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Egypt is drawing fierce criticism in Israel, where many view the U.S. leader as a political naif whose pressure on a stalwart ally to hand over power is liable to backfire.

Critics - including senior Israeli officials who have shied from saying so publicly - say Obama is repeating the same mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East have often backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power.

Israeli officials, while refraining from open criticism of Obama, have made no secret of their view that shunning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and pushing for swift elections in Egypt could bring unintended results.

"I don't think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into," said lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently was a Cabinet minister and who is a longtime friend of Mubarak.

"If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn't be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn't win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament," he told Army Radio. "It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam."

Three decades ago, President Jimmy Carter urged another staunch American ally - the shah of Iran - to loosen his grip on power, only to see his autocratic regime replaced by the Islamic Republic. More recently, U.S.-supported elections have strengthened such groups as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and anti-American radicals in Iran.

"Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as 'the president who lost Iran,'" the analyst Aluf Benn wrote in the daily Haaretz this week. "Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who 'lost' Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled," Benn wrote.

Israel has tremendous respect for Mubarak, who carefully honored his country's peace agreement with Israel after taking power nearly 30 years ago.

While relations were often cool, Mubarak maintained a stable situation that has allowed Israel to greatly reduce its military spending and troop presence along the border with Egypt.

He also worked with Israel to contain the Gaza Strip's Hamas government and served as a bridge to the broader Arab world. Israeli leaders have said it is essential that whoever emerges as Egypt's next leader continue to honor the peace agreement.

For more than a week, Egyptians fed up with deepening poverty, corruption and 30 years of Mubarak's autocratic rule have massed across the country to demand his ouster. The backlash has forced Mubarak to announce he won't run in September elections, but that has not appeased protesters, who want him out now.

In the course of the turmoil, the Obama administration has repeatedly recalibrated its posture, initially expressing confidence in Egypt's government, later threatening to withhold U.S. aid, and lastly, pressing Mubarak to loosen his grip on power immediately.

"We want to see free, fair and credible elections," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Wednesday. "The sooner that can happen, the better."

Critics say the U.S. is once again confusing the mechanics of democracy with democracy itself.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed similar sentiments this week when he warned that "if extremist forces are allowed to exploit democratic processes to come to power to advance anti-democratic goals - as has happened in Iran and elsewhere - the outcome will be bad for peace and bad for democracy."

So far, no unified opposition leadership or clear program for change has emerged in Egypt. Historically the leading opposition in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that favors Islamic rule and has been repressed by Mubarak throughout his tenure.

Many young people see the former director of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, as Egypt's democratic hope, but critics say he is out of touch with Egypt's problems because he has spent so many years outside of the country.

The calls for democracy inside Egypt have put the U.S. in an awkward position of having to balance its defense for human rights with its longtime ties to an authoritarian regime that has been a crucial Arab ally.

In Israel, critics say the U.S. has suffered a credibility loss by shaking off Mubarak when his regime started crumbling.

"The Israeli concept is that the U.S. rushed to stab Mubarak in the back," said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on the U.S. at Bar-Ilan University.

"As Israel sees it, they could have pressured Mubarak, but not in such an overt way, because the consequence could be a loss of faith in the U.S. by all pro-Western Arab states in the Middle East, and also a loss of faith in Israel," he said.

Raphael Israeli, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, echoed a widely felt perception that before the unrest erupted, the Obama administration paid only lip service to the lack of human rights in Mubarak's authoritarian regime.

"If Obama were genuinely concerned with what is going on in Egypt, he should have made the same demands two years ago (when he addressed the Muslim world in Cairo) and eight years and 20 years ago. Mubarak didn't come to power yesterday."

"As long as there are no problems, the oppression works," Israeli said. "If the oppression doesn't work, suddenly it becomes urgent. That's unacceptable."


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110203/D9L59U1G0.html
__________________________________________________ ____________

RK

Gerry Clinchy
02-03-2011, 09:25 AM
"If Obama were genuinely concerned with what is going on in Egypt, he should have made the same demands two years ago (when he addressed the Muslim world in Cairo) and eight years and 20 years ago. Mubarak didn't come to power yesterday."

"As long as there are no problems, the oppression works," Israeli said. "If the oppression doesn't work, suddenly it becomes urgent. That's unacceptable."


This seems to be the recurring theme in US foreign relations with unstable countries. They support a regime that will be friendly to the US, but do not make any demands on that regime to loosen its repressive policies ... until it's too late. Did it in Iran and Viet Nam. Doing it now in Iraq & A'stan. They've had 30 years to guide Mubarak to more democratic ways & didn't do anything about it.

I still believe the loss of Anwar Sadat was a tremendous loss to the Middle East. Sadat had been a young communist & saw that lack of personal freedom was not the path for a successful future for his country. Where can Egypt find another like him?

dnf777
02-03-2011, 09:40 AM
I knew it!






Its all Obama's fault.

Buzz
02-03-2011, 09:46 AM
I knew it!






Its all Obama's fault.


I was waiting to see how long it would take.

huntinman
02-03-2011, 10:47 AM
Obama couldn't wait to run in front of the camera's to take credit for "telling Mubarak to step down". Every time something happens, he runs out there to claim it was his idea. He wants the people of Egypt to know he is listening.

Well, the people of America would like to know if he has been listening, because it sure seems like he has not.

road kill
02-03-2011, 11:00 AM
I didn't see that anyone "BLAMED" Obama for this.

I did see that his handling of the situation is being questioned.
Is that an unfair article??

Quick, check with the Daily Show and John Stewart to get your talking points!!!!:D


RK

Steve Hester
02-03-2011, 11:31 AM
Just what I've always thought about Obama, in over his head, drowning in his own bull$hit.

M&K's Retrievers
02-03-2011, 11:48 AM
If you can't blame Obama for his own ignorance, who can you blame? Oh yeah, I forgot. Bush.

Goose
02-03-2011, 01:29 PM
Besides his weekly kobe beef dinner at the White House, President Obama's two goals during his presidency are to debauch the currency and to overturn society. He's getting a lot of help from Genocide Ben and his keynesian, money-printing sodomy scheme so let's add Gen Ben to the list. Young, foodless and jobless Egyptian men with no hope of a future is just the price we have to pay. Sacrifices have to be made, mister.

Thanks to Genocide Ben the price of rice is now making new highs almost daily. I read this morning where a Chinese company is now making a fake rice by adding potatoes and sweet potatoes to an industrial synthetic resin. Eating three bowls of this fake rice is like eating one plastic bag:) Yum! Gotta be fiber in that:)

We live in Cuba now.

Hew
02-03-2011, 03:43 PM
I was waiting to see how long it would take.
You don't know dnf by now? Surely you had to have known that he was silently on the ramparts, wearing his furriest Obama cheer sweater, just waiting for the chance to spring to Obama's defense at the merest hint of criticism directed at his man?

Jason Glavich
02-03-2011, 03:53 PM
I read this morning where a Chinese company is now making a fake rice by adding potatoes and sweet potatoes to an industrial synthetic resin. Eating three bowls of this fake rice is like eating one plastic bag:) Yum! Gotta be fiber in that:)

We live in Cuba now.

So could you mash it and have mashed potatos or would it be a crumpled bag? Also would you put gravy on it?

gman0046
02-03-2011, 04:54 PM
Obongolo's response typical of a failed presidency. What else would you expect from a Kenyan muslim?

Roger Perry
02-03-2011, 05:03 PM
Obongolo's response typical of a failed presidency. What else would you expect from a Kenyan muslim?

Gboy, have you figured out when Ramadan begins and ends yet???

Blackstone
02-03-2011, 06:03 PM
So, what would be the correct response to this situation?

Goose
02-03-2011, 06:12 PM
So could you mash it and have mashed potatos or would it be a crumpled bag? Also would you put gravy on it?

What I read is that since it's fake rice it doesn't act like the real thing and stays hard even after it's cooked so you couldn't mash it like taters.

But it's probably ok for the poor 'folk' to eat it since they don't really matter to Genocide Ben anyway. Eating an industrial synthetic resin probably isn't real good for you...but hey, we're talking poor people that are too ignorant to understand keynesian theory and all the good it does for the rest of us.

We live in Cuba now.

dnf777
02-03-2011, 06:44 PM
I didn't see that anyone "BLAMED" Obama for this.

I did see that his handling of the situation is being questioned.
Is that an unfair article??

Quick, check with the Daily Show and John Stewart to get your talking points!!!!:D


RK

Actually I watched a bit of Glen Beck today.

HOLY MACKEREL! That guy is totally paranoid delusional!
This Egyptian uprising is a conspiracy between Obama, Hardline Russian communists, and extreme Muslims!

The best explanation I heard was his tv ratings for January were his lowest ever on Fox, so he's trying to stir the fruit cake batter a little harder!

Hew: tell me where in your hallucinogenic world I defended Obama on his handling of Egypt? Please? I'd really like to know. Or is this just another baseless attack? Yep, I thought so. Enjoy your crow sandwich.

road kill
02-03-2011, 06:54 PM
Actually I watched a bit of Glen Beck today.

HOLY MACKEREL! That guy is totally paranoid delusional!
This Egyptian uprising is a conspiracy between Obama, Hardline Russian communists, and extreme Muslims!
The best explanation I heard was his tv ratings for January were his lowest ever on Fox, so he's trying to stir the fruit cake batter a little harder!

Hew: tell me where in your hallucinogenic world I defended Obama on his handling of Egypt? Please? I'd really like to know. Or is this just another baseless attack? Yep, I thought so. Enjoy your crow sandwich.

Are you saying he actually said that??

Or is this your twisted misinterpratation of what he said??



RK

M&K's Retrievers
02-03-2011, 07:03 PM
Hey, Stan, I'm setting the over/under at 2 weeks.

Granddaddy
02-03-2011, 07:43 PM
So, what would be the correct response to this situation?


The US response should always be to back those who are allies and are supportive of stability and the US. In the case of Egypt and Mubarak, they have been our allies and a peaceful influence in the Middle East since the historic treaty with Israel. With that said, if we object to the oppression in Egypt (or elsewhere among US allies), the most effective approach would be to bring influence, even behind-the-scenes pressure to help bring about reforms as conditions for our aid. The absolute worse things we could do is to publically encourage instablility like the Obama government has done by encouraging the unrest. Obama has essentially called out publically the very government we back with billions of aid. And he has done this having no plan or influence over what might replace it. We have empowered a movement, yet have no ability to positively influence the outcome, not unlike Iran and other Middle East countries. And like Iran, if a governement results that is hostile toward the US, we will have lost any influence for positive reform. The enivitable outcome will be less influence in a very unstable region of the world where we are inordinately dependent for our critical fuel needs.

And bottom line we have to understand, we cannot impose our model of democracy on cultures that have no understanding of it. We should always exercise positive influence where we can when it comes to the plight of people but never undermind our allies when there is no plan or reasonable expectation for improved conditions with a new government.

dnf777
02-03-2011, 07:49 PM
Are you saying he actually said that??

Or is this your twisted misinterpratation of what he said??

RK

Probably just my misinterpretation.
Just remember, I think you're a decent guy, too!


Hey, good thing happened today. Leaving the hospital in an uncomfortable suit and tie, climbing into the truck, when I felt something hit me on the chest. Digging in the flask pocket, I pulled out a baby-Macanudo, in a sealed tube!
Nothing like an unexpected treat for the ride home. So much for the new truck smell.

Franco
02-03-2011, 08:10 PM
We should verbally support those in Egypt that want to live free. It is the best hedge against it falling into the hands of Muslim extremist.

If the Muslim Brotherhood gains power and influence in Egypt, then we should arm Israel to the nines.

and turn them loose;-)

Blackstone
02-03-2011, 11:31 PM
The US response should always be to back those who are allies and are supportive of stability and the US. In the case of Egypt and Mubarak, they have been our allies and a peaceful influence in the Middle East since the historic treaty with Israel. With that said, if we object to the oppression in Egypt (or elsewhere among US allies), the most effective approach would be to bring influence, even behind-the-scenes pressure to help bring about reforms as conditions for our aid. The absolute worse things we could do is to publically encourage instablility like the Obama government has done by encouraging the unrest. Obama has essentially called out publically the very government we back with billions of aid. And he has done this having no plan or influence over what might replace it. We have empowered a movement, yet have no ability to positively influence the outcome, not unlike Iran and other Middle East countries. And like Iran, if a governement results that is hostile toward the US, we will have lost any influence for positive reform. The enivitable outcome will be less influence in a very unstable region of the world where we are inordinately dependent for our critical fuel needs.

And bottom line we have to understand, we cannot impose our model of democracy on cultures that have no understanding of it. We should always exercise positive influence where we can when it comes to the plight of people but never undermind our allies when there is no plan or reasonable expectation for improved conditions with a new government.

The problem is that we have waited until it is too late to apply pressure behind the scenes to bring about change. That should have been happening years ago. Unfortunately, for years, we remained silent and supported an oppressive regime, even though we knew the oppression was occurring. Instead, we turned a blind eye because Mubarak’s regime represented our interests in the area.

I do not know if there is a correct response at this point. We may find ourselves in a no win situation. If we speak out against Mubarak, we are betraying an ally, and adding fuel to the fire of those seeking to overthrow him. And, we have no way of influencing the type of government that will replace him. You can be sure there are those poised to take over that will prove hostile to the U.S.

On the other hand, if we support Mubarak, or say nothing, we will become the villain in the eyes of the people of Egypt (if we aren’t already) for having supported and provided aid to the Mubarak regime for all these years. In which case, we are almost certain to see a replacement government that is not sympathetic to the U.S.

It doesn’t seem we learned much from mistakes of the past. We did the same thing in Cuba, across the African continent, in the Middle East & in Viet Nam.

Obama’s response is almost immaterial at this point. I think Mubarak is done any way it goes. All we can hope to do now is get on the right side of whatever government takes his place.

cotts135
02-04-2011, 06:21 AM
So, what would be the correct response to this situation?
Having a National energy policy that is not dependent on Middle East oil would be a start.

road kill
02-04-2011, 06:43 AM
Having a National energy policy that is not dependent on Middle East oil would be a start.

The immediate solution would be windmills???
Solar Panels??????


Open drilling in the gulf and Alaska???:cool:

Just askin'.........


RK

BonMallari
02-04-2011, 07:07 AM
The immediate spolution would be windmills???
Solar Panels??????


Open drilling in the gulf and Alaska???:cool:

Just askin'.........


RK

How about building a refinery or ten, which in turn creates jobs....what would that do to the price of a barrel of oil...a middle east expert said the other day that the price of oil has a psychological price along with a market price..the American public has to understand that breaking the dependence on foreign oil comes at a price

Granddaddy
02-04-2011, 08:33 AM
The problem is that we have waited until it is too late to apply pressure behind the scenes to bring about change. That should have been happening years ago. Unfortunately, for years, we remained silent and supported an oppressive regime, even though we knew the oppression was occurring. Instead, we turned a blind eye because Mubarak’s regime represented our interests in the area.

I do not know if there is a correct response at this point. We may find ourselves in a no win situation. If we speak out against Mubarak, we are betraying an ally, and adding fuel to the fire of those seeking to overthrow him. And, we have no way of influencing the type of government that will replace him. You can be sure there are those poised to take over that will prove hostile to the U.S.

On the other hand, if we support Mubarak, or say nothing, we will become the villain in the eyes of the people of Egypt (if we aren’t already) for having supported and provided aid to the Mubarak regime for all these years. In which case, we are almost certain to see a replacement government that is not sympathetic to the U.S.

It doesn’t seem we learned much from mistakes of the past. We did the same thing in Cuba, across the African continent, in the Middle East & in Viet Nam.

Obama’s response is almost immaterial at this point. I think Mubarak is done any way it goes. All we can hope to do now is get on the right side of whatever government takes his place.

Even waiting too late, it is still the only viable approach for the US. We have to support those who support our interests as a first priority. We can attempt to change/influence the culture to something we find acceptable, but that has to be a second priority. The point is if influence and pressure is handled properly, the public would never know we are making the application. This current approach of our president making a public announcement as a reaction every time something new happens shows publically we really have no influence and no plan for stability in the region.

Certainly at the same time we should have a national plan to lessen the dependence upon anything from the Middle East. That would mean aggressive drilling in the US (the gulf, the east coast & Alaska), all of which can be done without risk to the environment. More aggressive use of our abundant natural gas and coal (using new clean coal techniques). And BTW what has happened to Obama's campaign promises to do just these things? I do know at this point wherever we find a key strategic resource threatened, we should be actively involved to influence the continued allegiance to protect the resource. Our future and world peace depend upon it.

road kill
02-04-2011, 08:45 AM
Even waiting too late, it is still the only viable approach for the US. We have to support those who support our interests as a first priority. We can attempt to change/influence the culture to something we find acceptable, but that has to be a second priority. The point is if influence and pressure is handled properly, the public would never know we are making the application. This current approach of our president making a public announcement as a reaction every time something new happens shows publically we really have no influence and no plan for stability in the region.

Certainly at the same time we should have a national plan to lessen the dependence upon anything from the Middle East. That would mean aggressive drilling in the US (the gulf, the east coast & Alaska), all of which can be done without risk to the environment. More aggressive use of our abundant natural gas and coal (using new clean coal techniques). And BTW what has happened to Obama's campaign promises to do just these things? I do know at this point wherever we find a key strategic resource threatened, we should be actively involved to influence the continued allegiance to protect the resource. Our future and world peace depend upon it.

By "OUR" interests, do you mean ours........or HIS?????
They may not be one in the same.:rolleyes:


Just askin'......



RK

subroc
02-04-2011, 08:52 AM
Having a National energy policy that is not dependent on Middle East oil would be a start.

energy policy?

you do mean energy?

coal is energy. oil is energy. gas is energy. which one are you advocating for?

does your national energy policy include development of domestic oil, gas, and especially coal, or is it reserved for wind and solar power alone?

M&K's Retrievers
02-04-2011, 09:25 AM
We are starting to get AFE's again for gas wells but the operators are having a hard time getting individual players to participate due to slow payout with natural gas price at it current level. They are hoping the increased price for the condensate will make up the difference. That also may be due in part as an attempt to fend off lawsuits from royalty owners who like to sue for lack of drilling activity. Land men hiring seem to be on the rise and leasing requests are up. I doubt this is the result of the Middle East problems.

BrianW
02-04-2011, 09:47 AM
Having a National energy policy that is not dependent on Middle East oil would be a start.

Having an Admin that's not in contempt of court would be a nice follow up. ;)

Granddaddy
02-04-2011, 10:10 AM
By "OUR" interests, do you mean ours........or HIS?????
They may not be one in the same.:rolleyes:


Just askin'......



RK

"Out interests" would be what is best for the US. One would assume this would be uniform from one US admin to the next. But maybe not.......

subroc
02-04-2011, 10:25 AM
"Out interests" would be what is best for the US. One would assume this would be uniform from one US admin to the next. But maybe not.......

I expect different administrations have completely different ideas about what is good for the US. Also some administrations have courage and make bold and decisive moves internationally. Others mark time. I expect this administration is incapable of making a bold move internationally.

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 10:44 AM
I expect different administrations have completely different ideas about what is good for the US. Also some administrations have courage and make bold and decisive moves internationally. Others mark time. I expect this administration is incapable of making a bold move internationally.

Yeah, like starting 2 wars that have become the longest wars in U.S. history that was bold and aggressive.:rolleyes:

subroc
02-04-2011, 10:48 AM
The longest war in US history is, I believe, the Second World War. We are still occupying Europe and Japan. What do you think?

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 11:12 AM
The longest war in US history is, I believe, the Second World War. We are still occupying Europe and Japan. What do you think?

I thought Germany and Japan surrendered?????????????? Silly me!


1945: Germany signs unconditional surrender
Germany has signed an unconditional surrender bringing to an end six years of war in Europe, according to reports from France.
Watch/Listenhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39976000/jpg/_39976931_surrender.jpg General Jodl signs the surrender document at Reims


http://news.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/000000.gifhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/img/audio_ico.gif (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6560000/newsid_6564300?redirect=6564315.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1)
BBC correspondent witnesses the ceremony (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6560000/newsid_6564300?redirect=6564315.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Surrender_of_Japan_-_USS_Missouri.jpg/220px-Surrender_of_Japan_-_USS_Missouri.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surrender_of_Japan_-_USS_Missouri.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surrender_of_Japan_-_USS_Missouri.jpg)
The Japanese representatives aboard the USS Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)) at the Surrender of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan) on September 2, 1945

Victory over Japan Day (also known as Victory in the Pacific Day, V-J Day, or V-P Day) is a name chosen for the day on which the Surrender of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan) occurred, effectively ending World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II)

subroc
02-04-2011, 11:18 AM
Are we still there? Also, per this administration, are we a fighting force (didn’t we cease all combat operations?) in Iraq or an occupying force?

Goose
02-04-2011, 11:24 AM
And a big congratulations to Barack Milhous Obama, the jobs President (and Genocide Ben) for the addition of 36,000 jobs in January. That's a whopping 631 jobs for each of our 57 states! And how much money did Gen Ben, the Keynesian-In-Chief have to print to get all those jobs? Lots of hope and change out there.

We live in Cuba now.

Granddaddy
02-04-2011, 11:46 AM
I expect different administrations have completely different ideas about what is good for the US. Also some administrations have courage and make bold and decisive moves internationally. Others mark time. I expect this administration is incapable of making a bold move internationally.


If there is no cohesive policy from admin to admin we lose all credibility and trust among world nations. Since much of our policies are guided by foreign aid which is budgetary and has multi-year commitments, a subsequent admin can't do a major flip-flop unless there is government upheaval in the particular foreign country, without legislative action.

BonMallari
02-04-2011, 11:52 AM
I think the LONGEST WAR is the one way agression between RP and Bush 43 ( an unknown participant) its tenure, 2000-present and there is no end in sight and will probably continue long after both are long gone from this earth

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 01:06 PM
I think the LONGEST WAR is the one way agression between RP and Bush 43 ( an unknown participant) its tenure, 2000-present and there is no end in sight and will probably continue long after both are long gone from this earth

Actually I did not start in on Bush until he was into his second term as President. Do a search, the first time I posted on Bush was about 5 years ago which led to the start of the POTUS.

duckheads
02-04-2011, 01:25 PM
Hey RP you are just like Al Gore!

huntinman
02-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Actually I did not start in on Bush until he was into his second term as President. Do a search, the first time I posted on Bush was about 5 years ago which led to the start of the POTUS.

And you have not taken a breath since:p

cotts135
02-04-2011, 03:00 PM
The immediate solution would be windmills???
Solar Panels??????


Open drilling in the gulf and Alaska???:cool:

Just askin'.........


RK

There is no immediate answer. There needs to be a comprehensive and well thought out plan that includes all of the above.

BonMallari
02-04-2011, 03:22 PM
There is no immediate answer. There needs to be a comprehensive and well thought out plan that includes all of the above.


there are immediate answers but the American public wants to debate about them instead and by the time they decide to act upon them their fate is already determined...Yes there needs to be a comprehensive plan but lets solve TODAY's problems TODAY....lets plan for the future so we dont repeat those problems again

huntinman
02-04-2011, 03:25 PM
there are immediate answers but the American public wants to debate about them instead and by the time they decide to act upon them their fate is already determined...Yes there needs to be a comprehensive plan but lets solve TODAY's problems TODAY....lets plan for the future so we dont repeat those problems again

There you go making sense again...

Blackstone
02-05-2011, 08:51 AM
And a big congratulations to Barack Milhous Obama, the jobs President (and Genocide Ben) for the addition of 36,000 jobs in January. That's a whopping 631 jobs for each of our 57 states! And how much money did Gen Ben, the Keynesian-In-Chief have to print to get all those jobs? Lots of hope and change out there.

We live in Cuba now.

Well, I would rather see 36,000 new jobs created than lose another 36,000 jobs. I would bet the 36,000 people that got a job have more hope today than they did a month ago.

Blackstone
02-05-2011, 09:03 AM
Having a National energy policy that is not dependent on Middle East oil would be a start.

I agree, but I have not seen an administration willing to enact such a policy. However, I don’t put all the blame on the Gov. Most Americans are not willing to make the sacrifices it would take to significantly reduce our dependency. They want it to be something easy and without impact on them, and right now, it can’t be. Most people claim they want to reduce our use of, and dependency on, foreign oil, but only if it doesn’t cost them any extra money. So, until the average American is willing to support a comprehensive change in energy policy, nothing is going to change. We have only ourselves to blame.

road kill
02-05-2011, 09:08 AM
I agree, but I have not seen an administration willing to enact such a policy. However, I don’t put all the blame on the Gov. Most Americans are not willing to make the sacrifices it would take to significantly reduce our dependency. They want it to be something easy and without impact on them, and right now, it can’t be. Most people claim they want to reduce our use of, and dependency on, foreign oil, but only if it doesn’t cost them any extra money. So, until the average American is willing to support a comprehensive change in energy policy, nothing is going to change. We have only ourselves to blame.



All we have to do is to start "talking" about drilling and prices will go down.

It has happened before.


BTW--5 oil rigs are far less intrusive to the landscape than 500 wind mills, and produce far more benefits.


RK

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 09:28 AM
All we have to do is to start "talking" about drilling and prices will go down.

It has happened before.


BTW--5 oil rigs are far less intrusive to the landscape than 500 wind mills, and produce far more benefits.


RK


"All we have to do is to start "talking" about drilling and prices will go down.

It has happened before."
When, Please privide a source or is this just more right wing propagrama you have dreamed up.:rolleyes:


BTW--5 oil rigs are far less intrusive to the landscape than 500 wind mills, and produce far more benefits.


RK

From the AP:


The 574 million acres of federal coastal water that are off-limits are believed to hold nearly 18 billion barrels of undiscovered, recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Interior Department.

If we assume it will take 5 years to get the first drop of oil out of the ground and into our gas tanks, that the fields discovered have a useful life of 20 or 30 years from that point, and that we will be able to collect every single barrel of oil that is projected to be there (not a certainty by any means), we are looking at an incremental increase in domestic production of ~700 million barrels per year, on average. The U.S. is expected to consumer 7.45 billion barrels of oil in 2008, so 700 million represents about 9% of our consumption.
Given that world demand for oil is rising so much, the offshore oil we may be able to drill out of the ground would have little impact on gas prices because the oil market is a worldwide exchange. If we just had a U.S. oil market, then yes, it would have a decent impact, but that is simply not the case.
As a result, it is hard to see how more offshore drilling would impact gas prices at the pump in any measurable way.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/81938-can-offshore-drilling-bring-down-gas-prices
Today 02:03 PM

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 09:55 AM
Nah! We don't need no stinking domestic production and the jobs it would create. Let's just continue to be totally dependent on the Middle East. They always seem to look out for our best interests.

Blackstone
02-05-2011, 10:04 AM
Even waiting too late, it is still the only viable approach for the US. We have to support those who support our interests as a first priority. We can attempt to change/influence the culture to something we find acceptable, but that has to be a second priority. The point is if influence and pressure is handled properly, the public would never know we are making the application. This current approach of our president making a public announcement as a reaction every time something new happens shows publically we really have no influence and no plan for stability in the region.

Certainly at the same time we should have a national plan to lessen the dependence upon anything from the Middle East. That would mean aggressive drilling in the US (the gulf, the east coast & Alaska), all of which can be done without risk to the environment. More aggressive use of our abundant natural gas and coal (using new clean coal techniques). And BTW what has happened to Obama's campaign promises to do just these things? I do know at this point wherever we find a key strategic resource threatened, we should be actively involved to influence the continued allegiance to protect the resource. Our future and world peace depend upon it.

While I agree with much of what you are saying, we have passed the point of using our influence and pressure to effect change in this situation. We can try those tactics on the next autocratic regime we are in bed with BEFORE it descends into chaos.

We don’t really know what the U.S. has been doing behind the scenes to help resolve and control this situation since it has erupted. We are only speculating. I am sure the Obama administration has been in contact with Mubarak regarding the conflict. We do not know how those discussions went. I think the Obama administration realizes there is nothing that can be done to save Mubarak at this point. Continuing to support him publically would only serve to make the U.S. look complicit with Mubarak’s oppression in the eyes of the Egyptian people. That would not bode well for us with whatever administration ends up replacing Mubarak.

Although there is the chance the Muslim Brotherhood will replace Mubarak, it is more likely his successor will be someone like Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei is someone the U.S. is more likely to forge a good relationship with. Perhaps the Obama administration is already working on that.

While I’m big on loyalty, I could not support a despot over the will of those he is oppressing. Perhaps the Obama administration feels the same way.

Blackstone
02-05-2011, 10:26 AM
All we have to do is to start "talking" about drilling and prices will go down.

It has happened before.


BTW--5 oil rigs are far less intrusive to the landscape than 500 wind mills, and produce far more benefits.


RK

Even if that did work, it is still not a solution to decency on oil, foreign or domestic. If we drill, how long will those reserves last before we’re right back in the same situation?

My point is we, as a country, are not willing to make scarifies now if we think it will cost us more. I have seen it with the backlash against E-85, and heard people complain about the cost of electric vehicles, like Volt. We want to blame the Governments lack of an energy policy, but would we support it if they had one?

Granddaddy
02-05-2011, 10:54 AM
Even if that did work, it is still not a solution to decency on oil, foreign or domestic. If we drill, how long will those reserves last before we’re right back in the same situation?

My point is we, as a country, are not willing to make scarifies now if we think it will cost us more. I have seen it with the backlash against E-85, and heard people complain about the cost of electric vehicles, like Volt. We want to blame the Governments lack of an energy policy, but would we support it if they had one?

Just the known reserves off the east coast are estimated at 30yrs+ reserves. The known reserves in Alaska are even higher & in Alaska, exploration has been very limited, therefore the potential reserves are much higher. Reserves in the Rocky Mtns from shale are estimated to be higher than our off-shore reserves. In addition our natural gas & coal reserves represent some of the highest in the world.

Nothing but politics has kept us from being fuel source independent. The radical environmentalists, the multi-national oil companies and the politicians have formed an unholy alliance when it comes to fuel source(s) limitations. The environmentalists don't want any fossil fuels used dispite clean technologies. The multi-national oil companies want the best return on their investments which is fostered by limiting supplies (higher prices). The politicians are funded by both of the noted groups and are therefore influenced to limit supply.

And, of course, nuclear power, is both the cleanest and cheapest of all power sources but our government won't license new power plants. The result is that politics and propaganda have us wringing our hands that we don't have long term power sources.

Gerry Clinchy
02-05-2011, 11:04 AM
While I agree with much of what you are saying, we have passed the point of using our influence and pressure to effect change in this situation. We can try those tactics on the next autocratic regime we are in bed with BEFORE it descends into chaos.


We didn't learn from previous mistakes, so I'm not real confident that we'll learn much from this one either. It will take a major change of mindset for those in our govt who make these decisions.

We had 30 years to put some pressure on Mubarak. I can only guess that we were afraid to rock the boat. As long as Mubarak stayed an ally, his payoff was to have us "look the other way" on how he maintained his control.


Continuing to support him publically would only serve to make the U.S. look complicit with Mubarak’s oppression in the eyes of the Egyptian people. That would not bode well for us with whatever administration ends up replacing Mubarak.


Absolutely ... but what have we done for 30 years? If I were on the outside looking in, I wouldn't trust the US as far as I could throw us. We are doing the same thing in Iraq and A'stan! So, when do we learn from our errors of the past?

The errors of the past are on the scorecards of those who made them. The errors we are making now are on O's scorecard. Time to tell despots like these our tolerance level has been exceeded.


We want to blame the Governments lack of an energy policy, but would we support it if they had one?

So, if we ever get a sensible energy policy, we might get an answer to that question. From your mouth to God's ear :-)

Gerry Clinchy
02-05-2011, 11:07 AM
And, of course, nuclear power, is both the cleanest and cheapest of all power sources but our government won't license new power plants. The result is that politics and propaganda have us wringing our hands that we don't have long term power sources.

And one cannot underestimate the value not being subject to "blackmail" if we could be very much self-sufficient just long enough to make the extortionists blink.

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 12:16 PM
Nah! We don't need no stinking domestic production and the jobs it would create. Let's just continue to be totally dependent on the Middle East. They always seem to look out for our best interests.
Hey, I know, why don't we get the oil from Iraq that the Bush administration said would pay for the war??????????????

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 12:36 PM
Hey, I know, why don't we get the oil from Iraq that the Bush administration said would pay for the war??????????????

Why don't we get it here?

If we could bottle all of your hatred, we wouldn't need any oil, foreign or domestic.

Last time I checked, Bush isn't in charge, your buddy Obama is. Let him get it from Iraq. After all, those are his buds.

BonMallari
02-05-2011, 12:47 PM
Just the known reserves off the east coast are estimated at 30yrs+ reserves. The known reserves in Alaska are even higher & in Alaska, exploration has been very limited, therefore the potential reserves are much higher. Reserves in the Rocky Mtns from shale are estimated to be higher than our off-shore reserves. In addition our natural gas & coal reserves represent some of the highest in the world.

Nothing but politics has kept us from being fuel source independent. The radical environmentalists, the multi-national oil companies and the politicians have formed an unholy alliance when it comes to fuel source(s) limitations. The environmentalists don't want any fossil fuels used dispite clean technologies. The multi-national oil companies want the best return on their investments which is fostered by limiting supplies (higher prices). The politicians are funded by both of the noted groups and are therefore influenced to limit supply.

And, of course, nuclear power, is both the cleanest and cheapest of all power sources but our government won't license new power plants. The result is that politics and propaganda have us wringing our hands that we don't have long term power sources.


one of the best explanations right there;)

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Why don't we get it here?

If we could bottle all of your hatred, we wouldn't need any oil, foreign or domestic.

Last time I checked, Bush isn't in charge, your buddy Obama is. Let him get it from Iraq. After all, those are his buds.

Well, we could send Cheney over there and let him lead Haliburton to the oil fields.;-)

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 01:31 PM
Well, we could send Cheney over there and let him lead Haliburton to the oil fields.;-)

A thousand comedians out of work and your trying to make jokes.

Blackstone
02-05-2011, 05:19 PM
Just the known reserves off the east coast are estimated at 30yrs+ reserves. The known reserves in Alaska are even higher & in Alaska, exploration has been very limited, therefore the potential reserves are much higher. Reserves in the Rocky Mtns from shale are estimated to be higher than our off-shore reserves. In addition our natural gas & coal reserves represent some of the highest in the world.

The question is, do we want to continue to go down that road or move to cleaner more sustainable sources of energy. I am not advocating eliminating the use of oil all at once, but IMO we need to start weaning ourselves off of oil consumption, and start developing alternatives.


Nothing but politics has kept us from being fuel source independent. The radical environmentalists, the multi-national oil companies and the politicians have formed an unholy alliance when it comes to fuel source(s) limitations. The environmentalists don't want any fossil fuels used dispite clean technologies. The multi-national oil companies want the best return on their investments which is fostered by limiting supplies (higher prices). The politicians are funded by both of the noted groups and are therefore influenced to limit supply.

And, of course, nuclear power, is both the cleanest and cheapest of all power sources but our government won't license new power plants. The result is that politics and propaganda have us wringing our hands that we don't have long term power sources.

I have to agree with you. There is a lot of money being made by the multi-national oil companies. Politicians are lining their pockets with oil lobby money by keeping us dependent on oil, so there is no incentive for them to develop an energy policy that doesn’t center around oil. That is also the reason we don’t have more nuclear power plants.

BrianW
02-11-2011, 10:11 PM
Actually I watched a bit of Glen Beck today.

HOLY MACKEREL! That guy is totally paranoid delusional!
This Egyptian uprising is a conspiracy between Obama, Hardline Russian communists, and extreme Muslims!
.
Remember this post Dave?
Even "The Nation" & the NY Times seem to agree with Beck now, that there has definitely been "an organized methodology" behind the supposed "spontaneity" in Cairo. Or are they totally paranoid delusionals now as well?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/158159/whos-behind-egypts-revolt
Who's Behind Egypt's Revolt?

Who’s behind the Egyptian revolution?

It’s spontaneous, yes, triggered by the explosion in Tunisia. But contrary to some media reports, which have portrayed the upsurge in Egypt as a leaderless rebellion, a fairly well organized movement is emerging to take charge, comprising students, labor activists, lawyers, a network of intellectuals, Egypt’s Islamists, a handful of political parties and miscellaneous advocates for “change.” And it’s possible, but not at all certain, ,that the nominal leadership of the revolution could fall to Mohammad ElBaradei the former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who returned to Egypt last year to challenge President Mubarak and who founded the National Association for Change.

From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/world/middleeast/10youth.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=organization%20behind%20Egypt%27s%20revolt&st=cse
Wired and Shrewd, Young Egyptians Guide Revolt

Yet they brought a sophistication and professionalism to their cause — exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to elude the secret police, planting false rumors to fool police spies, staging “field tests” in Cairo slums before laying out their battle plans, then planning a weekly protest schedule to save their firepower — that helps explain the surprising resilience of the uprising they began.
In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly nonideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/muslim_brotherhood_egypt/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

“I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,” said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. “They always have a hidden agenda, we know, and you never know when power comes how they will behave. But they are very good with organizing, they are calling for a civil state just like everyone else, so let them have a political party just like everyone else — they will not win more than 10 percent, I think.”

Many in the circle, in fact, met during their university days. Islam Lotfi, a lawyer who is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Youth, said his group used to enlist others from the tiny leftist parties to stand with them in calling for civil liberties, to make their cause seem more universal. Many are now allies in the revolt, including Zyad el-Elaimy, a 30-year-old lawyer who was then the leader of a communist group.
Mr. Elaimy, who was imprisoned four times and suffered multiple broken limbs from torture for his political work, now works as an assistant to Mohamed ElBaradei (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/mohamed_elbaradei/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org). In turn, his group built ties to other young organizers like Ms. Moore.

Also:
the International Crisis Group, http://www.crisisgroup.org/ led by George Soros, has long petitioned for the Egyptian government to normalize ties with theMuslim Brotherhood. The ICG also produced a report urging the Egyptian regime to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party. ,

Included on the ICG board is none other than Egyptian opposition leader ElBaradei as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas. 

U.S. board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton's national security adviser; and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who made headlines in 2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and calling for the U.S. to open ties to the Islamist group. 

Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He resigned after it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas.

conspire:
intransitive verb
1
a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b : scheme (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme)

2
: to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>

I really don't care how you feel one way or the other about Glenn Beck, but do you still want to say there was no "conspiracy"?