Egyptian Civil Strife

They are legitimate - because, cheap oil isn't a 'forever' option Shag. Cheap oil is waning, and expensive oil - such as deepwater oil and oil shale is becoming what we have left.

It is only "what we have left" because other possibilities are taken off the table through government regulation.

Unless, of course, you believe the consistently wrong "estimates" of our "supply" of oil (including the failed notion of "peak oil"). If all you can do is make allusions to estimates that have historically been shown to be wrong, your argument is based on speculation and baseless assertion.

Where does our US imperialism work Cal? Do you have any example of a success story regarding our continued interference with other governments throughout the world? And why do we continue to do this in the Middle East, where our track record is the worse. We obviously don't understand the middle east, and our solutions don't seem to work there.

Interesting how you attempt to turn the focus to American "imperialism" (a false concept unless you redefine what "imperialism" is). American national interest is clearly irrelevant in your view (of course you will deny this and engage in word games to redefine what the "national interest" is, I imagine).

It is also interesting how you say that, "We obviously don't understand the middle east, and our solutions don't seem to work there" yet seem to allude to a more democratic Egypt resulting from the current events or, as you say, "a citizenry that is responsible for itself".

That IS what Bush's policy in Iraq was (at least in part). It was a gambit to show that democracy can work in Muslim countries. The theory was that if democracy took hold, it would be a domino effect of other mid-east nations becoming more democratic.
 
It is only "what we have left" because other possibilities are taken off the table through government regulation.

Unless, of course, you believe the consistently wrong "estimates" of our "supply" of oil (including the failed notion of "peak oil"). If all you can do is make allusions to estimates that have historically been shown to be wrong, your argument is based on speculation and baseless assertion.

Nope there is a lot of oil out there - but, it is becoming more difficult to get. It is part of the reason costs go up. Deep water drilling is hugely expensive in comparison to just sinking a well in 1880 somewhere in Pennsylvania, and the oil just gushed up. Getting the oil from the deep water well to a refinery is also far more expensive than getting that same oil in Pennsylvania to a refinery.

The costs involved in retrieving the oil that remains will continue to go up. We probably have enough oil on this planet to last 100s of years... but it doesn't mean that it will be economically feasible to get it.

Here we see economics at play - let oil rise, it will because the cost of getting it continues to escalate (why we buy middle east oil is because it is sooo cheap to get it out of the sand shag). As the cost per kilowatt or btu goes up from oil, as we bring it back to the states, the cost per energy unit from other sources will be more competitive.

Interesting how you attempt to turn the focus to American "imperialism" (a false concept unless you redefine what "imperialism" is). American national interest is clearly irrelevant in your view (of course you will deny this and engage in word games to redefine what the "national interest" is, I imagine).

It is also interesting how you say that, "We obviously don't understand the middle east, and our solutions don't seem to work there" yet seem to allude to a more democratic Egypt resulting from the current events or, as you say, "a citizenry that is responsible for itself".

I have no idea if Egypt will finally go to a democracy or not - The citizens will decide that Shag.

But, our solutions don't work in the middle east - that has been painfully apparent time and time again.

That IS what Bush's policy in Iraq was (at least in part). It was a gambit to show that democracy can work in Muslim countries. The theory was that if democracy took hold, it would be a domino effect of other mid-east nations becoming more democratic.

So, do you think that Bush's solution of forced democracy in Iraq will work? I think any solution that is forced on a people won't work shag. Democracy is the very best - but, it takes a while for people to arrive at it. Skipping all the interim steps seems to be a recipe for failure.
 
However, why isn't China so worried about the middle east?
I don't know why you presume that the Chinese aren't interested in the Middle East. But it also should be noted that the Chinese have no moral reservations about making energy deals with any regime, regardless their humanitarian positions.

We have Israel to worry about - that is why. Is continued exposure to polarizing the Arab world against the west worth it?
Worth what? What are you suggesting we stop doing regarding Israel that is responsible for polarizing the Arab world?

Where does our US imperialism work Cal?
Where did I suggest that US imperialism worked.
In fact, when did I even bring up the subject of imperialism?
Even if it was more relevant to what had been mentioned before it, your question can't even be answered until we define what "worked" means.

This is what you said cal... That is why I am asking what you think the government should do?
If gas hits $150/barrel, what happens to our desperate economy?
What happens on our streets?
What response does our government take?

Then I will clarify.
My hypothetical, rhetorical question was not about how the U.S. government would respond to an increase in fuel prices. My question had to do with how it would respond to the consequences to those increased energy costs. The economic and social consequences.

I don't think this administration, in particular, would do anything to reduce the cost of a gallon of gas or a barrel of oil.

There are many, many places that are much better for getting oil than the gulf Cal -
You fail to recognize that the industry, platforms, and infrastructure were already out there. They've been displaced in the months since the BP leak.

as oil gets to $100 oil shale becomes pretty viable.
Yes. I know how economics works.
You might also notice that these things happen naturally, without the government being involved.

One again, I would rather spend more on energy that was totally independent from foreign concerns, than get 'bargain' energy from the middle east.
That's all well and good, but totally irrelevant.

Wow - where did I say that? I actually think the US should quit stockpiling oil, and let the price really reflect what the world pays - then watch the other alternatives take off. We don't have a freemarket regarding oil right now...
"I would gladly pay $.25 a gallon more - if it means we are fostering domestic energy"
You didn't say it specifically, I presumed you were referencing one of the many proposed "gas taxes" designed to make gas more expensive and stimulate investment in alternative energies by making them more competitively priced.

I didn't think you were referring to some kind of free market response.
If not referencing policy, you must be speaking in some kind of vague, hypothetical that doesn't exist...

$100 for a gallon of gas - when do you think that will happen Cal?
A barrel. $100 a barrel.
I think it hit $100 today.

And I never mentioned $.25 from TAXES - I am very willing to have oil go to $100 a barrel, pay the extra in gas
Well, congratulations, you will be.
Are you ready to pay $150/bbl though?

So, do you think that we will have a kill switch on the internet Cal - do you really think this will happen?
I don't think it'll make it through this House of Rep.
I think it would have passed if it had come to a vote during the last Congress.

If the Egyptian people govern themselves, I think then the outcome will reflect them, instead of the US's idea of how we want the middle east to look.
Your non-answer seems to deliberately ignore recognizing the security and humanitarian disaster that is likely to follow. Be it the regional and global insecurity, the increased risk of terror in the U.S., or just the potential persecution and genocide of the Coptic Christians in the Country...

Will you also be calling for "restraint" from Israel if/when it has to launch attacks along it's border into Egypt?
 
this is the part where google, the egyptian god of the internet, returns to earth and restores high speed access for his people
 
I don't know why you presume that the Chinese aren't interested in the Middle East. But it also should be noted that the Chinese have no moral reservations about making energy deals with any regime, regardless their humanitarian positions.

And we do have moral reservations with regards to the same thing? We buy oil from some of the most disgusting regimes Cal, we don't care so long as we get our oil fix... we are like junkies...

Worth what? What are you suggesting we stop doing regarding Israel that is responsible for polarizing the Arab world?

I am just postulating that we might need to review our policies regarding Israel. $160 billion since 1976 - that is over $22,000 per person in Israel in foreign aid. Israel does it own 'polarizing' regarding the Arab world, with our financial backing. Israel cannot support itself and depends on our aid to survive. They are by no means an independent state.

Where did I suggest that US imperialism worked.
In fact, when did I even bring up the subject of imperialism?
Even if it was more relevant to what had been mentioned before it, your question can't even be answered until we define what "worked" means.

So, you believe in a hands off policy regarding the middle east - you seemed to indicate otherwise Cal.

Then I will clarify.
My hypothetical, rhetorical question was not about how the U.S. government would respond to an increase in fuel prices. My question had to do with how it would respond to the consequences to those increased energy costs. The economic and social consequences.

I don't think this administration, in particular, would do anything to reduce the cost of a gallon of gas or a barrel of oil.

Isn't that what you want Cal - a hands off policy from the government - or would you like the government to subsidize the oil industry more than we already do?
You fail to recognize that the industry, platforms, and infrastructure were already out there. They've been displaced in the months since the BP leak.

And they were displaced during hurricanes, and they were displaced when the cost of oil went below $50 a barrel. There are many, many reasons they don't drill in the Gulf at times - it is expensive, it is very 'nature' dependent, and it is highly regulated -

Yes. I know how economics works.
You might also notice that these things happen naturally, without the government being involved.

Just as they are right now - so let oil go up as the market dictates. Alternate ways of getting oil, as well as alternate energy will fill in the gaps.

I didn't think you were referring to some kind of free market response.
If not referencing policy, you must be speaking in some kind of vague, hypothetical that doesn't exist...

it isn't hypothetical cal - more people world wide want it - it is becoming more difficult to remove from the ground - all market conditions that will increase the cost of oil. So, once oil gets to a certain level, other energy sources become economically viable.

A barrel. $100 a barrel.
I think it hit $100 today.

Well, congratulations, you will be.
Are you ready to pay $150/bbl though?

If it happens it happens - and when it does - they start ripping up the western slope in Colorado removing oil shale - because then they can make money, money that stays here in the States.

I don't think it'll make it through this House of Rep.
I think it would have passed if it had come to a vote during the last Congress.

Well, your speculation is expected Cal - but - let's see if it gets even onto the floor first...

Your non-answer seems to deliberately ignore recognizing the security and humanitarian disaster that is likely to follow. Be it the regional and global insecurity, the increased risk of terror in the U.S., or just the potential persecution and genocide of the Coptic Christians in the Country...

Will you also be calling for "restraint" from Israel if/when it has to launch attacks along it's border into Egypt?

Israel will do whatever it wants to do with our money - we have absolutely no control over them. You constantly cry about welfare - but we support an entire military in Israel that is dependent on our 'welfare'. Shouldn't they start to support their military - we have done it since their inception.

Do we go into Egypt as a military force? Do we at some point say 'enough is enough' when it comes to our perceived duty as policeman of the world? If we don't come in won't someone take our place - Britain, Germany, Australia? And if not - why not? Maybe we should back someone else for a change - have Australia send in their troops first, and we will back them with supplies and arms.
 
Evil Foreign Regimes

And we do have moral reservations with regards to the same thing? We buy oil from some of the most disgusting regimes Cal, we don't care so long as we get our oil fix... we are like junkies...

Gee whiz Foxy---

If I felt as strongly as you seem to, I believe I'd display the courage of my convictions and refuse to buy anything that has any faintest smudge of origin in petroleum. I'd get rid of my cars, burn candles for light or go to bed at dusk, and...Well you understand.

I was under the erroneous impression that the greatest majority of our 'foreign' oil comes from (GASP!!!) Canada.

KS
 
Gee whiz Foxy---

If I felt as strongly as you seem to, I believe I'd display the courage of my convictions and refuse to buy anything that has any faintest smudge of origin in petroleum. I'd get rid of my cars, burn candles for light or go to bed at dusk, and...Well you understand.

I was under the erroneous impression that the greatest majority of our 'foreign' oil comes from (GASP!!!) Canada.

KS

And you know that regime in Canada - how they support hockey, curling, the topless bars in Windsor, all those subversive things - gosh KS, how do we sleep at night?

Yep - a lot of our imported oil comes from Canada - but we certainly get some from the Saudis, the Venezuelans, the Norwegians....

I am a junkie too - I admit it - but, wouldn't it be nice to be off of the foreign stuff and just smoke the home grown variety?
 
Nope there is a lot of oil out there - but, it is becoming more difficult to get.

Apparently you missed my previous response (even though you quoted it). How about you reread it and actually respond to it instead of simply dismissing the points made.

(why we buy middle east oil is because it is sooo cheap to get it out of the sand shag)

Sooo cheap...compared to the costs domestically, which have gone up ARTIFICIALLY because of regulations (which add costs and create artificial shortages by limiting supply and exploration).

But, our solutions don't work in the middle east - that has been painfully apparent time and time again.

That depends on your standard of judgment. Of course, it is very easy to revise those standards after the fact to support any narrative you want to.

So, do you think that Bush's solution of forced democracy in Iraq will work?

I know you want to tow the liberal line on this one, but it is conceptually flawed. You cannot force freedom. It doesn't make any sense. Bush's "solution" (as you call it) was not to "force" democracy.

I think any solution that is forced on a people won't work shag.

Is that a context dependent statement?

There are numerous occasions on this forum where you have supported a solution being forced on a people.

You are even flirting with that with the "renewable energy" nonsense. Only by government distorting the market through regulation and by subsidy could "renewable energy" be a viable economic alternative (ethanol for instance), yet you are supporting that, while desperately trying to distract from the economic reality of renewable energy (amazing how economics is always an inconvenience to be distorted and/or ignored by progressive thought).

Democracy is the very best - but, it takes a while for people to arrive at it. Skipping all the interim steps seems to be a recipe for failure.

So, you are assuming the progressive view of society. Again. Let me spell it out...

Society naturally progresses to democracy and we should not tamper with that progress. Human nature has to evolve to a point where it is compatible with democracy and the Egyptian people are finally getting there.

While that view of inevitability is appealing, it is superficial and unrealistic. A desire for freedom is a natural human instinct and humans do not have to, in any way, "evolve" to reach that point. It is there from the moment of birth for any and every human being. If you don't believe that, then you reject the founding principles of this nation.

The most natural form of government is democracy. The reason that hasn't happened in many Middle East countries is because of certain impediments. Bush simply removed those impediments in Iraq and it looks like certain impediments in Egypt stand to be removed.

To try and say that any emerging democratic movement in Egypt is legitimate, but in Iraq any such democracy is not legitimate is absurd and dishonest; an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

Your entire narrative here is based on a false understanding of human nature and a cherry picked understanding of the history of the war on terror.
 
Oh, by the way, the charge of "American Imperialism" is generally a false charge that is simply a means to distract. Only by distorting the actions of American and/or redefining the idea of imperialism is that charge afforded any degree of legitimacy.

However, repeating that charge is another deceptive way to legitimize it; by injecting it as a false premise and then changing the focus away from the motivations behind the riots in Egypt (which were the original focus of this thread) to American "Imperialism".
 
Why We Should Fear the Moslem Brother
By Karin McQuillan

As we follow the unfolding story in Egypt, we are torn between hope and fear -- hope that democracy will gain a toehold and fear that the fundamentalist Moslem Brothers could take control of Egypt. Perhaps you have heard the Moslem Brothers are the oldest and largest radical Islamic group, the grandfather of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda.

What you haven't been told is this: the Moslem Brothers were a small, unpopular group of anti-modern fanatics unable to attract members, until they were adopted by Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich beginning in the 1930s. Under the tutelage of the Third Reich, the Brothers started the modern jihadi movement, complete with a genocidal program against Jews. In the words of Matthias Kuntzel, "[t]he significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to that of the Bolshevik Party to communism: It was and remains to this day the ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas."

What is equally ominous for Jews and Israel is that despite Mubarak's pragmatic coexistence with Israel for the last thirty years, every Egyptian leader from Nasser through Sadat to Mubarak has enshrined Nazi Jew-hatred in mainstream Egyptian culture out of both conviction and political calculation. Nasser, trained by Nazis as a youth, spread the genocidal conspiracy theories of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, making it a bestseller throughout the Arab world. On the Ramadan following 9/11, Mubarak presided over a thirty-week-long TV series dramatizing Elders and its genocidal message.

It is impossible to assess the danger posed by a takeover of Egypt today by the Moslem Brothers without knowing that Nazism launched the Brothers and is still at their core. This response to modernity and to Jews was not predetermined by Egyptian history or culture. It was Germany under Hitler that changed the course of history for Egypt and the Middle East.

How do we know all this? We know it because the Third Reich was a meticulous keeper of records. We have the memos, the planning documents, the budgets, even photos and films of the Reich's spectacularly successful campaign, implemented by the Moslem Brothers, to turn the Middle East into a hotbed of virulent Jew-hatred. We have the minutes, the photo, and the memo of understanding, when Hitler and the head of the Moslem Brothers in Palestine, the Mufti of Jerusalem, shook hands on a plan for a Final Solution in the Middle East.

We have the records of this meeting, in which Hitler and the head of the Moslem Brothers in Palestine shook hands on a Final Solution for the Middle East -- years before the creation of Israel.

The Moslem Brothers helped Hitler succeed in genocide by slamming shut the door to safety in Palestine. This was a key part of the success of the Final Solution. The anti-Jewish riots in Palestine that led the British to cave to Arab pressure and shut off Jewish escape are well-known -- how many of us know they were funded by Hitler? Winston Churchill protested the closing of Palestine to the Jews in the House of Commons, arguing against the appeasement of Nazi-funded Arab violence:
So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population. ... We are now asked to submit, and this is what rankles most with me, to an agitation which is fed with foreign money and ceaselessly inflamed by Nazi and by Fascist propaganda.​
Who knows how many Jews would have escaped Hitler if the Jewish National Home in Palestine had remained open to them?

We do know that without the work of Hitler's allies, the Moslem Brothers, many signs indicate that Israel would have been a welcome neighbor in the Middle East, but this path was closed off by Moslem Brotherhood terrorism. This is not "ancient history." According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Yasser Arafat (born Mohammed Al-Husseini, in Cairo) adopted the name Yasser to honor the Moslem Brothers' terror chief, who threw moderate Palestinians into pits of scorpions and snakes, eliminated the entire Nashashibi family of Jerusalem because they welcomed Jews into Palestine, and drove forty thousand Arabs into exile. The corpses of their victims would be left in the street for days, shoes stuck in their mouths, as a lesson for any Arab who believed in tolerating a Jewish homeland. Arafat as a member of the Moslem Brothers was directly trained by Nazi officers who were invited to Egypt after the fall of Hitler in Europe.

Like the pro-democracy demonstrators out in the streets of Cairo this week, immediately after World War I, Egypt was filled with hope for developing a modern, tolerant society. The Egyptian revolution of 1919 united the country's Moslems, Christians, and Jews around the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood." The constitution of 1923 was completely secular, establishing a constitutional monarchy. It took Western democracy as a model and worked for the equal status of women. Jews were an accepted part of public life. There were Jewish members of parliament. The Zionist movement was accepted with "considerable sympathy," because the government's priority was to maintain good relations between the three most important religious groups -- Moslems, Jews, and Coptic Christians. Today, the Jews are gone, and the Copts are viciously persecuted. But in 1919, there was even an Egyptian section of the International Zionist Organization. Its founder, Leon Castro, a Jew, was also the spokesman of the largest Egyptian political party, the Wafd, related to the largest opposition party taking part in this week's demonstrations.

When, in March 1928, the charismatic preacher Hassan al-Banna founded the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, it was a flop. It promoted world domination by Islam and the restoration of the Caliphate, focusing on a complete subjugation of women. In its first decade, the Moslem Brothers attracted only eight hundred members.

Then Hitler ascended to power. A branch of the Nazi party was set up in Cairo. The Egyptian government was told that if it did not begin to persecute their Jews, Germany would boycott Egyptian cotton. When the government caved and began a press campaign and discriminatory measures against Jews, it was rewarded by Germany's becoming the second largest importer of Egyptian goods. The Egyptian public was impressed by the propaganda about Germany's economic progress and impressive Nazi mass marches. The pro-fascist Young Egypt movement was founded in 1933. Abdel Nasser, later Egypt's most famous leader, remained loyal to Nazi ideology for the rest of his career. During the war there was a popular street song in the Middle East: "Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth."

In the 1930s, the Third Reich poured men, money, weapons, and propaganda training into the Moslem Brotherhood. It was the Reich that taught the fundamentalists to focus their anger on the Jews instead of on women. By war's end, thanks entirely to Hitler's tutelage and direct support, the brotherhood had swelled to a million members, and Jew-hatred had become central to mainstream Arab culture. Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini listened daily to the Nazi propaganda broadcast from Berlin by Moslem Brother Haj Amin al-Husseini. So did every Arab with a radio, throughout the war, as it was the most popular programming in the Middle East. Thanks to Hitler, the Moslem Brothers enshrined anti-Semitism as the main organizing force of Middle East politics for the next eighty years.

Egyptian society has lived in Hitler's world of hate ever since. According to leading expert on the Third Reich's fusion with Islamism in Egypt Matthias Kunztel:
On this point (Jews), the entire Egyptian society has been Islamized. In Egypt the ostracism and demonization of Jews is not a matter of debate, but a basic assumption of everyday discourse. As if the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty had never been signed, Israel and Israelis are today totally boycotted ... be it lawyers, journalists, doctors or artists...all Egyptian universities, sports associations, theatres and orchestras. ... If there is one theme in contemporary Egypt which unites Islamists, Liberals, Nasserites and Marxists, it is the collective fantasy of the common enemy in the shape of Israel and the Jews, which almost always correlates with the wish to destroy Israel.​
In launching the Moslem Brothers' modern jihadi movement, Hitler did far more than enshrine anti-Semitism in the Middle East. As if some kind of divine punishment, the creation of jihadism also sabotaged the move towards modernity and representative government, ruining hopes for freedom and prosperity for the Arab people. The Brothers were the excuse for Mubarak's thirty years of emergency rule. The Brothers were central to both the PLO and Hamas, killing all hope for peaceful coexistence and prosperity for the Palestinian people. They had an early role in founding the Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq, turning those countries over to kleptocratic tyrants. Moslem Brothers taught Osama bin Laden, and their philosophy is considered the foundational doctrine of al-Qaeda.

Will history repeat itself? Or will the Egyptian people take back their country, throw off Hitler's long shadow, and begin again on the hopeful path to democracy and a decent life that they began at the beginning of the modern era?
 
Apparently you missed my previous response (even though you quoted it). How about you reread it and actually respond to it instead of simply dismissing the points made.

Sooo cheap...compared to the costs domestically, which have gone up ARTIFICIALLY because of regulations (which add costs and create artificial shortages by limiting supply and exploration).

I like some of those regulations - so do you shag - we would have a lot of oil related death without them, like we did in the early part of the industry in the States, or like they have in the middle east without those regulations.

It is cheap to get the oil out of the sand - that is a fact of the oil industry - so use their cheap oil - save our expensive oil (drilling down 10s of thousands of feet isn't cheap shag) for times like this - when there is unrest in the middle east and the cost skyrockets... or for the future.

I know you want to tow the liberal line on this one, but it is conceptually flawed. You cannot force freedom. It doesn't make any sense. Bush's "solution" (as you call it) was not to "force" democracy.

So, who voted in Iraq for democracy? Bush decided that is what they should have. Did Bush give them choices on what type of government that they should have? I don't think so shag.

Is that a context dependent statement?

There are numerous occasions on this forum where you have supported a solution being forced on a people.
A government being forced on a people - I don't think I have supported that shag.

You are even flirting with that with the "renewable energy" nonsense. Only by government distorting the market through regulation and by subsidy could "renewable energy" be a viable economic alternative (ethanol for instance), yet you are supporting that, while desperately trying to distract from the economic reality of renewable energy (amazing how economics is always an inconvenience to be distorted and/or ignored by progressive thought).

Nope - solar, wind, etc, will become viable when the cost of oil becomes high enough - it is a fact of economics shag - If oil is at 200 a barrel - you might even think about putting solar panels on your house, buying a volt, or thinking that a nuclear power plant 2 miles from your house isn't so bad...

So, you are assuming the progressive view of society. Again. Let me spell it out...

Society naturally progresses to democracy and we should not tamper with that progress. Human nature has to evolve to a point where it is compatible with democracy and the Egyptian people are finally getting there.

So, here you agree with me that there is a natural progression to democracy... another way of saying that is that it 'evolves' shag... society usually evolves from monarchy to figurehead/parliment to republic to democracy... it is an evolution isn't shag?

While that view of inevitability is appealing, it is superficial and unrealistic. A desire for freedom is a natural human instinct and humans do not have to, in any way, "evolve" to reach that point. It is there from the moment of birth for any and every human being. If you don't believe that, then you reject the founding principles of this nation.

Freedom is our right - however figuring out how that freedom is best served by a government is an evolution. Even our government 'evolves' shag.

To try and say that any emerging democratic movement in Egypt is legitimate, but in Iraq any such democracy is not legitimate is absurd and dishonest; an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

Your entire narrative here is based on a false understanding of human nature and a cherry picked understanding of the history of the war on terror.

If the people in Iraq wanted freedom, why didn't they rise up like they are doing in Egypt? You cherry pick shag -
 
It is cheap to get the oil out of the sand

Your dodging. How about you actually confront the points I raised instead of simply ignoring them and attempting to reframe the debate?

So, who voted in Iraq for democracy? Bush decided that is what they should have. Did Bush give them choices on what type of government that they should have? I don't think so shag.

Again, you are dodging and attempting to reframe the debate so as to delegitimize. Nevermind the elections they had. :rolleyes:

A government being forced on a people - I don't think I have supported that shag.

Is dodging all you are going to do? You are intentionally distorting what I said now...

Nope - solar, wind, etc, will become viable when the cost of oil becomes high enough - it is a fact of economics shag

So, in addition to dodging, we now how arrogant and baseless assertions.

If the cost of oil becomes high enough (no comment from you on government efforts to MAKE it "high enough"), you assume wind, solar, etc will become viable. Never mind the fact that wind and solar are not viable as an alternative except under the most absurd of assumptions. The idea that something else might become viable (like nuclear energy) and that solar and wind energy would not become viable does not occur to you. Their track record doesn't matter. You simply ASSUME it to be true.

Unless you have a time traveling DeLorean there is NO way to know that. Yet you assert is as FACT.

So, here you agree with me that there is a natural progression to democracy

No, I don't.
Stop distorting what I say.

Ideas evolve (not government, at least in the manner you are inferring), but they don't do so in isolation. The idea of democracy doesn't "evolve" in one country and still have to "evolve" in another country. The idea is already there (especially in the immediate information age of today). It is simply an issue of removing the impediments to realizing that idea. Again, your argument is conceptually flawed. It also makes no sense outside of the superficial level of mindless platitudes.

If the people in Iraq wanted freedom, why didn't they rise up like they are doing in Egypt?

They tried and were brutally repressed (in large part because of the failures of the US). How about you look at history instead of trying to cherry pick what is convenient and ignoring the rest.

Weather or not the revolt in Egypt is an example of the effectiveness of Dubya's policy concerning overthrowing Saddam in Iraq and spreading democracy in the region cannot yet be determined. The fact that you attempt to delegitimize and discount that notion so quickly is rather telling.

Deceit is in haste but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

So, in this post you are constantly dodging legitimate counterpoints, misrepresenting what I have said, attempting to reframe the debate on terms favorable to your assertions and ignoring history when it is inconvenient to your narrative. Whatever happened to all your calls for civility after the Tuscon shooting? You agreed that attempts to mislead were uncivil and should be called out, yet you are attempting to mislead right here.

Apparently we have gotten to the point in discourse where all you have left is dishonest misdirection and posturing.
 
And we do have moral reservations with regards to the same thing? We buy oil from some of the most disgusting regimes Cal, we don't care so long as we get our oil fix... we are like junkies...
Do we buy oil from Iran?
No.
Does China buy oil from Iran?
Yes.

I am just postulating that we might need to review our policies regarding Israel. $160 billion since 1976 - that is over $22,000 per person in Israel in foreign aid. Israel does it own 'polarizing' regarding the Arab world, with our financial backing. Israel cannot support itself and depends on our aid to survive. They are by no means an independent state.
We need to review all foreign aid and 'investments,' including Isreal and Egypt. With that said, Israel does not "depend" on our aid to survive.

But, if you honestly believe that, are you saying that we should allow the Muslim powers in that region to destroy the state of Israel? That we should sit idly as the populations there is slaughtered and displaced, essentially tolerating another genocide?

So, you believe in a hands off policy regarding the middle east - you seemed to indicate otherwise Cal.
You've repeatedly charged that I was supporting "imperialism" and that our policies in the region "worked." You've yet to demonstrate where I made such a claim or to define what constitutes "worked."

Conversations with you aren't thought provoking, they're little more than tiresome exercises in rhetoric and semantics.

Isn't that what you want Cal - a hands off policy from the government - or would you like the government to subsidize the oil industry more than we already do?
Again, you've skipped my point and moved back to your talking point.
I was speaking about the economic, political, and social consequences that will follow a rapid increase in the cost of energy.

And they were displaced during hurricanes,
No they weren't. They suspended production, briefly, as the hurricanes passed by. That's vastly different than removing them from the region and setting up the precious platforms and signing contracts elsewhere.

and they were displaced when the cost of oil went below $50 a barrel.
No, that's not true either. You will see a reduced interest in exploration or investing in NEW platforms during that period, but you don't see them uproot and establish contracts in other countries during these periods.

Just as they are right now - so let oil go up as the market dictates. Alternate ways of getting oil, as well as alternate energy will fill in the gaps.
That's fine, so long as the prices go up naturally- not because of bad government policy intended to trigger that effect. Especially if it causes the prices to explode upward so quickly that the market doesn't have time to react.

The economic concern right now isn't just the cost of oil. It's the consequence that high energy prices will have on the broader economy. The economy is not strong right now and high energy prices may kill whatever weak, false economy is taking place right now, plunges the U.S. into the double dip even more quickly than expected.

Israel will do whatever it wants to do with our money - we have absolutely no control over them.
You've deliberately ignored the issue regarding the persecutions of Christians within Egypt.

You seem to have quite an issue with Israel. We reportedly provide Israel with about $3B a year in aid (about twice as much as we've provided Egypt.) The Israeli military, the IDF, has an annual budget of $14B. So your claim that they aren't self-sufficient or that they we provide the funding for their military is simply untrue.

You constantly cry about welfare - but we support an entire military in Israel that is dependent on our 'welfare'. Shouldn't they start to support their military - we have done it since their inception.
Again, I've demonstrated that this is a lie.
They are not dependent upon our "welfare," and we do not fund their military.
In general, I do not see why it's necessary to provide foreign aid to any of these countries any longer.

Will you be supporting the proposed by Rand Paul to cut all foreign aid?

Do we go into Egypt as a military force? Do we at some point say 'enough is enough' when it comes to our perceived duty as policeman of the world? If we don't come in won't someone take our place - Britain, Germany, Australia? And if not - why not? Maybe we should back someone else for a change - have Australia send in their troops first, and we will back them with supplies and arms.
I didn't advocate the use of military force in Egypt so I don't have a response for you.
 
Do you really think that in the US an internet 'kill switch' is even a remote reality?
Egypt’s Internet crackdown makes “kill switch” bill a wee bit less popular

Imagine if the government had the power to disconnect an entire country from its Internet service. Actually, we don’t have to imagine it; we have seen it happen in the past week, as the Mubarak regime in Egypt tried in vain to keep protesters from organizing on Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking platforms. In a display of exquisitely bad timing, two US Senators will reintroduce a bill that would put the same power in the hands of the executive branch after the practical demonstration of how useful — and ultimately useless — it is for squelching dissent...​
 
Having a problem with the Jews seems to be a trend on the Left...
In a column published today on Media Matters political correction site, MJ Rosenberg claimed that the current Egyptian crisis was the fault of AIPAC and the "Israel Lobby." For those of you who have lived on a different planet till today, "Israel Lobby" is a polite way of saying "Jews." It is based on the old anti-Semitic canard that it is the Jews who control the United States government.​
 
Having a problem with the Jews seems to be a trend on the Left...
In a column published today on Media Matters political correction site, MJ Rosenberg claimed that the current Egyptian crisis was the fault of AIPAC and the "Israel Lobby." For those of you who have lived on a different planet till today, "Israel Lobby" is a polite way of saying "Jews." It is based on the old anti-Semitic canard that it is the Jews who control the United States government.​

This is fascinating too:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=182601

US ship aimed at running Gaza blockade named after Obama’s book.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top