U.S. Military Repositions Forces in Preparation for Libya Response

Catawba · Mar 1, 2011

apdst said:
New finds will have a positive impact on future prices, i.e. speculation. Not drilling sure as hell isn't going to lower prices, nor is it going to put more tax revenue in the government's pocket.

Want more tax revenue? Let people go back to work.

Have you not been paying attention what all the experts, including the oil companies have been telling us about the end of cheap oil?

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

"Energy policy was allowed to drift by both political parties despite its centrality to America’s domestic economy and to our nation’s security. It was permitted to drift despite the fact that virtually every American recession since the late 1940s has been preceded by spikes in oil prices. The American people need to know about this situation and be told as well that there are no easy or quick solutions to today’s energy problems."

"Strong economic growth across the globe and new global demands for more energy have meant the end of sustained surplus capacity in hydrocarbon fuels and the beginning of capacity limitations. In fact, the world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil-supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence, while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas. More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process. Dependence is so incredibly large, and growing so inexorably, that national autonomy is simply not a viable goal. In the global economy, it may not even be a desirable one"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 1, 2011

apdst said:
The accuracy is only as good as the intel used to find it. We might get our info from British, or Canadian agents and it will be a goat ****.

Or instead of quadaffi it might be a fruit vendor..... How HD does he think this picture is? :lol:

BmanMcfly · Mar 1, 2011

ReverendHellh0und said:
you watch too much 24 my friend.

Didn't we try that once and ended up hitting an aspirin factory?

I tend to agree, and still, EVEN IF he's at one spot to give a speech, that's not a guarantee that by the time his location is confirmed, the orders given, the ordinance launched and the travel time, there's no guarantee that he'll still be in the area...

and plus, assassinations are not a good business to get into... actually, getting into the business of the internal affairs of other countries is just wrong on so many levels... especially if you start using private mercs and torture tactics, etc...

apdst · Mar 1, 2011

Catawba said:
Have you not been paying attention what all the experts, including the oil companies have been telling us about the end of cheap oil?

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

"Energy policy was allowed to drift by both political parties despite its centrality to America’s domestic economy and to our nation’s security. It was permitted to drift despite the fact that virtually every American recession since the late 1940s has been preceded by spikes in oil prices. The American people need to know about this situation and be told as well that there are no easy or quick solutions to today’s energy problems."

"Strong economic growth across the globe and new global demands for more energy have meant the end of sustained surplus capacity in hydrocarbon fuels and the beginning of capacity limitations. In fact, the world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil-supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence, while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas. More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process. Dependence is so incredibly large, and growing so inexorably, that national autonomy is simply not a viable goal. In the global economy, it may not even be a desirable one"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES

Have I said anything about, "cheap oil"? I would love for you to show me the post where I did. I await the link with bated breath.

apdst · Mar 1, 2011

ReverendHellh0und said:
Or instead of quadaffi it might be a fruit vendor..... How HD does he think this picture is? :lol:

Not to mention, it would be illegal to snipe Qhadaffi and Obama is too big-a-***** to take the heat for that one.

USA_1 · Mar 1, 2011

BmanMcfly said:
I tend to agree, and still, EVEN IF he's at one spot to give a speech, that's not a guarantee that by the time his location is confirmed, the orders given, the ordinance launched and the travel time, there's no guarantee that he'll still be in the area...

and plus, assassinations are not a good business to get into... actually, getting into the business of the internal affairs of other countries is just wrong on so many levels... especially if you start using private mercs and torture tactics, etc...

The predador can circle overhead until the target is confirmed, then launch a hellfire missle that takes seconds to reach it's target.

USA_1 · Mar 1, 2011

ReverendHellh0und said:
Or instead of quadaffi it might be a fruit vendor..... How HD does he think this picture is? :lol:

He gave a rambling speech for hours the other day. His whereabouts were known and his identity confirmed. Fruit vendors don't stand in front of their followers and give speeches. Don't even need HD.

USA_1 · Mar 1, 2011

apdst said:
Not to mention, it would be illegal to snipe Qhadaffi and Obama is too big-a-***** to take the heat for that one.

It's not the first time we tried to take him out. The technology is there to do it this time.

Gray_Fox_86 · Mar 1, 2011

apdst said:
Too bad we have that pain-in-the-ass law that prevents assissinations. Eh?

It doesn't mean the government has stopped assissinating people. Just not high-profile targets anymore. Because it would cause too much attention.

Catawba · Mar 1, 2011

Catawba said:
Have you not been paying attention what all the experts, including the oil companies have been telling us about the end of cheap oil?

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

"Energy policy was allowed to drift by both political parties despite its centrality to America’s domestic economy and to our nation’s security. It was permitted to drift despite the fact that virtually every American recession since the late 1940s has been preceded by spikes in oil prices. The American people need to know about this situation and be told as well that there are no easy or quick solutions to today’s energy problems."

"Strong economic growth across the globe and new global demands for more energy have meant the end of sustained surplus capacity in hydrocarbon fuels and the beginning of capacity limitations. In fact, the world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil-supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence, while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas. More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process. Dependence is so incredibly large, and growing so inexorably, that national autonomy is simply not a viable goal. In the global economy, it may not even be a desirable one"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES

apdst said:
Have I said anything about, "cheap oil"? I would love for you to show me the post where I did. I await the link with bated breath.

There you go:

Originally Posted by apdst
New finds will have a positive impact on future prices, i.e. speculation. Not drilling sure as hell isn't going to lower prices, nor is it going to put more tax revenue in the government's pocket.

Want more tax revenue? Let people go back to work.

apdst · Mar 1, 2011

Catawba said:
There you go:

I said, "lower", gas prices, not, "cheap", gas prices. Semantics, yes, but there is a difference.

Gray_Fox_86 · Mar 1, 2011

apdst said:
I said, "lower", gas prices, not, "cheap", gas prices. Semantics, yes, but there is a difference.

Most of the gas that Libya makes goes to Italy. So if anyone should be paying for higher gas it should be the ITALIANS' and not Americans'. But the whole media and greedy corporations have you convinced. That what affects someone else will affect us too. Even though we don't get anything from them. Kind of silly but I guess that is what greed does.

Le Marteau · Mar 1, 2011

Councilman said:
Here's hoping it's not an empty threat from the Apologist in Chief Obama.

There is no threat, you bloodthirsty warmonger. If you could read, you'd see the NATO forces repositioning there, including the US military carrier, would be offering humanitarian aide and security in the event of a civil war.

Surely you're not dumb enough to advocate ANOTHER war in a poor Muslim country?

Gray_Fox_86 · Mar 1, 2011

Le Marteau said:
There is no threat, you bloodthirsty warmonger. If you could read, you'd see the NATO forces repositioning there, including the US military carrier, would be offering humanitarian aide and security in the event of a civil war.

Surely you're not dumb enough to advocate ANOTHER war in a poor Muslim country?

Most American's are.

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 1, 2011

USA_1 said:
The predador can circle overhead until the target is confirmed, then launch a hellfire missle that takes seconds to reach it's target.

:lamo

So no one would notice a predator "circlimg around" and your goingt to launch a 100lb missile at quadafii and there wont be any collateral damage?

Really? :lamo

Le Marteau · Mar 1, 2011

Gray_Fox_86 said:
Most American's are.

I refuse to believe that. I believe that the Americans who are neo-con war-hawk ignorant bastards are what's called the "loud minority", which is only exacerbated by the fact that the average American, as opposed to being a loudmouthed, arrogant tool, is more likely ignorant of the situation, and apathetic to it as well. The problem with the American worldview is not so much that they want to bomb everything that doesn't agree with them -- only that loud minority is stupid enough to want that. The real problem is that Americans are living in a neverland, a bubble, and they don't care what happens outside of their little worlds, as long as they can go around driving their gas-guzzling hummers and sending their kids to below-average universities for exorbitant fees.

I don't think Councilman here represents the majority view in America -- the majority view simply doesn't care enough to voice itself.

mac · Mar 1, 2011

Le Marteau said:
I refuse to believe that. I believe that the Americans who are neo-con war-hawk ignorant bastards are what's called the "loud minority", which is only exacerbated by the fact that the average American, as opposed to being a loudmouthed, arrogant tool, is more likely ignorant of the situation, and apathetic to it as well. The problem with the American worldview is not so much that they want to bomb everything that doesn't agree with them -- only that loud minority is stupid enough to want that. The real problem is that Americans are living in a neverland, a bubble, and they don't care what happens outside of their little worlds, as long as they can go around driving their gas-guzzling hummers and sending their kids to below-average universities for exorbitant fees.

I don't think Councilman here represents the majority view in America -- the majority view simply doesn't care enough to voice itself.

If it hadn't been for that loud minority you'd look like this:

The majority didn't give a crap about you guys back then.

Le Marteau · Mar 1, 2011

mac said:
If it hadn't been for that loud minority you'd look like this:

The majority didn't give a crap about you guys back then.

I would? I'm a Russian-born Englishman. The two nations I represent are the two which one the Second World War. Pray tell why on Earth I'd be wearing lederhosen? It's you who ought to be thanking us for beating the Germans in two consecutive world wars, while the cowardly Americans stayed out until they knew which side was going to win.

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 1, 2011

Le Marteau said:
I refuse to believe that. I believe that the Americans who are neo-con war-hawk ignorant bastards are what's called the "loud minority", which is only exacerbated by the fact that the average American, as opposed to being a loudmouthed, arrogant tool, is more likely ignorant of the situation, and apathetic to it as well. The problem with the American worldview is not so much that they want to bomb everything that doesn't agree with them -- only that loud minority is stupid enough to want that. The real problem is that Americans are living in a neverland, a bubble, and they don't care what happens outside of their little worlds, as long as they can go around driving their gas-guzzling hummers and sending their kids to below-average universities for exorbitant fees.

I don't think Councilman here represents the majority view in America -- the majority view simply doesn't care enough to voice itself.

I know. We should be more like the ***** french or the rest of flacid europe an its weak will to take care of its own back yard. Nah, its much easier to whine about the big bad USA when you dont have yo put any of you countrymen's lives on the line.

Dont worry, we got this. :roll:

StillBallin75 · Mar 1, 2011

apdst said:
I have to read up on my history? :lamo

apparently, yes

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why there was a mass exodus of North Vietnamese:

Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel, and under the terms of the Geneva Convention, civilians were to be given the opportunity to move freely between the two provisional states for a 300-day period. Elections throughout the country were to be held in 1956 to establish a unified government.[70] Around one million northerners, mainly minority Catholics, fled south, fearing persecution by the communists,[71] following an American propaganda campaign using slogans such as "The Virgin Mary is heading south",[72] and aided by a U.S. funded $93 million relocation program, which included ferrying refugees with the Seventh Fleet.[73] It is estimated that as many as two million more would have left had they not been stopped by the Viet Minh.[74] The northern, mainly Catholic refugees were meant to give Diem a strong anti-communist constituency.[75] Diem later went on to staff his administration's key posts mostly with northern and central Catholics.

Ho Chi Minh was hardly the only candidate:

In the south, former Emperor Bảo Đại's State of Vietnam operated, with Ngô Đình Diệm (appointed in July 1954) as his prime minister. In June 1955, Diem announced that elections would not be held. South Vietnam had rejected the agreement from the beginning and was therefore not bound by it, he said. "How can we expect 'free elections' to be held in the Communist North?" Diem asked. President Dwight D. Eisenhower echoed senior U.S. experts[81] when he wrote that, in 1954, "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh" over Emperor Bảo Đại.

Now you gonna argue with Ike? Those are the words from the mouth of the man himself.

In a referendum on the future of the State of Vietnam on 23 October, Diem rigged the poll supervised by his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and was credited with 98.2 percent of the vote, including 133% in Saigon. His American advisers had recommended a more modest winning margin of "60 to 70 percent." Diem, however, viewed the election as a test of authority.[85] On 26 October 1955, Diem declared the new Republic of Vietnam (ROV), with himself as president.[86] The ROV was created largely because of the Eisenhower administration's desire for an anti-communist state in the region.[84]

Accruing considerable U.S. support due to his staunch anti-Communism, he achieved victory in a 1955 plebiscite that was widely considered fraudulent. Proclaiming himself the Republic's first President, he demonstrated considerable political skill in the consolidation of his power, and his rule proved authoritarian, elitist, nepotistic, and corrupt. A Roman Catholic, Diệm pursued policies that rankled and oppressed the Republic's Montagnard natives and its Buddhist majority.

You call all that "choosing democracy?"

Gray_Fox_86 · Mar 1, 2011

ReverendHellh0und said:
I know. We should be more like the ***** french or the rest of flacid europe an its weak will to take care of its own back yard. Nah, its much easier to whine about the big bad USA when you dont have yo put any of you countrymen's lives on the line.

Dont worry, we got this. :roll:

Don't hate on the French. They are one of the ONLY countries in the world. That has always supported us militaryily. Sure they could do better. But there is only so many soldiers they have.

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 1, 2011

Le Marteau said:
I would? I'm a Russian-born Englishman. The two nations I represent are the two which one the Second World War. Pray tell why on Earth I'd be wearing lederhosen? It's you who ought to be thanking us for beating the Germans in two consecutive world wars, while the cowardly Americans stayed out until they knew which side was going to win.

So when and where did you serve? Or are you simply a spectator commenting on the teams?

Funny thing, i can remember reading about whole battalions surrenduring to the germans in wwII....

I also find it funny how you dont like te US sending troops anywhwhere but call us cowards for bailing the allies out in wwii.

:lamo

apdst · Mar 1, 2011

Le Marteau said:
I would? I'm a Russian-born Englishman. The two nations I represent are the two which one the Second World War. Pray tell why on Earth I'd be wearing lederhosen? It's you who ought to be thanking us for beating the Germans in two consecutive world wars, while the cowardly Americans stayed out until they knew which side was going to win.

Ya'll won WW2? :lamo

Ever hear of Lend-Lease? What about Dunkirk?

Yeah, ya'll won it alright.

apdst · Mar 1, 2011

ReverendHellh0und said:
So when and where did you serve? Or are you simply a spectator commenting on the teams?

Funny thing, i can remember reading about whole battalions surrenduring to the germans in wwII....

I also find it funny how you dont like te US sending troops anywhwhere but call us cowards for bailing the allies out in wwii.

:lamo

America haters always do that.

apdst · Mar 1, 2011

Gray_Fox_86 said:
Don't hate on the French. They are one of the ONLY countries in the world. That has always supported us militaryily. Sure they could do better. But there is only so many soldiers they have.

I have some French rifles for sale. Never fired and only dropped once. :rofl

U.S. Military Repositions Forces in Preparation for Libya Response

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

BmanMcfly

apdst

apdst

USA_1

USA_1

USA_1

Gray_Fox_86

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

apdst

Gray_Fox_86

Le Marteau

Gray_Fox_86

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Le Marteau

mac

Le Marteau

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

Gray_Fox_86

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

apdst

apdst

apdst