Any thoughts on this?

(Please don't turn this into a bash...:o )

Part 1
Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
By George Friedman

>Deleted<

I only read the bit about the ratio of soldiers to population as compared to New York.

To compare these two and make some conclusion about what the comparison means I thought was stretching things. I notice that other nations troops were ignored in this, as well as the police force in Iraq itself. So the comparison is based on completely misleading figures anyhow, as well as extremely disrespectful to the efforts and sacrifices of others.

At this point, I didn't think it worthwhile continuing to read.

One point however - I think the US may find a solution easier - If it wasn't so US centric as demonstated above.

I'm shocked!!!

Here's Me and Rich, been on our best behaviour this week, playing along nicely, not causing any problems - nobody has mentioned (dare I say) Iraq, US military and hardly mentioned GWB. We've played in the pictures thread, we've done loads in the Access threads - absolute models of membership.

Then suddenly on Friday afternoon. . . . . . bang. . . . . along comes Ken (a moderator) and posts all that:rolleyes: I don't know what to say:rolleyes:

Col

I'm shocked!!!

Here's Me and Rich, been on our best behaviour this week, playing along nicely, not causing any problems - nobody has mentioned (dare I say) Iraq, US military and hardly mentioned GWB. We've played in the pictures thread, we've done loads in the Access threads - absolute models of membership.

Then suddenly on Friday afternoon. . . . . . bang. . . . . along comes Ken (a moderator) and posts all that:rolleyes: I don't know what to say:rolleyes:

Col

That's what I thought... Never mind. :rolleyes:

That's what I thought... Never mind. :rolleyes:
Back to normal then from Monday I presume?:D

Col

That's what I thought... Never mind. :rolleyes:
How are we supposed to answer if the thread's been deleted :rolleyes:

How are we supposed to answer if the thread's been deleted :rolleyes:
It was basically two massive posts about how the USA is the only country fighting in Iraq, and it was gloryfying the US military by saying that it is purely because of their presence that things are as stable as they are. It had a bash against Iran and the fact that Iran is solely after oil control. Of course the USA is not.:rolleyes:

Sadly there was no mention as to how things were much happier and well controlled prior to the US invasion. No mention of other countries involvement, no mention of the 25,000 civilians killed, or the 3,000 US soldiers sent to their death, no mention of the trillions of dollars being wasted there - a small part of which would sort out New Orleans - oops, thats a US home issue and GWB doesn't care about those as they have no international importance.

Still, the main thing being, is that Ken (the moderator) has demonstrated that its ok to pick up where we left off, by posting about the USA's military, President and strategy.:D ;)

Col

It was basically two massive posts about how the USA is the only country fighting in Iraq, and it was gloryfying the US military by saying that it is purely because of their presence that things are as stable as they are. It had a bash against Iran and the fact that Iran is solely after oil control. Of course the USA is not.:rolleyes:

Sadly there was no mention as to how things were much happier and well controlled prior to the US invasion. No mention of other countries involvement, no mention of the 25,000 civilians killed, or the 3,000 US soldiers sent to their death, no mention of the trillions of dollars being wasted there - a small part of which would sort out New Orleans - oops, thats a US home issue and GWB doesn't care about those as they have no international importance.

Still, the main thing being, is that Ken (the moderator) has demonstrated that its ok to pick up where we left off, by posting about the USA's military, President and strategy.:D ;)

Col
Thanks for the clarification, however I should point out that Bush, strategy and Policy are oxymorons. I see that something like 75,000 innocent people have now lost their lives as a result of the war on "terror" I wonder how many are needed before the lust for revenge is satisfied

Too bad we can't have a level headed discusion around here. Not to worry Col and Rich, I'll make sure I don't try that again, you'd think I'd learn :o

BTW - Thanks for your opinion Paul - I think can understand how you as a Brit would feel that way. :)

Too bad we can't have a level headed discusion around here. Not to worry Col and Rich, I'll make sure I don't try that again, you'd think I'd learn :o



You deleted the post to start with not me, how the hell then can anyone comment directly on the Report?
How does that song go again, "please don't tease"?

Rich - Sorry, Col went off the deep end with it. As I'm quite sure you would as well so I did what I thought would be a favor to everyone and deleted it. Would you care to read it? Or do you think I should just delete this entire thread?

Rich - Sorry, Col went off the deep end with it. As I'm quite sure you would as well so I did what I thought would be a favor to everyone and deleted it. Would you care to read it? Or do you think I should just delete this entire thread?
No I'd like to read it, please.

Rich - Sorry, Col went off the deep end with it.
I did not go "off the deep end" if you don't mind.:mad: If you think that is going "off the deep end" then you need to get out a bit more:rolleyes:

I merely pointed out how well behaved we'd been by not mentioning certain topics, then with almost your first thread start as a moderator you stirred it all up again.

Col

Ok. Just an fyi - In posting this I wasn't trying to stir up any trouble, I simply thought it gave some interesting opinions as to this pickle we're in with war thing and he gave some thoughts as to how things may play out. That's all. :)

Here's about the first half of it. Let me know if you have the stamina to digest it all ;) (Paul didn't :p )

Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
By George Friedman

U.S. President George W. Bush now has made it clear what his policy on Iraq will be for the immediate future, certainly until Election Day: He does not intend to change U.S. policy in any fundamental way. U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq, they will continue to carry out counterinsurgency operations, and they will continue to train Iraqi troops to eventually take over the operations. It is difficult to imagine that Bush believes there will be any military solution to the situation in Iraq; therefore, we must try to understand his reasoning in maintaining this position. Certainly, it is not simply a political decision. Opinion in the United States has turned against the war, and drawing down U.S. forces and abandoning combat operations would appear to be the politically expedient move. Thus, if it is not politics driving him -- and assuming that the more lurid theories on the Internet concerning Bush's motivations are as silly as they appear -- then we have to figure out what he is doing.

Let's consider the military situation first. Bush has said that there is no civil war in Iraq. This is in large measure a semantic debate. In our view, it would be inaccurate to call what is going on a "civil war" simply because that term implies a degree of coherence that simply does not exist. Calling it a free-for-all would be more accurate. It is not simply a conflict of Shi'i versus Sunni. The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other, and all of them are fighting American forces. It is not altogether clear what the Americans are supposed to be doing.

Counterinsurgency is unlike other warfare. In other warfare, the goal is to defeat an enemy army, and civilian casualties as a result of military operations are expected and acceptable. With counterinsurgency operations in populated areas, however, the goal is to distinguish the insurgents from civilians and destroy them, with minimal civilian casualties. Counterinsurgency in populated areas is more akin to police operations than to military operations; U.S. troops are simultaneously engaging an enemy force while trying to protect the population from both that force and U.S. operations. Add to this the fact that the population is frequently friendly to the insurgents and hostile to the Americans, and the difficulty of the undertaking becomes clear.

Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq. Given that the United States is facing not one enemy but a series of enemy organizations -- many fighting each other as well as the Americans -- and that the American goal is to defeat these while defending the populace, it is obvious even from these very simplistic numbers that the U.S. force simply isn't there to impose a settlement.

Expectations and a Deal Unwound

A military solution to the U.S. dilemma has not been in the cards for several years. The purpose of military operations was to set the stage for political negotiations. But the Americans had entered Iraq with certain expectations. For one thing, they had believed they would simply be embraced by Iraq's Shiite population. They also had expected the Sunnis to submit to what appeared to be overwhelming political force. What happened was very different. First, the Shia welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein, but they hardly embraced the Americans -- they sought instead to translate the U.S. victory over Hussein into a Shiite government. Second, the Sunnis, in view of the U.S.-Shiite coalition and the dismemberment of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army, saw that they were about to be squeezed out of the political system and potentially crushed by the Shia. They saw an insurgency -- which had been planned by Hussein -- as their only hope of forcing a redefinition of Iraqi politics. The Americans realized that their expectations had not been realistic.

Thus, the Americans went through a series of political cycles. First, they sided with the Shia as they sought to find their balance militarily facing the Sunnis. When they felt they had traction against the Sunnis, following the capture of Hussein -- and fearing Shiite hegemony -- they shifted toward a position between Sunnis and Shia. As military operations were waged in the background, complex repositioning occurred on all sides, with the Americans trying to hold the swing position between Sunnis and Shia.

The process of creating a government for Iraq was encapsulated in this multi-sided maneuvering. By spring 2006, the Sunnis appeared to have committed themselves to the political process. And in June, with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the announcement that the United States would reduce its force in Iraq by two brigades, the stage seemed to be set for a political resolution that would create a Shiite-dominated coalition that included Sunnis and Kurds. It appeared to be a done deal -- and then the deal completely collapsed.

The first sign of the collapse was a sudden outbreak of fighting among Shia in the Basra region. We assumed that this was political positioning among Shiite factions as they prepared for a political settlement. Then Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), traveled to Tehran, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army commenced an offensive. Shiite death squads struck out at Sunni populations, and Sunni insurgents struck back. From nearly having a political accommodation, the situation in Iraq fell completely apart.

The key was Iran. The Iranians had always wanted an Iraqi satellite state, as protection against another Iraq-Iran war. That was a basic national security concept for them. In order to have this, the Iranians needed an overwhelmingly Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and to have overwhelming control of the Shia. It seemed to us that there could be a Shiite-dominated government but not an overwhelmingly Shiite government. In other words, Iraq could be neutral toward, but not a satellite of, Iran. In our view, Iraq's leading Shia -- fearing a civil war and also being wary of domination by Iran -- would accept this settlement.

We may have been correct on the sentiment of leading Shia, but we were wrong about Iran's intentions. Tehran did not see a neutral Iraq as being either in Iran's interests or necessary. Clearly, the Iranians did not trust a neutral Iraq still under American occupation to remain neutral. Second -- and this is the most important -- they saw the Americans as militarily weak and incapable of either containing a civil war in Iraq or of taking significant military action against Iran. In other words, the Iranians didn't like the deal they had been offered, they felt that they could do better, and they felt that the time had come to strike.

(cont)

Too bad we can't have a level headed discusion around here.

Hang on a minute - lets just check this out. You post a huge report by a biased US person. I comment about the posting - and you're saying that as if its my bloody fault??:confused:

I did read part 1 and part 2 actually.

Col

I did not go "off the deep end" if you don't mind.:mad: If you think that is going "off the deep end" then you need to get out a bit more:rolleyes:


Sorry Col. My point in saying you went off the deep was driven from the fact that instead off making relevant / non-rant / non-bash comment on some part of context of the post you seemed to turn it into an attack on me...:confused:


I merely pointed out how well behaved we'd been by not mentioning certain topics, then with almost your first thread start as a moderator you stirred it all up again.

Col

How is my responsibility to delete spams, etc on the forum members behalf supposed to prevent me from soliciting enlightened opinions from other posters on topics like the war in Iraq?

Sorry Col. My point in saying you went off the deep was driven from the fact that instead off making relevant / non-rant / non-bash comment on some part of context of the post you seemed to turn it into an attack on me...:confused:
merely quoting my surprise at the very subject being approached, being as 99% of the Americans on here blame Rich and I for the absence of some members



How is my responsibility to delete spams, etc on the forum members behalf supposed to prevent me from soliciting enlightened opinions from other posters on topics like the war in Iraq?

1) I thought you may set an example now and 2) I was under the impression it was a no-go topic (as was most things USA because of the sensitivity by some members). Glad its back to normal now though - as the song says "Things can only get worse":D

Col

merely quoting my surprise at the very subject being approached, being as 99% of the Americans on here blame Rich and I for the absence of some members

My quess would be 99% of the forum members period. Sorry :o


1) I thought you may set an example now and


Sorry. I thought I was. I'll try to bring it up a notch just for you. :)


2) I was under the impression it was a no-go topic (as was most things USA because of the sensitivity by some members). Glad its back to normal now though - as the song says "Things can only get worse":D

Col

fyi - 'Normal' may be a 'glad' thing for you - I don't have the resilience to endure any more of your sarcasim :o

Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq.
OK, OK, why is this even in there then? Looks like just useless trivial information.

OK, OK, why is this even in there then? Looks like just useless trivial information.

Seems he did wastes a little ink on that one - Ask the troops if they think they're in 'mildly better position'? :eek: :cool:

My quess would be 99% of the forum members period. there's 35,775 members, I think your guess is exactly that - a guess. It was a nice quiet week though wasn't it?



I don't have the resilience to endure any more of your sarcasim :osarcasm? - I've been holding back on that:rolleyes: I try not to do that too much;)

Col

sarcasm? - I've been holding back on that:rolleyes: I try not to do that too much;)

Col

Where? In another forum somewhere? :p

My quess would be 99% of the forum members period. Sorry :o




You mean those that just pop in and out on the odd occasion and always have done?

OK, OK, why is this even in there then? Looks like just useless trivial information.
Most of it is useless trivia and again is written by an American, sadly therein lies the problem with trying to be objective towards Iraq or even the term "why the world hates America"

OK, OK, why is this even in there then? Looks like just useless trivial information.

My guess would be it was aimed at people who scan through pieces like this, looking for 'hard' numbers. 216 is only slighlly higher than 185, so if that was all you judged your opinion on, it wouldn't look as bad. Plus, it allows for the production of nice graphs and the like, for displaying during press conferences.

My guess would be it was aimed at people who scan through pieces like this, looking for 'hard' numbers. 216 is only slighlly higher than 185, so if that was all you judged your opinion on, it wouldn't look as bad. Plus, it allows for the production of nice graphs and the like, for displaying during press conferences.
Maybe, but I think they sound like an idiot throwing all those numbers out, then in the next sentence saying, they don't mean anything. I don't mind reading right wing political fluff or even liberal propaganda, and trying to figure ouot what is really there, but what is the purpose of saying something, and the next sentence saying "nevermind?"

, but what is the purpose of saying something, and the next sentence saying "nevermind?"
Helps to get your name "in lights"

Maybe, but I think they sound like an idiot throwing all those numbers out, then in the next sentence saying, they don't mean anything. I don't mind reading right wing political fluff or even liberal propaganda, and trying to figure ouot what is really there, but what is the purpose of saying something, and the next sentence saying "nevermind?"

It would convince anyone who only read/listened that far? :confused: I'm guessing.

OK, I went back and read it again. truthfully I don't see where this appears to lean to either politcal side. Seems to be more informative than political in nature. unless the scenario is just bogus, but sounds about right from what we are seeing. So other than one stupid paragraph, I find it an interesting read.

ok Let's start to take this idiot apart

Counterinsurgency is unlike other warfare. In other warfare, the goal is to defeat an enemy army, and civilian casualties as a result of military operations are expected and acceptable.
Who the hell decided that civillian casualties are acceptable, America? :mad:
like I said at the start discussing this with America simply cannot be objective, it will not take the blinkers off!

ok Let's start to take this idiot apart


Who the hell decided that civillian casualties are acceptable, America? :mad:
like I said at the start discussing this with America simply cannot be objective, it will not take the blinkers off!
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. you are saying something the articule did not. The people who make war, know and expect civilian casulties, as part of making war. As Americans, we do not want to see civilian casalties, but it is what it is. It could be worse, war could still be fought like WW II where Germany was just throwing V2 rockets at London as an example. Not that it justifies, it just is.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. you are saying something the articule did not. The people who make war, know and expect civilian casulties, as part of making war. As Americans, we do not want to see civilian casalties, but it is what it is. It could be worse, war could still be fought like WW II where Germany was just throwing V2 rockets at London as an example. Not that it justifies, it just is.
But we, i.e. Bush and bliar started this war and as such BUSH especially are looking for excuses to justify it. THE idiot who wrote this article is totally missing the point. There was no justification for this war, it was fought on a lie and as such the statement that civillian casualties are acceptable is crimininal in itself

OK, I went back and read it again. truthfully I don't see where this appears to lean to either politcal side. Seems to be more informative than political in nature. unless the scenario is just bogus, but sounds about right from what we are seeing. So other than one stupid paragraph, I find it an interesting read.

As did I. For me it was interesting from a 'where is this thing headed' perspective. :)

As Americans, we do not want to see civilian casalties,
Why not? Too shocking for you? If you don't see it on your TV it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Maybe you should see it if you can find uncensored TV somewhere.
Have a look at the coffins arriving in the USA daily of your dead soldiers, have a look at the dead civilians that Bush has had killed, have a look at the disease ridden streets in Baghdad, the children dying of malnutrition / lack of medicines / lack of sanitation / lack of electricity / lack of clean water. All destroyed by the great world saving USA government.:rolleyes:

43,000 civilian deaths and 2,500+ US soldiers dead - for what? all because the US government over-reacted.:rolleyes:
US soldiers dead count (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

There are almost as many US military who died in Iraq than there were in the twin towers thing of 11/9.

Col

Myself I do not really see there is a dilema, but I am a simple soul.

Regardless of the legality, lies etc about why we (collective for all nationalities) are there to me it appears that the Iraqi people have no interest in having a democratic society. Civil war is a fact not a possibility.

Since there is no interest in democracy lets all pull out, close our borders to all Iraqi citizens and let them sort themselves out.

Len

Since there is no interest in democracy lets all pull out, close our borders to all Iraqi citizens and let them sort themselves out.


I think that now its all been screwed by the "West", they now want Saddam back.

What actually made Bush think that bombing the hell out of a country then trying to impose "democracy" on a them would work.:rolleyes: Did he expect them to roll over and say how fab the USA government is and embrace a new way of living?

I was reading on the USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-03-03-anti-american-usat_x.htm) website how the US tourists are being spat at, verbally attacked and generally not welcomed in various countries - especially Spain, all since the USA's quest for world domination.

Col

...since the USA's quest for world domination.

Col

My, my... Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? :)

I think that now its all been screwed by the "West", they now want Saddam back.

Col
I do not think that is quite the case. I think that various power groups are attempting to take over from where Saddam left off. It seems that secretarian executions run at about 30-40 per day. Muslims versus Muslims it seems.


That to me is civil war and this has resulted from the removal of the dictatorship that existed.

If it is Muslims versus Muslims then I do not agree it is a total screw up by the West, They merely provided the opportunity for the previously suppressed factions to come into the open and have a go at each other, and anybody else who potentially stood in their way of imposing their doctrine on the whole of Iraq.

The same situation would probably have existed if Saddam had just been extracted from the scene.

I do not believe that any extended presence by the West will improve the situation. They are now between two factions, neither of which has any wish to enter into any form of discussion, The Iraqi people to me do not seem to offer any support to the West .. so as I said. Close the door and let them sort it themselves.

As you know I am not a supporter of Blair. I do not support his close association with Bush. I believe Saddam was a threat to the West It was either remove him or isolate Iraq totally

The powers chose to remove him, having done that they should have then said, Iraq you have 7 days to either show your support for the West or we are off and its over to you.
Len

My, my... Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? :)
I am ambedextrous, I can get out on any side:D ;)

Col

I am ambedextrous, I can get out on any side:D ;)

Col

I'm guessing you just didn't get enough scoot... er, I mean motor-bike time this week end. :mad:

I'm guessing you just didn't get enough scoot... er, I mean motor-bike time this week end. :mad:
I had no motorbike time this weekend.:mad: Jobs to do at home.:rolleyes:

No, I tell a lie - I did pop round to get the chinky on it saturday night:cool: thats a 2 minute ride.

Col

I had no motorbike time this weekend.:mad: Jobs to do at home.:rolleyes:

No, I tell a lie - I did pop round to get the chinky on it saturday night:cool: thats a 2 minute ride.

Col

Didn't you have a gig - How'd that go?

What actually made Bush think that bombing the hell out of a country then trying to impose "democracy" on a them would work.:rolleyes: Did he expect them to roll over and say how fab the USA government is and embrace a new way of living? I've been trying to figure out that very thing for a while now. When you get an answer, let us all know, eh?...the USA's quest for world domination.What have we told you about stereotyping?

Sounds to me like everyone needs to get this into perspective. We're basically talking about Vietnam in the age of instant notification and constant news coverage. People are so completely used to instant self gratification, they forget that not everything can be corrected/modified/resolved instantaneously. Which essentially boils down to the fact that changes in foreign policy, regardless of magnitute, are instantly beamed around the globe where not only can the parties involved find out, but everyone else as well. Emotions run high, people are passionate about such things just as they were in the 60's, but now we have a great many more people involved. Spitting on Americans at airports is as rediculous as it was for the troops returning returning from 'Nam. Our technological advancements are indeed a wonder to behold. Funny how despite those advancements, bigotry, hatred, racism, and misplaced anger still abound.

...even in the 'cooler:(

Didn't you have a gig - How'd that go?
That was fine thanks.

I'm not in a mood, I'm glad things are ok again on the forum after such a quiet week last week:D ;)

Col

That was fine thanks.

I'm not in a mood, I'm glad things are ok again on the forum after such a quiet week last week:D ;)

Col

I would offer to mix it up with you to start the week on a high note and the adrenaline going but I guess I have to set an example now. :mad:

I would offer to mix it up with you to start the week on a high note and the adrenaline going but I guess I have to set an example now. :mad:Why's that? You don't see any other leaders of the free world setting such an example:eek:

Which essentially boils down to the fact that changes in foreign policy, regardless of magnitute, are instantly beamed around the globe where not only can the parties involved find out, but everyone else as well.
A fact that the US government uses to try to tell the world how great it is. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" thing that the Bush PR people set up on the aircraft carrier? How grossly wrong could that have been?

Our technological advancements are indeed a wonder to behold.
Yes its true, your guided weapons can find the dead centre of a Red Cross building from hundreds of miles away:rolleyes: They are so advanced, innocent people never know whats hit them.

Funny how despite those advancements, bigotry, hatred, racism, and misplaced anger still abound. Yes, but we're trying to help with that - god knows, its a long struggle though:rolleyes: Maybe if Bush didn't have those "qualities", New Orleans would get built a bit quicker.

Col

"Mission Accomplished" thing that the Bush PR people set up on the aircraft carrier? How grossly wrong could that have been?the operative descriptor being "Bush PR People". They're idiots. The entire administration seems hellbent on acting out the sort of pubescent chest thumping we all endured on the playground as children. But again...not my fault, I didn't do it, I don't care.Yes its true, your guided weapons can find the dead centre of a Red Cross building from hundreds of miles away:rolleyes: They are so advanced, innocent people never know whats hit them. Wasn't that Israel? What's your point? Drop another one...a bigger one...the big one...twice

Personally, I think we need to fall back to the borders of the middle east (note, that's not Iraq) and just let the whole area implode. Let them fight, keep it contained, and prevent outside influence. Who cares. After they're done killing each other, they'll be in no condition to threaten, harass, or otherwise inject themselves into the world view. Of course we'd then have to deal with all of the bleeding hearts who want to offer humanitarian aid, whining all the while they extend a conflict that just needs to be allowed to run it's course. Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it...

Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it...
Know how you feel - last week every time I turned on the TV there was someone going on about the twin towers falling down.:rolleyes:

If I saw those towers collapse once I saw it 50 times. Then they had on the widows. . . . . . . all sad and crying for the camera, whilst counting the $3million compo with the other hand.:rolleyes:

Col

Know how you feel - last week every time I turned on the TV there was someone going on about the twin towers falling down.:rolleyes: Don't care about that either. It's over. Deal. Lifes a beach then you get eaten by a shark...shut up and swim.

Don't care about that either. It's over. Deal. Lifes a beach then you get eaten by a shark...shut up and swim.

http://www.extremescience.com/images/teeth.jpg

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Personally, I think we need to fall back to the borders of the middle east (note, that's not Iraq) and just let the whole area implode. Let them fight, keep it contained, and prevent outside influence. Who cares. After they're done killing each other, they'll be in no condition to threaten, harass, or otherwise inject themselves into the world view. Of course we'd then have to deal with all of the bleeding hearts who want to offer humanitarian aid, whining all the while they extend a conflict that just needs to be allowed to run it's course. Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it...

Ultimately that is what will happen.

Back to riding camels and fighting each other with swords; 6000 years of tradition is hard to get over.

The only answer is for us to stop using their oil, or go back to the original deal. A bushel of grain for a barrel of oil.

The only answer is for us to stop using their oil,
Thats really funny Josie. . . . . You mean get the USA to give up V8 gas guzzlers and consider the needs of rest of the planet? :D :D :D

Christ!! I was nearly hit by a flying pig just then!:rolleyes:

Col

why should we? We have the rest of you so well trained to use little fuel sipping, no powered, no fun, boredom machines so we can run around in big V8s( and V10s, and V12s, hey and don't forget Bentley's W18:eek: ) enjoying the open road...oh yeah...forgot...you don't have any of that on your little Island either:(

why should we?
well Josie seems to favour the idea. Perhaps if you paid more than 5c per gallon you'd think differently:rolleyes:

Col

Back to riding camels and fighting each other with swords; 6000 years of tradition is hard to get over. So much time has been wasted on "bringing democracy to the region" without due consideration that the region in question is neither prepared nor eager for a democratic way of life. Honestly, I don't think the democratic system works in this particular scenario.The only answer is for us to stop using their oil, or go back to the original deal. A bushel of grain for a barrel of oil.Or walk in and take it after the population self terminates.

Perhaps if you paid more than 5c per gallon you'd think differentlyI do, but gas prices are falling and I have a motorcycle:D . I'd be all for eliminating the usage of their oil, but that's a solution that is at least two decades off even with an intense effort.

and I have a motorcycle:D .
Ah yes, you're one of us (Me and Rich) Its not a Hardly Driveable is it?

please tell me its something sensible:cool:

Col

Ah yes, you're one of us (Me and Rich) Its not a Hardly Driveable is it?I refuse to pay the price tag for a Hardley. We drove my wife's brand new sportscar off the lot for less than your average Softtail:eek: please tell me its something sensible:cool: of course:rolleyes: 1980 Honda GoldWing...NakedWing, actually.

of course:rolleyes: 1980 Honda GoldWing...NakedWing, actually.
Ah yes, a Honda man - very good:D As you may know, I have a Honda ST1100 Pan European - and a little Suzuki 400 for whizzing round town on:D

Rich has a Guzzi

I think Ken is a Hardly man:rolleyes: but I expect the tablets will kick in soon and he'll see sense:D ;) :p

Col

...I think Ken is a Hardly man:rolleyes: but I expect the tablets will kick in soon and he'll see sense:D ;) :p

Col

Nah. I've done the Honda, Suzuki, etc stuff. Once you've ridden the best you can never go back. ;)

Nah. I've done the Honda, Suzuki, etc stuff. Once you've ridden the best you can never go back. ;)So true...but why'd you buy the Suzi and the Hardley then?:confused:

Once you've ridden the best you can never go back. ;)
http://www.gvs-agrar.ch/mf-service/mf_images/pg_8400.jpg

Col

Col's:

http://www.krbearsanddolls.com/images/GroovinScooter.jpg

Ken's:

http://www.hdrcgb.org.uk/motorco/2002/images/P_FXDWG.jpg

And it'll still beat yours in a drag race:rolleyes: :p

Col

And it'll still beat yours in a drag race:rolleyes: :p

Col

In your dreams... :D

Ken's:

http://www.hdrcgb.org.uk/motorco/2002/images/P_FXDWG.jpg


Ken's actuall:

http://home.ama-cycle.org/membersonly/museum/images/b103/1934%20CAC%20Speedway%20right%20side_600.jpg

I'll take it! :):)

It'll go about as fast as the one you've already got!

It'll go about as fast as the one you've already got!

Now Rich, Just because you don't have one doesn't mean you should be jealous...:D Besides, us old men aren't about fast - we like to cruise
;)

Now Rich, Just because you don't have one doesn't mean you should be jealous...:D Besides, us old men aren't about fast - we like to cruise A friend of mine has a relatively new Softtail with the Harley 1450cc. Thing shakes too much and makes entirely too much noise. Good thing he can't manage to get it in front of my GL1100 'Wing or I'd not be able to enjoy the comfort of a smooth quiet ride.:cool: I like to go fast while I cruise:D :D

A friend of mine has a relatively new Softtail with the Harley 1450cc. Thing shakes too much and makes entirely too much noise. Good thing he can't manage to get it in front of my GL1100 'Wing or I'd not be able to enjoy the comfort of a smooth quiet ride.:cool: I like to go fast while I cruise:D :D

Ah... A scooter is a scooter is a scooter to me. Just razzing col - :)

Ah... A scooter is a scooter is a scooter to me. Just razzing col - :)No probs. My 'Wing rides nice and runs great but it's about as ugly as can be so I spend lots of time razzing (and getting razzed by)Hardley riders:D

Hardley riders

Oxymoron, surely?:p :cool:

Oxymoron, surely?:p :cool: freudian slip

freudian slip

Aren't slips what Hardly users wear?:eek:

Aren't slips what Hardly users wear?:eek:

That's not very nice Ricky. :mad:

The only answer is for us to stop using their oil, .
Well you won't have to now that a huge deposit has been found in the Gulf of Mexico. I wonder how long it will be before the US decides it wants a puppet installed there too?:confused: :rolleyes:

Besides, us old men aren't about fast - we like to cruise
;)
thats the stock Hardly Driveable owners answer.:rolleyes: "Fast" is not even an optional extra.:p

I see the US police have decided to see sense and drop the HD's and get something far superior
http://powersports.honda.com/images/police_cruiser/pc_main.jpg

Full spec here (http://powersports.honda.com/police_cruiser/ST1100p.asp)

Col

Those are fine if you want to catch one of these:

http://www.planetmobility.com/store/scooters/wheelcare/superlight/old%20lady2.tif.jpg

Those are fine if you want to catch one of these:

http://www.planetmobility.com/store/scooters/wheelcare/superlight/old%20lady2.tif.jpgahhhh...look closer:

Isn't that the trainer they use for Hardly Runs?:cool:

http://www.psndealer.com/powersportsdlr/images/NewVehicles/2001califjackal.jpg
I like to cruise and go fast!
Ok, Ok mine's Silver, not red, but could not find a good pic of a silver one. :)

I just found the local 'Guzzi dealer and have been contemplating stopping in to check out the new Griso 1100....any word on the reliability, power output, etc?

Well you won't have to now that a huge deposit has been found in the Gulf of Mexico. I wonder how long it will be before the US decides it wants a puppet installed there too?:confused: :rolleyes:

That's off the coast of the US dude.

Thats really funny Josie. . . . . You mean get the USA to give up V8 gas guzzlers and consider the needs of rest of the planet? :D :D :D

Christ!! I was nearly hit by a flying pig just then!:rolleyes:

Col

Actually Col we don’t get much of our oil from the Middle East.

By the way as I said earlier and was snuffed by the far right on this site as liberal. This latest run up of pricing was 100 percent invented by the big oil companies. There is not and has not been a shortage of oil. The US capacity has been running about 10 percent off for the last year or so.

Further more since the beginning of the oil era, the total global consumption of crude has been about 1 trillion barrels.

The current “very conservative” estimate puts the remaining at 4.5 trillion.

That's off the coast of the US dude.
So's a little country called Mexico who the oil find belongs to. Now, what was your point?

I just found the local 'Guzzi dealer and have been contemplating stopping in to check out the new Griso 1100....any word on the reliability, power output, etc?
wildguzzi.com has a forum, and the Grisco gets pertty good reviews there.
Guzzi's are known for their reliablity, not that they never have any issues, but it is one of the few rides that are not even considered broken in until they have 20,000 miles on them. You can check out that forum and ask, you will get a lot of answers.

Just don't leave it out in the rain:eek: ;)

Just don't leave it out in the rain:eek: ;)
I should know better, but I must be stupid today or something, but I'll bite. OK RICH, why do you say that?

I'm sad to say it but Italian chrome is not very durable;)

So's a little country called Mexico who the oil find belongs to. Now, what was your point?

Are you that daft?

Louisiana, can you say, part of the United States?

The oil fields are located in U.S. waters. The Gulf of Mexico is not a lake you know. It's more like an ocean.

The oil fields are located in U.S. waters. The Gulf of Mexico is not a lake you know. It's more like an ocean.
It doesn't matter where the oil is, the USA will just take it anyway, or if its not given willingly they'll invade the place under the pretext of the "war on terror" excuse.:rolleyes:

Further more since the beginning of the oil era, the total global consumption of crude has been about 1 trillion barrels.

The current “very conservative” estimate puts the remaining at 4.5 trillion.
Total crude oil imports to the USA averaged 10,153 million barrels per day in July 2006. ref from US gov energy dept (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

Now I may be wrong here, but divide 1 trillion by 10,153 million and I get that the USA uses 1 trillion barrels every 98 days. Where did you get your figures from Josie?

In the U.S., one trillion is written as the number "1" followed by 12 zeros (1,000,000,000,000). ref NASA (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_big_is_a_trillion.htm)


Col

Are you that daft?

.

Not as daft as you apparently:rolleyes:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/14/125153.shtml

It doesn't matter where the oil is, the USA will just take it anyway, or if its not given willingly they'll invade the place under the pretext of the "war on terror" excuse.:rolleyes:


Col
No that's the third excuse, first it was WMD when that failed to fool anybody it was "spreading democracy" now it's the war on terror:rolleyes:

No that's the third excuse, first it was WMD when that failed to fool anybody it was "spreading democracy" now it's the war on terror:rolleyes:
Yes, but I was thinking that not even the Americans would try the first two again. . . . . .would they?:confused:

Col

Not as daft as you apparently:rolleyes:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/14/125153.shtml
Sorry, we were talking about different finds.

It doesn't matter where the oil is, the USA will just take it anyway, or if its not given willingly they'll invade the place under the pretext of the "war on terror" excuse.:rolleyes:


Total crude oil imports to the USA averaged 10,153 million barrels per day in July 2006. ref from US gov energy dept (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

Now I may be wrong here, but divide 1 trillion by 10,153 million and I get that the USA uses 1 trillion barrels every 98 days. Where did you get your figures from Josie?

In the U.S., one trillion is written as the number "1" followed by 12 zeros (1,000,000,000,000). ref NASA (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_big_is_a_trillion.htm)


Col


You're off by either a language barrier. Or three orders of magnitude.

The total daily is 10.153 million not 1.0153 billion, A trillion is 1,000,000,000,000.

Which is 98 thousand days of consumption.

Very good.

Where did you get your estimates from?

Col

Very good.

Where did you get your estimates from?

Col

There was an article in last years Wall Street Journal on the oil sands in Canada (said to contain 1.2 Trillion barrels. Later I saw a Discovery Channel special on oil consumption.

The estimate for undiscovered fields is from 4.5 to 9 trillion barrels.

The reason the production estimates have risen sharply in the last few years is the implementation of advanced technology to locate deep fields. They are discovering new ones almost weekly now, hence the disagreement between Rich and I about the new Gulf of Mexico discoveries.

They now believe they have discovered a new find under Colorado that is even larger than the original Saudi fields.

So back to my earlier assessment, the oil companies and the oil producers are trying hard to mimic the DeBeers family and keep a strangle hold on the world supply.

But like the DeBeers and manufactured diamonds, soon, very soon, technology is going to favor alternative fuels. And the balancing act between strangling consumers and fueling innovation will lean towards the latter.

The prudent oil companies (British Petroleum being one of the first) should be investing more and more into alternative fuels and regions like the US/Canada and the EU should put aside whatever differences we have, and develop fusion energy so we can power our civilization for 10,000,000 years not a 150.

I'm sad to say it but Italian chrome is not very durable;)
Ah, that is the nice thing about the Jackal, it does not have all that "bling" on it. About the only chrome is the exhaust.

No that's the third excuse, first it was WMD when that failed to fool anybody it was "spreading democracy" now it's the war on terror
WMD, WMD! We have shown that was an English misinformation thing, where about the only thing you can blame the US on for that was listening to the English :rolleyes:
"spreading democracy", been doing that for longer than I have been alive, so nothing new, just RICH harping again.
"war on terror", well, they started it, so pi$$ off.
Besides, it seems to be working some what. No attacks in the US for awhile.

WMD, WMD! No attacks in the US for awhile.


Probably more accountable to the CIA and its programs then the war in Iraq.

"war on terror", well, they started it, so pi$$ off.
Besides, it seems to be working some what. No attacks in the US for awhile.
Oh thats ok then - never mind Bali, Madrid, London, Turkey, Iraq etc etc

as long as the USA is safe thats all we worry about.:rolleyes: god bless america

Don't forget who armed the Taliban up to the teeth to fight the Ruskies, etc etc etc

There was a programme on satellite a couple of weeks ago about just how clever the planning of the 11/9 thing was. When you think about it, getting the towers to collapse must have had architectural knowlege - it was very interesting

Col

There was an article in last years Wall Street Journal on the oil sands in Canada (said to contain 1.2 Trillion barrels. Later I saw a Discovery Channel special on oil consumption.
.


Extracting the oil from the sands just to satisfy the American disregard for the planet is too high a price to pay!:mad:

WMD, WMD! We have shown that was an English misinformation thing, where about the only thing you can blame the US on for that was listening to the English :rolleyes:
.

It was a concocted excuse to try and get the invasion past the UN, the only people that fell for it were American:rolleyes:

"spreading democracy", been doing that for longer than I have been alive, so nothing new, just RICH harping again.


Where and when ?:confused:

Extracting the oil from the sands just to satisfy the American disregard for the planet is too high a price to pay!:mad:
So the U.K. does NOT use any oil?
Sort of like saying, he killed 10 people, I only killed one, so leave me alone and go after him.
Sorry, not buying it.

It was a concocted excuse to try and get the invasion past the UN, the only people that fell for it were American
So if I am reading that correctly, then the whole Iraq thing is the U.K.'s fault and the U.S. gov. was just stupid to believe them?

So if I am reading that correctly, then the whole Iraq thing is the U.K.'s fault and the U.S. gov. was just stupid to believe them?
No, Bush wanted to invade Iraq to finish off what his daddy didn't do, and of course to make his name in history as the biggest prat of a president the USA has had.

Had you seen Fahrenheit 9/11 then you would know that.

Col

Extracting the oil from the sands just to satisfy the American disregard for the planet is too high a price to pay!:mad:

Up yours Rich, aren’t you tired of hearing your worn out rhetoric. I know almost everyone else is.

But are you just to simple to get that.

Maybe you're just jealous that we've had the big stick for a while; 400 years of British global domination wasn't enough for you huh.

Iran; is the real danger. Back before the war when the administration was looking for excuses to invade (Iraq) they turned to the Iraqi expatriates for info on Iraq. It turns out that the Iranians had infiltrated the intelligence flow and “salted “the mine, so to speak.

They fed their Iraqi-Americans bad intell so we would get rid of the Iraqis for them; removing the only obstacle in their way to regional dominance.

Imagine the U.S. being an international pawn.

My, how the times have changed.

Up yours Rich, aren’t you tired of hearing your worn out rhetoric. I know almost everyone else is.

But are you just to simple to get that.

Maybe you're just jealous that we've had the big stick for a while; 400 years of British global domination wasn't enough for you huh.


Up yours too and if you read before opening your gob you'd know that the environmental cost of extracting the oil is more damaging than the final product. And since you keep on about the oil sands of Canada as securing the US future oil dependency it's obvious to anyone with any sense that you see Canada as a mere outpost of the US:
rolleyes:

So the U.K. does NOT use any oil?
Sort of like saying, he killed 10 people, I only killed one, so leave me alone and go after him.
Sorry, not buying it.
We have our own and we use from other sources that don't add so much to the global destruction as that used to extract the oil from the sands

We have our own and we use from other sources that don't add so much to the global destruction as that used to extract the oil from the sands
Oh, you do do you?
But I thought your issue from many other post was the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, no matter where the oil came from?
Seems like you flip flop depending on if you are talking about the U.S.A. or not.

Oh, you do do you?
But I thought your issue from many other post was the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, no matter where the oil came from?
Seems like you flip flop depending on if you are talking about the U.S.A. or not.
No you're missing the point like Jenny, extracting the oil from the sands does more damage to the environment than the final product.
It's because of the process used to extract the oil


it takes a great deal of energy to recover bitumen and turn it into oil. An enormous amount of greenhouse gases are released in the process.

In fact, making oil from tar sands produces two or three times more greenhouse gases than producing conventional oil.

We have our own

But you're quite happy to export said oil to us gluttons for a price ;)

Tsk, tsk - talk about feeding the fire :p

But you're quite happy to export said oil to us gluttons for a price
Actually I'm not but we're told the oil would need too much refining for us therefore it's more beneficial to sell it to your heavy old oil burners:cool: :p

... therefore it's more beneficial to sell it to your heavy old oil burners:cool: :p

more beneficial for whom - the environment :confused: