• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

Catawba said:
Perhaps we should have worked to develop alternative energy sources and conservation .............
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't understand why other sources of energy have not been developed yet.
 
Catawba said:
Perhaps we should have worked to develop alternative energy sources and conservation instead of sitting on our ass for the last 40 years since we passed peak oil in this country.
Click to expand...

Catawa: Peak Oil was a scam.. it was a political strategy to import more ME oil in the late 1950s and early 1960s..
 
This is all tied in with the IAEA visit as well.

"Iran's Foreign Ministry also said Tuesday that visiting inspectors won't be able to inspect the country's nuclear facilities. An International Atomic Energy Agency team arrived in Tehran this week hoping to monitor Iran's nuclear program. Instead it will only hold talks with officials about ways to cooperate in the future."

Oil Price Climbs On Fear Iran May Stop More Oil : NPR
 
Mya said:
I agree. I don't understand why other sources of energy have not been developed yet.
Click to expand...

Because everything that has been tried, so far, has been unworkable. Maybe we should have taken a more common sense approach like...developing out own natural resources.

Drilling bans just don't seem to be helping, in the big picture.
 
apdst said:
Because everything that has been tried, so far, has been unworkable. Maybe we should have taken a more common sense approach like...developing out own natural resources.

Drilling bans just don't seem to be helping, in the big picture.
Click to expand...

Any way you look at it, as far as oil goes, such an approach is limited. Oil will eventually become untenable.
 
sharon said:
Catawa: Peak Oil was a scam.. it was a political strategy to import more ME oil in the late 1950s and early 1960s..
Click to expand...

How did we get the rest of the world to join in our conspiracy?
 
Mya said:
I agree. I don't understand why other sources of energy have not been developed yet.
Click to expand...

Unrestricted greed.
 
apdst said:
How do you explain all the new oilfields that have been discovered over the past few years?
Click to expand...



Peak oil is when demand exceeds supply. We passed that point in 1971 in the US. There has not been a single year in the last 40 years when we have produced as much oil as we consume.
 
Mya said:
I agree. I don't understand why other sources of energy have not been developed yet.
Click to expand...

they are being developed as we post

consider oil the benchmark price of energy
if the developer of alternatives can generate alternative energy at a price better than the prevailing cost of oil, then that invisible hand motivates energy users to substitute the alternative energy source where possible
 
Catawba said:
Peak oil is when demand exceeds supply. We passed that point in 1971 in the US. There has not been a single year in the last 40 years when we have produced as much oil as we consume.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I believe you meant "peak oil production per capita," but you raise a good point.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Just to clarify, I believe you meant "peak oil production per capita," but you raise a good point.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the distinction, could you explain further?

I have checked the stats and know there has not been a single year since 1971 that we have produced as much oil as we consume.
 
Catawba said:
Not sure of the distinction, could you explain further?

I have checked the stats and know there has not been a single year since 1971 that we have produced as much oil as we consume.
Click to expand...

Peak oil simply means peak oil production, period, as in the point where oil producers have produced the greatest amount of oil it is possible to produce (within a given amount of time, say one year). We have not yet reached peak oil, but peak oil production per capita happened, as you said, back in 1971.
 
justabubba said:
they are being developed as we post

consider oil the benchmark price of energy
if the developer of alternatives can generate alternative energy at a price better than the prevailing cost of oil, then that invisible hand motivates energy users to substitute the alternative energy source where possible
Click to expand...

That is the point from my experience there have not been alternatives available where the consumer can utilize affordable alternative means of energy. I attempted to have solar panel installed and the break even was decades away from the time of installation.
 
Connery said:
That is the point from my experience there have not been alternatives available where the consumer can utilize affordable alternative means of energy. I attempted to have solar panel installed and the break even was decades away from the time of installation.
Click to expand...

it will not be much longer til oil is priced where alternatives become better options financially
especially at the rate that a car driving middle class society expands in china, india and brazil
our 5% of the world's population is consuming 25% of the world's oil
how long can that last
 
StillBallin75 said:
Peak oil simply means peak oil production, period, as in the point where oil producers have produced the greatest amount of oil it is possible to produce (within a given amount of time, say one year). We have not yet reached peak oil, but peak oil production per capita happened, as you said, back in 1971.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you, I was referring to the demand/supply ratio.
 
Connery said:
That is the point from my experience there have not been alternatives available where the consumer can utilize affordable alternative means of energy. I attempted to have solar panel installed and the break even was decades away from the time of installation.
Click to expand...

You need to shop around some more. I just bought a 1.5kw system, and my payback period will be 7 years, quicker if electricity costs keeps going up.
 
Catawba said:
You need to shop around some more. I just bought a 1.5kw system, and my payback period will be 7 years, quicker if electricity costs keeps going up.
Click to expand...

