Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 115
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Do you care to support your assertion of "half as much oil per capita" with a source?
    Meaning this was news to you?

    (Source: Offical Energy Statistics of the United States of America)

    About the same here.
    Last edited by clulup; 01/17/2006 at 02:51 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #42  
    Clulup...You can pick which numbers to look at all you want. Some key factors is that there is a lot more open spaces in the US than generally speaking in the EU, especially in the Midwest and Western US. The EU taxes their gas at an average of 80% vs 15% in the USA. The differring ratios of oil consumption for heating vs transportation in different countries. But how much a individual uses is not as vital as the consumption of the nation as a whole as it pertains to this discussion of international relastionships on the possible beginning steps leading up to the brink of war.

    USA & EU OIL CONSUMPTION
    And when it comes down to actual consumption there is only a 5.8% difference between the EU and the USA.
    If we are to target the US for consuming 25% of the oil, shouldn't the EU also be targeted for consuming just under 20% of the worlds consumption?

    Then when you take into account the amount produced by each compared to their consumption, we level out pretty nicely:
    United States consume 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, and produce 8,054,000.00, leaving a discrepancy of 11,596,000.00 bbl per day.

    This compares to the European Union, which produces 3,244,000.00 bbl per day and consumes 14,480,000.00 bbl per day for a discrepancy of 11,236,000.00 per day. Basically, about the same.

    http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...GlobalOil.html
    THE CHINA FACTOR
    Then you throw in the current situation and projections concerning China (with a noteworthy India):
    International Energy Outlook 2005
    world demand for crude oil grows from 78 million barrels per day in 2002 to 103 million barrels per day in 2015 and to just over 119 million barrels per day in 2025. Much of the growth in oil consumption is projected for the emerging Asian nations, where strong economic growth results in a robust increase in oil demand. Emerging Asia (including China and India) accounts for 45 percent of the total world increase in oil use over the forecast period in the IEO2005 reference case.

    ------------

    Will China and other emerging economies of Asia be able to sustain the current robust economic growth and a corresponding increase in their demand for oil in the long term?

    ------------

    World oil consumption rose by about 2.7 million barrels per day in 2004, with the mature market economies accounting for only about one-fourth of the increase. Demand in the emerging economies rose by almost 1.9 million barrels per day, with China accounting for more than one-half of that increase.

    -------------

    Economic development in Asia will be crucial to long-term growth in oil markets. China, India, and the other nations of emerging Asia are expected to experience combined economic growth of 5.5 percent per year between 2002 and 2025, the highest rate of growth in the world. This robust expansion in gross domestic product (GDP) translates to a 3.5-percent annual increase in regional oil use. The projected evolution of Asian oil demand in the reference case could strengthen economic ties between the Middle East and Asia, as Asian nations rely more and more on Middle East oil supplies.

    -----------------

    In China, oil production is expected to decline slightly to about 3.5 million barrels per day in 2025.

    ----------------

    The significant shift expected in the balance of OPEC export shares between the mature market economies and emerging economies is a direct result of the economic growth anticipated for the economically developing nations of the world, especially those of Asia. OPEC petroleum exports to emerging economies are expected to increase by 17 million barrels per day over the forecast period, with more than 70 percent of the increase going to the emerging economies of Asia. China, alone, is likely to import about 7.3 million barrels per day from OPEC in 2025, virtually all of which is expected to come from Persian Gulf producers.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
    Now, why is this light reading on China so important.......their financial and economic dependency on a positive relationship with Mid East countries. They have been firmly against any sanctions against Iran. They have been against any action beyond diplomacy. Why is that, is a very good question. A strong case could be set that they are alligning themselves to remain in the good graces of the oil sand countries.

    WHAT TO DO IF CHINA BLOCKS UN ROUTE TO IRAN
    If China does veto any efforts to implement sanctions on Iran, what steps does that leave the rest of the world? Will the EU step up to the next level if China blocks all routes through the UN? If they do, what would they define as the next level? The US has stated that they want to everything possible, but that the UN is not the end of it if nothing happens. Is the EU willing to make the same commitment?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/17/2006 at 05:15 AM.
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Meaning this was news to you?
    Uh, what Hobbes said...
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    When working towards a solution regarding Iranian nuclear bombs, one cannot pretend the occupation of Iraq by the US (and about 10% others) didn't happen. How it happened, for what alledged reasons, how it was handled, all of this sets the stage for the present situation, and it is not a good stage Bush and his team have set up, in no respect.

    In my view, the prime goal is that Iraq does not achieve it's target to produce nuclear bombs (I guess we can safely assume this is the target). If everything else fails, I think it would be better to destroy the facilities instead of waiting until they have the bombs ready.

    However, those strikes should be done by the international community, not the US (as in Iraq), not NATO (as in Kosovo), not Israel, which leaves UN (as in the case of Kuwait). Ideally, it would be something close to "we, the world, have decided that Iran should not continue developing nuclear bombs".

    Of course this would mean establishing a broad consensus with as many nations as possible. Unfortunately, the present US administration has been exceptionally bad at this so far, so let's hope they can learn.
    No, the current Administration has it right. Screw your concensus bull****. We know what "concensus" means, especially to Europe. With the exception of Great Britain, basically "consensus" boils down to Europe agreeing to go to war using US troops. Easy how one can form "consensus" off the blood of another countries men and women.

    How many troops from Switzerland would we see in this "consensus"? If it's US troops that are doing the majority of the fighting, then its US policy that should dictate that. Not your damn "consensus".
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    No, the current Administration has it right. Screw your concensus bull****. We know what "concensus" means, especially to Europe. With the exception of Great Britain, basically "consensus" boils down to Europe agreeing to go to war using US troops. Easy how one can form "consensus" off the blood of another countries men and women.
    So according to you, it's going to be another "we, the US, on our next crusade against an Islamic country"... (I didn't make up "crusade", that was your President's choice of words).

    Why not bring back Bush senior, he was sooo much more able when came to foreign politics (e.g. when forming the broad alliance against Saddam in Kuwait)...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #46  
    Maybe we could buy some Swiss Pikemen. Of course, as they said back in their day, "When the money runs out, so do the Swiss."
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So according to you, it's going to be another "we, the US, on our next crusade against an Islamic country"... (I didn't make up "crusade", that was your President's choice of words).
    Why do you care so much anyhow? Neither you nor your government will be involved, so don't friggin' worry about it.

    If you want to play activist, why don't you go ask your government to take a stand on something, anything, just to prove to the rest of us that y'all are still alive and relevant.

    At least we try, at least we have an opinion. People care, one way or another, about what the US thinks and what we do. I don't hear anyone asking what the Swiss think. That's what happens when you stand on the sidelines, every time, and do nothing.
    I'm back!
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The US did that already, in fact, this and the support of the dictatorial Shah regime lead to the Islamistic regime taking power:

    He was elected in a democratic election, remember? There were more moderate candidates, but Ahmadinejad got the majority.

    I don't think Iran should get the possibilty of building a bomb, but the military options seem highly limited when considering what would follow afterwards in the Middle East. Without the occupation of Iraq, the military threat would have been much more credible. Everybody knows US troops are already spread thin in Iraq, and that they are very vulnerable there.

    Plus, the occupation and things like the torture scandals, Guantanamo, etc. have increased radicalisation in the Middle East a lot, so another attack on a Muslim country would create an even worse reaction in countries like Pakistan, Syria, Jordania, etc. Pakistan's Musharraf would probably lose power, and Islamistic powers could take over there, too - and Pakistan already has nuclear weapons...

    Military strikes are an option if everything else fails. Iran is a poor country which e.g. cannot even produce enough gasoline for its own needs. There is a chance that external pressure (economic embargoes etc.) will lead to the removal of Achmadinejad and the return to power of more moderate Iranian politicians.

    Besides, I doubt Russia or China have an interest in Iran becoming a nuclear power.
    Too bad the EU won't step up to the plate and say, it is our turn to to defend freedom. But, as Clulup says the EU will instead spend a few years on embargos that will not work and hope the US comes through once again to diffuse the situation so they can tell the world how poor of a job we did.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Since Europeans use about half as much oil per capita when compared to Americans, with the same or better quality of life (just less waste), it is more than obvious that there are realistic alternatives. Look at the sharp drop of US cars sold in the US, to get just one example.

    Without the dependency on oil (the US twice as much as Euorpe), the CIA would not have removed the elected Iranian Prime Minister from power, the US would not have supported the Shah regime against his people, Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, his use of nerve gas against Iranians, etc. I am not saying we should let Achmadinejad have nuclear bombs because of that, I am just mentioning part of the story how we got here.

    A lot of bad comes from the dependency on Middle Eastern oil. High time to do something about it, seriously, for all of us, like it or not, better late than never.
    Do you have a cite for the oil consumption per capita? I would be especially interested in the locations that the population comes from. I know the farming villages in Geramany use less oil, but the quality of life is drastically different than farmers in the US. The lifestyle of the European commoners does not compare to the lifestyle of the average US citizen and to say it is equal or better is almost laughable. Considering the entire population, different yes, same or better no.

    EDITED: Posted before I read the rest of the posts. Like was said it is easy to make numbers say what you want. When you get down to reality, not much difference. The oil consumption includes a vast military machine providing security to the rest of the world and that military machine requires oil. If, and that is a big if, the EU pulled their fair share (per capita) of military responsibilities the world over, the numbers would likely be very different. I seem to remember numerous US bases in Europe assisting the Europeans in keeping the Russians from crossing the Fulda Gap, US military bases in Korea, assisting in keeping NK and SK from war as an example. Have not seen the Swiss (or any EU) military base in the US (not that I care to see them here, justmaking a point)
    Last edited by cardio; 01/17/2006 at 10:49 AM.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    When working towards a solution regarding Iranian nuclear bombs, one cannot pretend the occupation of Iraq by the US (and about 10% others) didn't happen. How it happened, for what alledged reasons, how it was handled, all of this sets the stage for the present situation, and it is not a good stage Bush and his team have set up, in no respect.

    In my view, the prime goal is that Iraq does not achieve it's target to produce nuclear bombs (I guess we can safely assume this is the target). If everything else fails, I think it would be better to destroy the facilities instead of waiting until they have the bombs ready.

    However, those strikes should be done by the international community, not the US (as in Iraq), not NATO (as in Kosovo), not Israel, which leaves UN (as in the case of Kuwait). Ideally, it would be something close to "we, the world, have decided that Iran should not continue developing nuclear bombs".

    Of course this would mean establishing a broad consensus with as many nations as possible. Unfortunately, the present US administration has been exceptionally bad at this so far, so let's hope they can learn.

    Hopefully, a broad diplomatic consensus (including China and Russia) can be reached which helps put pressure on Iran and convince them via diplomatic means, international isolation, threats of embargoes, real embargoes, etc., that their path leads in a bad direction (meaning e.g. poverty), and that ultimately, their plan will not work out.

    If that doesn't work out, then the use of force (as described above) is better than Iran having the bomb, in my view.
    Well, when will the Swiss Gov't start the process? What timeline is the Swiss Gov't proposing for Iran to stop production and allow your inspectors to enter the sites to verify production has ceased? Who has the swiss contacted to start working on an international coalition to put immediate and dramatic pressure on the Iranian Gov't. If other countries do not join your coalition what military options are the swiss setting up as a last resort? Do you have the military might ready to follow through on the sanctions you are setting up? Do you have the reputation to require the Iranian Gov't to pay attention to what you threaten?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So according to you, it's going to be another "we, the US, on our next crusade against an Islamic country"... (I didn't make up "crusade", that was your President's choice of words).

    Why not bring back Bush senior, he was sooo much more able when came to foreign politics (e.g. when forming the broad alliance against Saddam in Kuwait)...
    No, this is according to me, I don't know what will become of Iran. I do know that Europe (excluding Great Britain) will swagger and talk tough, so long as US might is doing their dirty work. Should Iran escalate into military action, it's not going to be Europe massing troops and artillery along the Iranian border. It won't be Swiss Rangers securing airfields. There won't be very many Cruise Missiles bearing the Belgium flag taking out key assets. I doubt we'll see an awful lot of Bulgarian tank columns.

    So until Europe provides an equal amount of manpower, or is willing to handle problems on their own (afterall, you couldn't even deal with Kosovo,) Europe shouldn't ***** about consensus.

    Anyone can support going to war if they're in a small country and know that someone else will be doing the fighting.

    Maybe if we wanted to stash some gold ripped out of a Jews mouth I might consider consulting the Swiss, otherwise, I'm not too concerned about your opinion of our foreign policy.

    That, is according to me.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #52  
    From the CIA factbook on Iran:
    "Diplomatic representation from the US: none; note - protecting power in Iran is Switzerland." - no joke! Glad we can be of help, represent the US in Iran, and ensure diplomatic communication between the two.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    From the CIA factbook on Iran:
    "Diplomatic representation from the US: none; note - protecting power in Iran is Switzerland." - no joke! Glad we can be of help, represent the US in Iran, and ensure diplomatic communication between the two.
    And, that is about all we would expect of the swiss. What is "protecting power in Iran is Switzerland"?
    Last edited by cardio; 01/17/2006 at 11:26 AM.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    And, that is about all we would expect of the swiss. What is "protecting power in Iran is Switzerland"?
    Maybe you should ask the CIA what they mean by that. If fact, Switzerland represents US interests in Iran. Due to the troubled history between the two nations, involving a coup against the Prime Minister, supporting a dictator, kidnapping of embassy personnel, and the like, the two countries don't have direct diplomatic contacts since 1979.

    Instead, Switzerland (the Swiss Embassy in Iran) is in charge of the diplomatic communication between the two countries. The Swiss embassy is also responsible for looking after the interests of US citizens in Iran and has a special section dedicated to this within the embassy.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #55  
    clulup....you never did respond to my post #42 above....just kind of skipped over it. Any thoughts to the situation presented in and and to the questions asked in it?
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe you should ask the CIA what they mean by that. If fact, Switzerland represents US interests in Iran. Due to the troubled history between the two nations, involving a coup against the Prime Minister, supporting a dictator, kidnapping of embassy personnel, and the like, the two countries don't have direct diplomatic contacts since 1979.

    Instead, Switzerland (the Swiss Embassy in Iran) is in charge of the diplomatic communication between the two countries. The Swiss embassy is also responsible for looking after the interests of US citizens in Iran and has a special section dedicated to this within the embassy.
    The swiss embassy serves as the contact point for American citizens in Iran needing diplomatic assistance (a very busy job ). That is about all it does, the Swiss does not represent US interest in Iran (what a stretch).
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #57  
    But big or small, credit should be given where credit is due......but not at the expense of ignoring other responsibilities taken or not taken.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    clulup....you never did respond to my post #42 above....just kind of skipped over it. Any thoughts to the situation presented in and and to the questions asked in it?
    When rating the importance of oil for a given economy, the consumption per capita is undoubtedly a much more useful measure than the total consumption. Or would you say oil plays no role for Switzerland because Switerland uses only a tiny fraction of world oil production... see? Another useful measure is Gross Domestic Product per barrel oil - also in this respect, the US are quite far behind most European countries (see e.g. CO2 emission per GDP here).

    However, I didn't reply to your post the first time because according to phurth this is supposed to be a thread mainly about Iran policies. I mentioned oil because it does play a role, and phurth asked for a source. Why not leave it at that, we can move to the greenhouse gas thread if you like.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    When rating the importance of oil for a given economy, the consumption per capita is undoubtedly a much more useful measure than the total consumption.
    Oil per capita is a good number for individual economies and focusing on individiual conservation. But when compairing it vs other countries they do not address many of the issues of local tax percentages, tranportation vs heating usage, military usage, geographical differences and challenges, etc..... That is why when talking about global communities the national consumption is often times a better gauge.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Or would you say oil plays no role for Switzerland because Switerland uses only a tiny fraction of world oil production... see?
    You were the mentioning the EU and not Switerland in specific. I was sticking to same frame of reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    However, I didn't reply to your post the first time because according to phurth this is supposed to be a thread mainly about Iran policies. I mentioned oil because it does play a role, and phurth asked for a source. Why not leave it at that, we can move to the greenhouse gas thread if you like.
    The whole second half dealt specifically on topic with this thread and the opportunities we may or may not have with dealing with Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    THE CHINA FACTOR
    Then you throw in the current situation and projections concerning China (with a noteworthy India) EDIT: and the how this may effect our opportunities to use the UN with dealing with Iran:
    International Energy Outlook 2005
    world demand for crude oil grows from 78 million barrels per day in 2002 to 103 million barrels per day in 2015 and to just over 119 million barrels per day in 2025. Much of the growth in oil consumption is projected for the emerging Asian nations, where strong economic growth results in a robust increase in oil demand. Emerging Asia (including China and India) accounts for 45 percent of the total world increase in oil use over the forecast period in the IEO2005 reference case.

    ------------

    Will China and other emerging economies of Asia be able to sustain the current robust economic growth and a corresponding increase in their demand for oil in the long term?

    ------------

    World oil consumption rose by about 2.7 million barrels per day in 2004, with the mature market economies accounting for only about one-fourth of the increase. Demand in the emerging economies rose by almost 1.9 million barrels per day, with China accounting for more than one-half of that increase.

    -------------

    Economic development in Asia will be crucial to long-term growth in oil markets. China, India, and the other nations of emerging Asia are expected to experience combined economic growth of 5.5 percent per year between 2002 and 2025, the highest rate of growth in the world. This robust expansion in gross domestic product (GDP) translates to a 3.5-percent annual increase in regional oil use. The projected evolution of Asian oil demand in the reference case could strengthen economic ties between the Middle East and Asia, as Asian nations rely more and more on Middle East oil supplies.

    -----------------

    In China, oil production is expected to decline slightly to about 3.5 million barrels per day in 2025.

    ----------------

    The significant shift expected in the balance of OPEC export shares between the mature market economies and emerging economies is a direct result of the economic growth anticipated for the economically developing nations of the world, especially those of Asia. OPEC petroleum exports to emerging economies are expected to increase by 17 million barrels per day over the forecast period, with more than 70 percent of the increase going to the emerging economies of Asia. China, alone, is likely to import about 7.3 million barrels per day from OPEC in 2025, virtually all of which is expected to come from Persian Gulf producers.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
    Now, why is this light reading on China so important.......their financial and economic dependency on a positive relationship with Mid East countries. They have been firmly against any sanctions against Iran. They have been against any action beyond diplomacy. Why is that, is a very good question. A strong case could be set that they are alligning themselves to remain in the good graces of the oil sand countries.

    WHAT TO DO IF CHINA BLOCKS UN ROUTE TO IRAN
    If China does veto any efforts to implement sanctions on Iran, what steps does that leave the rest of the world? Will the EU step up to the next level if China blocks all routes through the UN? If they do, what would they define as the next level? The US has stated that they want to everything possible, but that the UN is not the end of it if nothing happens. Is the EU willing to make the same commitment?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/17/2006 at 04:29 PM.
  20. #60  


    Bush, German Chancellor Discuss Iran
    WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2006 – German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Bush pushed for U.N. sanctions against Iran in a news conference today at the White House.

    ----------------

    Bush said Iran's desire to develop a nuclear weapons program posed a "grave threat to the security of the world."

    "I'm not going to prejudge what the United Nations Security Council should do. But I recognize that it's logical that a country which has rejected diplomatic entreaties be sent to the United Nations Security Council," Bush said.

    The so-called "EU-3" --Britain, France and Germany -- have tried unsuccessfully to convince Iran to quit its nuclear program, and earlier this week Iran broke U.N. seals on its uranium enrichment facility.

    ------------


    Bush also pointed out that the Iranian president has openly expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map. "That's unacceptable," Bush said. "And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make them a step closer to achieving that objective."

    --------------

    "Iran's refused every offer we made, even the Russian offer -- now we refer this matter back to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

    Russia had offered to secure Iran's spent nuclear fuel so it couldn't be reprocessed for nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. This would have allowed Iran to have nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons.

    --------------

    She also touched on common U.S.-German commercial interests. "We have, for example, competitors, such as China and other countries, who don't abide by any rule. And we would like to see the rules kept. And now we need to find a common basis, a common approach," Merkel said. Bush agreed.

    FULL STORY
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions