TheEEStory.com

Both individually and collectively you folks must start debating whether you will require your armies to account for the millions of people they have killed since the last declared war.

You must also decide whether you accept responsibility as a nation for being the world's "peacemaker" while you have a conflict of interest - i.e. the Carter Doctrine among other aspirations.

Sure Iran has been stupid enriching uranium to 20% U235. But they can be forced to hand that over.

Vladimir (contrary to his public protestations to the contrary) wants Israel and the US to hit out at Iran because it will weaken you. Putin does not want nukes at his Southern border. Pakistan is collapsing and they have nukes. Israel has nukes under their control but Russia will want the peacemaker role in the region and the US will probably yield that to Russia if Israel strikes.

Seems to many of us that the israeli tail is wagging the USA dog and a focus on POTUS elections completely obscures the real issue.

kind regards
ei

wasmaba, thanks for the compliment earlier.

ei, the US is clearly not preparing for a war with Iran which in the worst case could mean loss of access to Middle Eastern oil possibly for a long time. If we wanted to be prepared, we would do things like convert our truck fleets to natural gas saving 3 million barrels of oil per day, incentives for natural gas powered cars and an infrastructure to refuel them, build the Keystone pipeline and several more so that we could buy as much Canadian oil as Canada could produce, and have government support, such as immediate approval of drilling requests and a minimum price guarantee for oil, to quickly increase our own production from every possible source. Since we are doing none of these things, we will not go to war with Iran and will try to discourage Israel from doing so. They do not take orders from Washington, have sunk a major US war ship and have frequently spied on us.

I believe everyone is convinced that Iran has built and is continuing to build an inventory of 20% enriched Uranium. Commercial reactors use from 1% to 5% enriched Uranium and research reactors use up to 20%. There is no use for enrichment beyond 20% other than nuclear warheads. Iran already has the capability to do incredible damage with the Uranium they already have by disbursing, or providing it to terrorists to disburse radioactive materials, to make places such as lower Manhattan or Tel Aviv uninhabitable after causing extensive death and injury. If drugs can get here, enriched Uranium can get here. Better than U-235 would be Cobalt-60 which they could produce in a research reactor fueled with their 20% enriched U-235. The Cobalt would be far more deadly and last over 100 years.

Israel is now estimated to have between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads in addition to delivery systems by air using F16s, submarines and deep underground ballistic missiles. The big question is whether or not Israel would be satisfied to attack the known locations where Iran is pursuing their nuclear ambitions to possibly delay Iran for several years, or if they would only feel secure by permanently eliminating an enemy that has promised to permanently eliminate them. If they choose the second path, it will be a good opportunity to measure the cooling effect per megaton of nuclear winter and see humanity saved from the devastating effects of warmer climate whether caused by humans or not. But, it is really up to Iran and Israel, not the US where a war with Iran would be highly unpopular.

Last edited Sun, 18 Mar 2012, 2:45am by wcushman

Santorum claims Obamacare will cost 2x what Obama projected. Actually, it will cost less than Obama projected. http://thkpr.gs/xhCQNH

They [Isreal] do not take orders from Washington, have sunk a major US war ship and have frequently spied on us.-wcushman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Is this the "major war ship? it wasn't sunk but the loss of life was bad enough.

McCain calls on GOP to "get off of" war on women, start respecting "the right of women to make choices in their lives" http://thkpr.gs/wFnMv2

ricinro wrote:

They [Isreal] do not take orders from Washington, have sunk a major US war ship and have frequently spied on us.-wcushman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Is this the "major war ship? it wasn't sunk but the loss of life was bad enough.

Yes, that is the event I remembered. It is still not proven one way or the other if the attack was intentional. One point from that article was that the US opposed Israel attacking Syria, but they did so anyway, which shows how much control the US exercises over Israel:

"Motive: James Bamford, among others, says one possible motive was to prevent the United States from eavesdropping on Israeli military activities and monitoring the events taking place in nearby Gaza.[95] In a study of the incident concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support either accidental or deliberate attack, Colonel Peyton E. Smith wrote of the possibility that "The attack was most likely deliberate for reasons far too sensitive to be disclosed by the US (or) Israeli government and that the truth may never be known".[98] Author and former crew member James M. Ennes theorized, in the epilogue of his book Assault on the Liberty, that the motive was to prevent the ship's crew from monitoring radio traffic that might reveal Israel being the aggressor in its impending invasion of Syria, which the White House opposed. According to the Anti Defamation League "the argument that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship has always lacked a convincing motive".[99]"

If Lyndon Johnson could not restrain Israel, who thinks that Obama can?

Hi wc,

I am not so sure about the reality of different policies.

But my concerns stem from the closeness of the time when oil supplies will start to fall. To have the USA/Israel brinkmanship threaten the number 4 global producer is a real worry.

IMHO if energy supplies fall in total, there cannot be any global economic growth. This is likely to happen by 2013 due to...

1. Fukushima has sidelined almost all of Japan's nuclear capability.
2. In 2013 Russia removes 20 million lbs pa from the global supply of U3O8.
3. My calculations show a fall in global annual supply of conventional oil starts in 2013.

My latest comment on oil to my circle of email recipients is as follows:

"Hi Guys,

This is just for energy buffs who are interested in oil. Criticisms are welcome .

To recap, the oil producer countries are ranked as follows:

1. Russia (Putin has a policy of high taxation to suppress exploration and thereby conserve oil for the future)
2. KSA (King Abdullah has a policy of keeping back oil for future generations – hence they have some capacity that is shut in)
3. USA (also the world’s largest consumer and the instigator of technology to develop oil and gas shales)
4. Iran (under comprehensive commercial attack – which may soon become a military threat to oil supplies in the region)

Right now, global supply and demand are finely balanced. Saudi Arabia is reputed to have 2.5 million bbls/day of swing facility consisting of oil shut in. This is 90% of the notional global surplus of supply over present demand. But there are a couple of things wrong with this assessment.

1. Their biggest fields are the oldest fields and these are for the main part post peak.
2. They have a lot of heavy sour crude that is not able to be processed by a number of the aging refineries in the OECD.
3. They acknowledge that it will take at least a couple of months to bring some 700k bbls of the swing facility on line.
4. Their oil reserves and resources are unknown. In 1987 they increased their declared reserves by 50% and despite heavy production since then, have maintained that reserves declaration.
5. KSA has a policy of leaving oil in the ground for future generations – which means they must be persuaded to release reserves.
6. KSA domestic consumption is ramping up as population explodes – so a greater proportion is unavailable for export.

There is further concern that the future of oil production in the KSA is dependent on what happens at Ghawar because it produces about half of the KSA’s total oil production. The Ghawar oil field started producing in 1951. Ghawar peaked at 6.6 million bbls per day and is now about 4.5 million bbls per day. In terms of an analogy I have used earlier, the volume of production from this field is only being maintained by “sticking more straws in the milkshake”. But also the field has been under intensive waterflood for about a decade in order to maintain pressure in the reservoir – so, many of the new wells are for water injection (this is also happening at a number of the other larger older fields). There is a programme of also installing submersible pumps in many of the extractor wells.

To repeat myself, I believe that when Ghawar’s output suffers a significant drop will be when the peak oil plateau of global production ends and global output of conventional oil, starts to fall.

Since 2006 the number of rigs employed by KSA doubled. About 18 months ago Saudi Aramco announced they had appointed Halliburton to provide expertise on enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques for Ghawar. Even so, this would involve access to large quantities of CO2 or solvents for injection. Hence I am inclined to wonder how successful they will be with EOR. Anyway, this announcement seems to be something of an admission that all is not well in the world’s largest oil field. Further, over the last two years, KSA have been redeploying other technology to replace oil for power generation – stating they need to leave more for export.

Reports have been filtering through that the cost of oil production has increased rapidly due in part to rapidly escalating capital expenditure and new technology costs. Given the cost of maintaining national loyalty and supporting social programmes, it has been suggested that the government of the KSA now needs an oil price of USD100/bbl to meet budget expenditures.

Ghawar is so old it should in theory (like Mexico’s Cantarell field) be dying. Certainly, depletion rates in their four largest old super giant oil fields must be putting pressure on KSA’s oil production. We can now only wonder at what KSA’s true oil reserves and resources are.

So the way the Israelis are playing fast and loose with Iran doesn’t seem particularly sensible to me right now. Sanctions yes, attack no.

The latest reasonably comprehensive look at Iran’s markets and the KSA oil production - giving something of a field by field analysis is available at this link below...

http://peakoil.com/production/tech-talk-going-b...

May Ghawar live long and prosper .
"

FYI

kind regards
ei

Last edited Sun, 18 Mar 2012, 5:02pm by energy investor

Perhaps this is the year that Grover Norquist, that POS extortionist mouthpiece of the uber, uber rich is vanquished.

Grover, aka the 1%'s bitch boy, predicted a Republican sweep of the house, senate and executive today. LOL Grover, not going to happen.

I don't think I have ever seen Fareed Zakaria challenge a guest as much as he did today with Grover. Buh Bye Grover...

View the transcript here.

On another note, George Clooney was also on the program today.

Clooney is a great American. Not only is he well informed, but he epitomizes responsible use of celebrity.

CLOONEY wrote:

CLOONEY: I've tried that. I have been to China. You can't guilt them into things, you know? There is a strategy, though. China is the key to it. We can't really do a whole lot more in terms of sanctions.

There are some things we can do, but China has a $20 billion oil infrastructure in the Sudan. They get 6 percent of their oil imported from the Sudan, and the Sudan -- South Sudan who has the oil, and North Sudan who has the refineries.

North Sudan was taking that money from the oil and not giving it back and buying weapons to hurt the south. So about six week ago the south said, OK, we're done, and they shut off the oil. So China suddenly is getting no return on that money.

That gives us a unique position as opposed to looking to them as a humanitarian or to do the right thing. We can meet with China, not we, but a high level government official could meet with China.

Let's work on this together because we both economically would benefit by a resolution, a cross-border resolution. Right now, our gas prices go up as the president said in his press conference because when the Chinese aren't getting their 6 percent from the Sudan.

They're getting it from somewhere else and that raises the price for all of us. So it's something that's mutually beneficial.

Fibb :) wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

Great, if all other countries combine their forces they will kick American ass,.... I think.

Y_Po wrote:

Fibb :) wrote:

Great, if all other countries combine their forces they will kick American ass,.... I think.

Nope...I think the spending here is % of GDP not total dollars. The US still outspends the group considerably.

IRS has developed a new method of taxing people via confiscatory penalties. The penalty for failing to report a foreign bank account with high balance over USD $10,000 is 50% per year of the high balance even if no taxes were due or if the bank paid interest on the account and the interest was reported.

Some people on this site may be America citizens living in Canada, for example. If they have a bank account in Canada, which would be normal, and they file to file form TD F 90-22.1 separately from their tax return by June 30 and their high balance is over $10,000 in US dollars, then they would be subject to confiscation of 50% of the high balance for each year that the report is not filed.

A doctor with $4.3 million in his Panama account just had the entire amount confiscated because he had not reported it for 2 years. I don't know whether he reported interest received on the account or not, but either way his balance would be taken.

This is just a sneaky way of implementing a tax. Many Americans living abroad are not even aware that they need to file a 1040 personal tax return each year. Only the US and Eritrea tax citizens on worldwide income regardless of where they live instead of taxing people based on their residence.

Even if one is not required to file the report, they still have to file a 1040 showing that they have a foreign bank account or financial account and the relevant countries. Alternatively, they may be penalized 50% of the high balance each year.

unipres wrote:

Nope...I think the spending here is % of GDP not total dollars.

wcushman wrote:

IRS has developed a new method of taxing people via confiscatory penalties. The penalty for failing to report a foreign bank account with high balance over USD $10,000 is 50% per year of the high balance even if no taxes were due or if the bank paid interest on the account and the interest was reported.

Some people on this site may be America citizens living in Canada, for example. If they have a bank account in Canada, which would be normal, and they file to file form TD F 90-22.1 separately from their tax return by June 30 and their high balance is over $10,000 in US dollars, then they would be subject to confiscation of 50% of the high balance for each year that the report is not filed.

A doctor with $4.3 million in his Panama account just had the entire amount confiscated because he had not reported it for 2 years. I don't know whether he reported interest received on the account or not, but either way his balance would be taken.

This is just a sneaky way of implementing a tax. Many Americans living abroad are not even aware that they need to file a 1040 personal tax return each year. Only the US and Eritrea tax citizens on worldwide income regardless of where they live instead of taxing people based on their residence.

Even if one is not required to file the report, they still have to file a 1040 showing that they have a foreign bank account or financial account and the relevant countries. Alternatively, they may be penalized 50% of the high balance each year.

When did that start?

Y_Po wrote:

unipres wrote:

Nope...I think the spending here is % of GDP not total dollars.

Are you insane?

Y_Po wrote:

It's total dollars.

What I meant to say was that the fact it's a pie chart seems to suggst that each countrie's percentage is relative to the overal total spent rather than their individual amounts per country. Someone might add up the percentages instead of the total dollars and incorrectly deduce that the combined percentage total somehow implies that those countries total defence spending out paces the US. One can't tell who spends the most total dollars by this chart alone.

unipres wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

Fibb :) wrote:

Great, if all other countries combine their forces they will kick American ass,.... I think.

Nope...I think the spending here is % of GDP not total dollars. The US still outspends the group considerably.

It is percentage of total worldwide defense spending. If that is 2 trillion dollars, the US' share is 914B. It means the US spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

Here is a good article on the US Defense budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of...

It is about 1 Trillion for 2012, if you include VA benefits, portions of NASA used for defense, interest on debt from past wars, etc.

Percentage of GDP is a really stupid way to budget for defense. It is why most don't have a clue. Americans are shouldering more than their fair share, for little benefit, or they are over spending.

wcushman wrote:

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

wcushman wrote:

dvelasco68 wrote:

...SKIP...
First off the birth control issue is matter of $9 a month... (cost at walmart for generic bc) hardly the issue it's made out to be...
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-bi...
...SKIP...

The pills require a prescription. Doctor visits are expensive, both directly and in time lost from work. But, if a woman is in Latin or South America, she can buy the pills without a prescription.

Your are full of it. Doctor visit is around $150 for a simple office visit. Or they can go to a community health office that has doctors. Either way, most doctors will write a script for a years worth or so before they ask you to come back in. You are looking at maybe $22 a month. Or use condoms/foam together and be safe from pregnancy AND STDs.

You must be really rich. A $150 doctor visit is significant to me. I think working 3 days (after withholding) at a minimum-wage job to pay $150 is significant. Not only are you full of shit yourself, you have no perspective. Also, learn that "your" is a possessive pronoun and not a contraction for "you are". Then you will be able to write English when you get past 6th grade.

Ok you win the english award, but if attacking a simple english mistake is the best argument you have then I win the not full of crap award.

Even when I worked for minimum wage as a young adult I PAYED for my girlfriend to go to doctor and get her prescription for BC. Yes, it was not insignifigant at the time BUT she was worth it to me. We had already been together for a while and I felt safe enough to stop using condoms. $150, even twice a year, is not a budget buster even on minimum wage. In California the minimum wage is $8.00 an hour. The $150 is the amount at my doctors office. It may be cheaper somewhere else.

I am not rich, I am simply careful with my money. I do make a decent living but I sacraficed a lot over the years to get where I am. I have worked full time and gone to college at night. I came from nothing and had drug addicts as parents, mom mother was a welfare assisted drug addict until they cut her off, then she promptly went to SSI where they paid her because she was a drug addict.

Everything I have and am is because I worked for it, not because someone handed me something for free.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

$150, even twice a year, is not a budget buster even on minimum wage.

Some folks are on a budget and $25 per month is significant to them. Just because you and I would not blink at $25 for a couple of cocktails while dining out, does not mean it is not very significant for millions of people in this country. Seriously, think about that.

I not only thought about it, I lived it. I understand what a burden paying for things is. For me the solution is not the government or even the insurance companies paying for it. I belive we are letting an insignifigent cost distract from other more important items like high gas prices. I think the high price of gas has a much larger effect on the living standard of the working poor. It not only affects their cost to go to work, it also increases the cost of the food they eat.

The cost of BC isn't as detrimental as the high cost of energy both gas and electric. Unlike BC the energy costs are a daily cost.

Again I say... The discussion about BC is based upon existing coverage... And whether or NOT it should be covered automatically, by existing coverage....

The COST of the doctor's visit it is there IN EITHER CASE... whether or NOT it is covered... It is a fixed cost....

A prescription for BC can also be added onto (shared with) with any number of other doctors visits, so trying to lump it onto the cost of BC is BS....

$9 a month is the real issue... and it's not a twice a year doctor's visit, prescriptions for BC are usually once a year (12 month's worth), and again can be gotten during (a female's) yearly visit to the OBGYN... (for FREE as an add on)...

This whole discussion is really about one more entitlement anyway... (and more votes because of that additional entitlement)...

The 3 charts that reveal the truth about gas prices http://thkpr.gs/ySPcHS
________________________________________

Seller of racist bumper sticker defends use of N-word to describe President Obama http://thkpr.gs/wOMZCY

Hi Guys,

From this distance the squabbling between Democrats and Republicans looks trivial. Your essential problem is that you are all living in a country that has become un-governable.

Petrol prices are a red herring even though they cause some spectacular knee-jerk reactions from your President and politicians.

Petrol and diesel prices throughout the world tend to be more affected by cost of oil, refining costs and either the imposition of taxes, or the subsidies dished out by the local government.

The USA has domestically had the luxury of subsidies for oil producers (as production incentives) and has imposed very low taxes. Most oil exporting nations have historically subsidised petrol prices but some (like Iran) are winding those back as they have become too costly.

Europe is now in a bind because they (particularly Germany) are beholden to Russia for their oil and gas supplies. But their high taxes on petrol and diesel have been used to force people out of cars and into public transport because of the negative balance of payments impacts from oil imports.

Something similar in Australasia. Our prices are half way between your's and Europe's.

When you look at WTI, Brent and say, Tapis crude prices, Brent is about USD20/bbl higher than WTI (for a slightly inferior product) and Tapis is about USD10/bbl higher than Brent. This means the oil costs more for refineries in Europe.

So it is mainly the tax driving the end petrol price differentials between countries with all prices rising and falling on changes in global oil prices.

Oil futures prices are based on COMEX and LME markets but despite involvement of people hedging and gambling, the net price of oil is determined in the longer term by supply and demand. This graph at figure 2. of the enclosed item, shows that when supplies reached the present plateau and demand kept going, then prices have soared - irrespective of those pesky speculators. I refer to that as the "plateau oil impact".

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9008#more

When we get post peak. Then look out. Prices will go ballistic and the pricing precedent for what happens then is the period from 1850 to 1870 when whale oil became unobtainable.

The reason why the US consumption per person is twice that of European consumption of oil per person, is due to the favoured tax and subsidy regime in the USA.

Americans may be surprised to hear that many teenagers in Britain and Europe now have no ambitions to ever own a car due to cost...

While US politicians deny the peaking of oil supplies, in Europe they are preparing for it and they have been the first to take a hit as this Swedish energy expert notes...

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/2541/

Hope this is all of some interest.

Kind regards
ei

Hi Guys,

Just for a friendly exchange with Iran...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-pe...

Escallation. Just one miss-step....?

kind regards
ei

whiskeythief wrote:

I doubt there ever was such a bumper sticker. If there was, the racist idiot sure as hell isn't important.

Wetting your pants about this is stupid. It says nothing about people who oppose Obama's policies.

calm down.

Perhaps this can be a teachable moment.
Why is it that Georgia (65) has 377% more hate groups per capita than Texas (45) and 297% more than California (84)?

Guess how many hate groups in Hawaii? You guessed it: zero.

Why the dramatic rise in 2009, 2010 and 2011?

energy investor wrote:

Hi Guys,

Just for a friendly exchange with Iran...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-pe...

Escallation. Just one miss-step....?

kind regards
ei

I hope it is all rhetoric and grandstanding. I am curious if you watched the entire video I posted earlier?

I don't see a hate group graph. It is plain crap to assume all patriot/militia groups are automatically racist. I am sure there are some or even possibly many that are, but Correlation does not imply causation.

The fact that my wife and stepchildren are not white makes me see things in a bit of a different light then some people, but I don't like intellectually dishonest arguments.