What percentage of your energy needs will be powered by this?
 
justabubba said:
it will not be much longer til oil is priced where alternatives become better options financially
especially at the rate that a car driving middle class society expands in china, india and brazil
our 5% of the world's population is consuming 25% of the world's oil
how long can that last
Click to expand...

The manufacturers of alternative power have to meet a better price point. I chop my own wood to heat my house, although I have oil and electrical heat.
 
Catawba said:
You need to shop around some more. I just bought a 1.5kw system, and my payback period will be 7 years, quicker if electricity costs keeps going up.
Click to expand...

What was the price on the barrel head?
 
With the exception of this thread, the "breaking mainstream" forum has become the tabloid junk food
news forum.

Moderators don't start these non-issue oriented threads do they?
 
Connery said:
The manufacturers of alternative power have to meet a better price point. I chop my own wood to heat my house, although I have oil and electrical heat.
Click to expand...

Give it time. The technology is still new and still developing. You gotta figure that when light bulbs came out with all the required wiring, they would've seemed pretty pricey when compared to a candle.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Not to be too particular, but let's get a few things straight.

First, Carter did in fact order Delta into Iran to free the hostages, but they screwed it up. It's funny how conservatives give Obama no credit for taking out bin Laden -- it being the SEALs who did all the work -- but they simultaneously give Carter all the blame for the Delta's failure.

Second, North Korea actually went nuclear on Bush's watch -- not Clinton's. It was going to happen eventually but Bush gave them the excuse when he labeled them part of the "Axis of Evil" -- in violation of an accord we had with them.

Third, while I refrain from engaging in conspiracy theories, there are more than a few respectable individuals, including one from Reagan's team, who allege that the release of the hostages 20 minutes into Reagan's term was anything but kosher.

Finally, Iran is going to get the nuclear bomb. You can't stuff that genie back in the bottle. They will not use it against Israel as they are not suicidal. Mutually assured destruction will continue to operate as it has for the last 60 years. We might as well get used to the idea that we will have to deal with Iran on the diplomatic front, and Israel had better figure that out as well. The last thing we need, or can afford, is yet another unwinnable ME quagmire.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets see, I never blamed Carter for the Failure of the Special Forces raid. I said he did almost nothing, I did not say he did absolulely nothing. Since I actually know a fair bit about that operation. The military planners wanted to include all service branchs in the operation, While the USAF had refuelable helecopters, the decision was made to use non-air-refuelable helocopters from another branch. The USAF only had a few refuelable C-130 Aircraft which would be necessary (the C-130 being the only cargo aircraft with enough size but still able to land on open desert) so two Aircraft belonging to the 7th ACCS, Biloxi AFB Mississippi where chosen for the operation. The failure point of the operation was when the helocopters had to land to be refueled from bladders onboard the C-130s. During the refueling, a fire was ignited, all the helecopters either burned or had to be abandoned, USAF EC-130E tail number 62-1809 also burned. The remaining personnel were loaded about aircraft EC-130E tail number 62-1857. The C-130 was over takeoff weight and nosed through a sanddune bending the airframe on the way out, but it came home. (BTW, thereafter, during engine starts, you could see 1857's tail section would kind of go around in a circle instead of the normal side-side vibration and the Pilots swore it flew a bit crooked). So, no, that incident cannot be blamed on Carter other than he appointed the Generals who made the decision.

However, had Carter not decimated the military, then it would of been a more credible threat and either the hostages could of been returned sooner or would never have been taken in the first place. The decision to release the hostages at that specific time had nothing to do with some secret conspiracy. First, because Carter had publically praised the Shah of Iran as being America's greatest ally, the leaders of the revolution (Ayatollah Komeini and others) would not release them as long as Carter was President. Second, all they really knew about Reagan was the he was some kind of cowboy who would take a "a shoot first, ask questions later" type attitude. In other words, instead of a secret Special Operation, Reagan would unleashed full military power, something that Carter would never have done on anyone except maybe the Soviet Union if they had started it and even that exception is questionable.

I know for a fact that it was under Clinton when NK completed it's work on "the bomb". No other information will be provided by me about details because of the sources of my information. Feel free to disagree all you want.

No, Iran will not get nuclear weapons, either Israel, the US or the US and Israel (no offence to our fine British brothers, but, I don't know if some of you want in on this one or not) will distroy them before they can complete the work. If they have not already finished it or will finish it very soon, then either Israel will lose and be destroyed or Iran will lose and be destroyed. If you haven't been paying attention, Israel, unlike Obama, doesn't give a damn what the UN, Europe or anyone else thinks about it. Just like their raids into Syria, the Raid on Entebbe, sending the Moosad to kill the teriorist from the Olympic killings and many other operations they have carried out, they will do what they feel is necessary and everyone else can go to hell if they don't like it. Lets face it, Israel does not have a very good track record of letting a bunch of Prattling Socialist at the UN dictate their actions. And unlike South Korea when dealing with NK, Israel isn't going let whether the US will support them or not alter their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom