http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1813706,00.html

The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets.

One oil speculator told me that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. I asked him if Iran is right, what does that mean?

"Four dollar a gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas."

Let's hope this is enough deterrent.

I have always said, Iran can retaliate in a crippling manner... but most just shrug it off for some reason thinking they have no power to hurt us in any way if we attack them. They would cripple our country without even firing a shot at us.

Add in the missiles raining on our bases in Arab countries around them. It is suicide.

Israel cannot attack or contain Iran on its own; it needs the full military might of the United States behind it. So in the meantime Israel can only huff and puff, hoping new sanctions on Iran will do the trick.

So much for the Israeli's being able to crush Iran...

In October 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik. Then, in May of 1961, John F. Kennedy challenged the country that we'd have a man on the moon before the decade was out. What followed in that decade was more engineers and scientists graduating from college than any decade previously as the whole country rallied around the cause. Sure, we'd have gotten to the moon at some point - but President Kennedy used his office to rally the country behind the goal.

If we had a President with the balls to say that by 2020 we'd never buy another drop of oil again, we'd find a way how. We'd never have to worry about Iran jerking us around, and the Middle East would sink back to a role of insignificance in world politics.

If we had a President with the balls to say that by 2020 we'd never buy another drop of oil again, we'd find a way how. We'd never have to worry about Iran jerking us around, and the Middle East would sink back to a role of insignificance in world politics.

Amen.

Amen as well!

The only problem is, JFK didn't have billions of lobby dollars against sending a man to the moon. :mad:

Any president with balls big enough to pull something like that off....wouldn't be able to wear pants.;)

Amen as well!

The only problem is, JFK didn't have billions of lobby dollars against sending a man to the moon. :mad:

Any president with balls big enough to pull something like that off....wouldn't be able to wear pants.;)

Well, Obama is black, he should have more between his legs than McCain!!


Yes I made a generalization based upon race, I'm such a jerk!

Not worried about it at all. if you think we would be dumb enough to attack Iran with a gulf full of traffic. your dumber than Rumsfeld.
Any attack wont be a suprise strike like Israels Syrian attacks but instead will be telegraphed quite visibly and the time to start the worry will be when reports come in that our carriers have withdrawn from the gulf proper and we have shut down incoming traffic to the gulf.

It's a range game and thats a game Iran is ill equipped to play with us on.

Hell Fandros can confirm from a tech stand point that we dont even the carrier wings or the Trident's doubtlessly parked off the coast of Iran. we can hit them from Diego Garcia.

Iran wouldn't do it.

They would piss off every single country in the world. China would flip their lids.

Iran would be completely and utterly alone.

But the fact that they can say "BOO, OIL!" and we start sweating should be a clue as to what a fucked up situation we find ourselves in.

You mean to insinuate L2 that a country who rely's heavily on it's oil exports and refined petroleum imports wouldnt gut the lifeblood of it's nation to increase the size of its E-peen?

Iran wouldn't do it.

They would piss off every single country in the world. China would flip their lids.

Iran would be completely and utterly alone.

I think you're underestimating the extent to which our aggression would galvanize the region against us, allowing justification for almost any reasonable retaliation.

L2's and Velvet's scenerios ring true. Iran is bluster, we're more than capable of forcing their hand and in the end noone wins.

Tho Iran would be back 40 years in Nuclear development at the very least so perhaps in the end the end would justify the means.

Iran cannot be allowed to arm their weapons with nuclear material. If that means we lose out on oil and are forced to move away even soon so be it.

If they're all bluster, then why are we escalating and treating them as such a threat? It can't be both ways.

OK, some of this will be rambling and may even appear tin foil, but so be it.

First off, as far as Iran hurting us with oil, I don't think we have that much coming from them although I could be wrong. However, taking oil off the market would make our sources respond to demand by raising prices so it would impact us that way, at the least.

And San, regarding our bluster and attempts to escalate the situation, I would again point out that the chief architect of hostile action against Iran is Cheney, and Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and HB was already fined for delivering oil well equipment to Libya that could be used in nuclear programs, and Cheney/HB skirted US/UN sanctions against doing business with Iran and engaged in commerce that very well could have involved the same equipment that got them a spanking with Libya; and so, Cheny may be orchestrating the bluster and escalation in a feeble attempt to keep the nation and world from seeing that he and HB had their hands all over Iran's nuclear program. Tin foil hat, maybe; but, it could be the real motivation for Cheney's abrupt about face with the country that lined his pockets while holding Americans hostage.

As far as Iran taking the action they describe, I think that making such a possibility known brings more weight to bear on diplomacy, because those countries that would be most affected will be making their positions known to all concerned parties, to be sure.

I don't believe for an instant that Congress would tolerate Bush even bringing such action before them, and if he were to initiate such action as CIC with only a few months left before he leaves office, Vegas would make a killing on odds of his declaring martial law and taking over the country. I can't see an attack against Iran without his planning on staying in charge.

I dont doubt that Iran would respond..

But they wouldnt touch oil tankers moving through the gulf. That isnt a direct assault on us, as much as it would be on Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Qatar, and Kuwait.

No, no, no... If you ask me the threat of closing down the Gulf is a Red Herring.

If I was in the Iranian military.. I dont answer a direct strike with an indirect one.. nope.. I would go right after US interests in a serious way in retaliation.

This threat of the closing the Gulf is a ploy to get us to panic and move more naval assests into that area. With any sort of ground troop invasion off the table, moving ships into the Gulf creates a target rich environment.
US would have to move ships into tanker protection roles. Iran feints at the tankers then unleashes a massive salvo on their real target, a US Carrier, the ultimate symbol of US Power.

So then what is the next move for the US? Papers around the world have a picture of smoking damaged Aircraft Carrier limping into port. We can't invade, and Iran wins a MAJOR victory.

We have to be careful with Iran, if we move against them, it has to be massive, overwhelming and hurt them so badly they do not want to stike back. A little surgical strike on nuclear facilities will leave them to justifiably retaliate against US Military assests in the area in a way they are more than prepared for.

/agree L2

Strike to end it, not to "spank them".

Europe stepping up the sanctions against Iran. Imho the way to go for the moment.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-34083620080616

So then what is the next move for the US? Papers around the world have a picture of smoking damaged Aircraft Carrier limping into port. We can't invade, and Iran wins a MAJOR victory.

While our commander in chief may a bungling Idiot there is no way Naval command would ever leave those assets in range of shore based "silkworms" EVER. the only reason we even have them in the Gulf proper ATM is E-peening so to speak.
Unless Iran launches a pre-emptive strike at our carriers you'll never see that picture. and if they do that, Allah help the poor bastards.

heh.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548

And if they attack a carrier AFTER we launch a bombing strike on them, then what? You think we can build a coalition after we started the shooting on ANOTHER war of choice? You think any country is going to be willing to stand with us in any significant manner after the mess Iraq is?

What are we going to do? Bomb them more? From where? Turkey wont let us, Iraqis would go beszerk, the Gulf would be a shooting zone.

Invade? With what army?

Nope. The truth is that Iran has us by the short hairs because of our idiocy in Iraq, and they know it, and they are going to twist.

We need their oil more than they need our money.

The last time Iran stopped selling oil, back in 1978, the world price of oil only doubled. Of course back then Saudi Arabia was able to step in and replace almost all of the shuttered oil production.

A shooting war would probably make oil hit $1k/barrel within hours, and at that price, the number of businesses that would go tits up would make a modern 1929 Great Depression. And it is my believe that a 1929-level depression is the most positive possible outcome of a shooting war with Iran (scenarios near the most negative end involve "the end of western civilization"). We're already seeing businesses fold because of $4 gas (the folks in England are paying near $15/US gallon for gas/petrol). Just think about how messed up things will get at $40/gallon gas in the US. Many people won't be able to afford to commute to work - even assuming they have jobs anymore. Truckers who ship things to your local stores will end up out of business.

About 95% of middle eastern oil travels out via the Straits of Hormuz. That is a narrow passage within artillery range of several hundred miles of coastal mountain range. No matter how big your dick waving gets, you can't sink a mountain range.

When we invaded Afghanistan, we removed a government hostile to Teheran, and the removal of that government allowed about 1 million Afghan refugees in Iran to return home. Pakistan is home to another million Afghan refugees, but not all of them want to return to Afghanistan.

When we invaded Iraq, we removed a government hostile to Teheran. Hanging Saddam permanently ended the Iran-Iraq war on behalf of Iran - and I contend that that war was only on hold while both sides regrouped.

During Iran-Contra, the administration in the Whitehouse publicly condemned Iran while doing behind-the-scenes deals with Iran. And this administration not only repeated the public condemnation and private dealings, the current administration hired many of the same actors in the Iran-Contra drama. It would therefore be very reasonable for the Iranians to disregard every last bit of public bellicosity by the occupants of the Whitehouse because their model of US-Iran relationships say that we're all hat and no cattle.

The simplest explanation for eliminating 2 governments hostile to Iran, that were bordering Iran is that bush and cheney are Iranian agents. :devil

I think the US gets less than 10 percent of our oil from Iran, the vast majority still comes from North America. It wouldn't be that bad. At about $10 / gallon using a form of liquidized coal is more cost effective, and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Right now the financial gains in alternative energy are on a rise. I'm thinking within the next 10 years our oil usage will begin to drop off towards zero as the costs keep going up.

What WE get is irrelevant, what % of global supply are they is the ?

Iran is in the exact position they want to be in. They can threaten us all they want with retaliation, knowing that if we actually attacked, that it would be the most embarrassing defeat the U.S. has faced in recent memory. No objective can be met against Iran with a simple Air Campaign.

Iran will respond, and the only way to stop them will be to send troops to Iran, and sending troops to Iran is suicide.

It is time to realize that Iran will be a Nuclear power, and if that makes you mad you can blame Bush for stacking the cards in Iran's favor.

the vast majority still comes from North America.


I kind of like those commercials too...interesting how most of our oil comes from North America yet we have this odd dependance on foriegn oil...I wonder why that is.

I kind of like those commercials too...interesting how most of our oil comes from North America yet we have this odd dependance on foriegn oil...I wonder why that is.

/nod me thinks there is a misinformation campaign going on some where. So where is our oil coming from exactly? Does anyone really know?

Oil - production: 8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - exports: 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)

Oil - imports: 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)

Oil - proved reserves: 21.76 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)

So we have to be getting it from some where.

And does that mean we have in our reserves only 1 day's worth of oil? Scary.

About 1 day x 1,000.

Iran is in the exact position they want to be in. They can threaten us all they want with retaliation, knowing that if we actually attacked, that it would be the most embarrassing defeat the U.S. has faced in recent memory. No objective can be met against Iran with a simple Air Campaign.

Iran will respond, and the only way to stop them will be to send troops to Iran, and sending troops to Iran is suicide.

It is time to realize that Iran will be a Nuclear power, and if that makes you mad you can blame Bush for stacking the cards in Iran's favor.

Let's make this clear, it wouldn't be a traditional defeat by any means.

It could, possibly, be a PR defeat of huge proportions.

As for air...well Jedd you don't know of what you speak so let's leave it at that. Nothing would remain of the infrastructure after the first nights, SUPRISE, bombing from quiet skys.

If we went into it with any other objection than making Iran a smoking heap we'd deserve to have CNN trump our fuckup.

Do it right and there is no retaliation....none.

Oh, enjoy the sanctions Iran, I imagine it's getting hot in there.

Let's make this clear, it wouldn't be a traditional defeat by any means.

It could, possibly, be a PR defeat of huge proportions.

As for air...well Jedd you don't know of what you speak so let's leave it at that. Nothing would remain of the infrastructure after the first nights, SUPRISE, bombing from quiet skys.

If we went into it with any other objection than making Iran a smoking heap we'd deserve to have CNN trump our fuckup.

Do it right and there is no retaliation....none.

Oh, enjoy the sanctions Iran, I imagine it's getting hot in there.

An air bombing campaign on Iran would cost how much? Don't count the assets we lose. Just count the actual bombs, missiles, and jet fuel. Iran is HUGE. We cannot take out every possible Iranian retaliatory measure in the first 10 hours of the campaign. Iran will also not leave every military asset out in the open for us to hit.

Iran is preparing for an Assymetric style of warfare. A type of war where we attack, and then they hit us where it hurts when we least expect it, with assets we did not expect them to still have.

I agree it would simply be a PR defeat. Iran could never win, but they can get close by making us retreat.

I kind of like those commercials too...interesting how most of our oil comes from North America yet we have this odd dependance on foriegn oil...I wonder why that is.

Well sure, because today its part of the free market and supply vs demand. We were talking the worst case scenario here. IF Iran were to close down all oil out of the gulf, we could probably negotiate to rely on Mexico and Canadian oil as well as liquid coal and other sources. Its very recent that its been a good economic investment to go to the alternative energy sources and I can't help but think at some point in the next decade our oil usage will plateau and start to diminish as the costs continue to rise.

The United States holds a quarter of the world's coal reserves. 25%. Thats a fucking LOT. Most of our plants are so old their efficiency is ass (some as low as 30%) but we could make new ones with better efficiency and power our country for at least another 50 years (150 years at the current energy demands). Also we're close to 9% of our current energy demands in renewable resources and as it gets more cost effective to do so - we'll keep growing in this area while improving energy efficiency. California has grown tremendously, but hasn't used any more energy than they used to in 1970. It can be done across the country, and it probably will create a ton of jobs and get the economy trucking back in the right direction.

While it would be disastrous immediately, it wouldn't be a death knell in any stretch of the imagination and probably would help us remove our heads from our asses and work on solar and other projects. Maybe even manufacture renewable resources as a nation and have a solid export again.

While it would be disastrous immediately, it wouldn't be a death knell in any stretch of the imagination and probably would help us remove our heads from our asses and work on solar and other projects. Maybe even manufacture renewable resources as a nation and have a solid export again.

You're ignoring the issue of how we'd get from point A to C, when point B is economic collapse. If we wait until Iran (or anyone) makes a move like this, many of us will never see what comes after the "disastrous immediately" bit.

Canada and Mexico rely on us for food and coal as much as we rely on them for oil. Our governments could quickly work out trade agreements where we only traded between each other until all of us were out of the rut.

The price of gas would go from $4 to $10+, and sure some people would still pay it - but only for the most desperate of things. Telecommuting would triple or quadruple overnight. People would walk or ride a bicycle or take public transportation powered by our coal and renewable power for the same cost then as they do today.

Food costs would go up, but they are already and the shifts are already starting. We'd eat a bit less, probably less meat, and some would go hungry. But we've got prime agricultural real estate and maybe instead of using tractors we'd put some man hours and a plow into it. Farmers markets locally will become a better source of food than food shipped from farm to Wal-mart distribution centers 3 states away and then back to the local stores.

People would lose their jobs, but we've been bleeding manufacturing jobs for years. It'd be a great time to retool and gear up for manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars ...

It'd be hard, but surely not impossible. And coming out of it, like the depression, we'd probably be a lot better for it. My grandmother and grandfather never wasted anything living through the depression, and they taught my parents to do the same. I still wear clothes from high school 9 years later, but it makes more sense than to buy new just for the sake of having something newer or nicer. There's some mentalities we could really use to shake and disaster is one of the few and surest ways to reteach on the grand scale.

In other words...our economy would collapse.:devil

In other words...our economy would collapse.:devil

Not just ours, but everyone relies on oil almost as much as they rely on food. Its relative, so it'd be a wash. However, we have the means to survive something like that far better than most.

If everyone in the world makes $500k a year, and you make $300k / year ... you are poor. If everyone in the world makes $30k a year and you make $60k a year, you are rich?

And if you make $60k/year, but the cost of oil causes food to cost $75k/year to feed your family? Would that be a wash?

That sort of relativity is already happening in parts of the world today, where it wasn't a year ago.

Your family is a bunch of fatties Sanchek :( My girlfriend and I spent $12,000 on food last year and I put on 6 lbs and we ate out around 2 times a week. Go on a diet and save some of that money.

Let's make this clear, it wouldn't be a traditional defeat by any means.

It could, possibly, be a PR defeat of huge proportions.

As for air...well Jedd you don't know of what you speak so let's leave it at that. Nothing would remain of the infrastructure after the first nights, SUPRISE, bombing from quiet skys.

If we went into it with any other objection than making Iran a smoking heap we'd deserve to have CNN trump our fuckup.

Do it right and there is no retaliation....none.

Oh, enjoy the sanctions Iran, I imagine it's getting hot in there.

I was reading about a military war game in the past decade or so, simulating that sort of scenario. It was supposed to be a technological defeat of the simulated Middle Eastern enemy, but the guy leading team-enemy used unconventional tactics and completely routed the good guys.

In response, they changed the parameters of what the enemy could do, won, and called the whole thing a success.

Anyone remember the name of that exercise? I've been searching for a half hour, but can't find it now. IIRC, it had aspects very relevant to our current situation with Iran.

I remember that... I read about it on globalsecurity.com somewhere

Your family is a bunch of fatties Sanchek :( My girlfriend and I spent $12,000 on food last year and I put on 6 lbs and we ate out around 2 times a week. Go on a diet and save some of that money.

/sigh. Those weren't current numbers (or related to me). I was just framing it in terms of your example.

What do you think happens to food prices when petro based fertilizer and pesticide costs go through the roof and yields drop? What about the fuel costs to actually produce the food? Do you think all that farm equipment runs on rainbows and sunshine? What do you think happens to food prices when the cost of transporting it multiplies?

That barely scratches the surface, but you get the idea.

Personally? My girlfriend and I will be fine for years, no matter what happens. I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is my family, my friends, neighbors, you guys, and the rest of the country.

The point isn't to fixate on a depressing doomsday, but to hopefully instill at least some sense of the dire consequences that accompany our fucking about when it comes to foreign policy. We can overcome these issues if oil increases slowly and the market sorts out alternatives gradually.

Millenium Challenge 2002? (Paul Van Riper appears to be the name to search for.)
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

/sigh. Those weren't current numbers (or related to me). I was just framing it in terms of your example.

What do you think happens to food prices when petro based fertilizer and pesticide costs go through the roof and yields drop? What about the fuel costs to actually produce the food? Do you think all that farm equipment runs on rainbows and sunshine? What do you think happens to food prices when the cost of transporting it multiplies?

That barely scratches the surface, but you get the idea.

Personally? My girlfriend and I will be fine for years, no matter what happens. I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is my family, my friends, neighbors, you guys, and the rest of the country.

The point isn't to fixate on a depressing doomsday, but to hopefully instill at least some sense of the dire consequences that accompany our fucking about when it comes to foreign policy. We can overcome these issues if oil increases slowly and the market sorts out alternatives gradually.

Yes, but balls to the walls we can figure something out better than most of the world. The fertile lands in the United States is unparalleled compared to the rest of the world. We might not get to eat guacamole or bananas but survival for us won't be as bad as say ... India (850+ people per square mile), China (350+ people per square mile) or even Mexico (140+ people per square mile). Canada has a low population density, but most of their population is along the US border and they will also rely on our fertile lands for their food needs. We'd have to get horses or electric tractors out in the fields, and we'd maybe have to get by without the fanciest fertilizers or pay for them at high prices, true. But in an oil free world the two most valuable resources will be coal and food, and we've got the means to be the #1 producer in the world.

It was said earlier in this thread that China wouldn't let it happen, because they've got everything to lose, so its a moot point. But if it happened, ironically, when the dust settles we'd probably end up back on top.

Being on the top of the heap isn't worth much when it's a heap of rubble.

That entire scenario should be unthinkable. Western civilization is not acceptable collateral damage, just to show some brownish people that they should do as we say instead of as we do.

Millenium Challenge 2002? (Paul Van Riper appears to be the name to search for.)
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

Yeah, that was it.

Being on the top of the heap isn't worth much when it's a heap of rubble.

That entire scenario should be unthinkable. Western civilization is not acceptable collateral damage, just to show some brownish people that they should do as we say instead of as we do.

I won't disagree with you at all. I was against Iraq when most of the world was for it (scroll back in time here if you doubt me). I was just arguing if it did happen, we'd still survive :) And probably be better for it.

I think the US gets less than 10 percent of our oil from Iran, the vast majority still comes from North America. It wouldn't be that bad. At about $10 / gallon using a form of liquidized coal is more cost effective, and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. The US gets zero oil from Iran. Perhaps you are thinking of the oil we get from Iraq.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
The top table are the imports of crude oil. The bottom table are the imports of crude plus natural gas plus refined products.

Oh, enjoy the sanctions Iran, I imagine it's getting hot in there. The climate of Iran is pretty much like the climate of Arizona. Very hot deserts in the south. Teheran is on a plateau with a climate like Flagstaff. I know, I lived there back when the Shah was in power.

Unlike Iraq, Iran occupies three dimensions. So there is no possible way that a "hail mary" desert push could exist. During the Iran-Iraq war, women and children volunteered to march across mine fields to clear the way for the soldiers. And women and children volunteered to charge machine guns. I don't think there have been any other cases of human waves charging machine guns until the barrels melted since Stalingrad in WW2.

Any attempted armor push into Iran has to work their way through well known passes. IEDs can cut through even M1 armor. And a stalled armor column in a mountain pass is a dead armor column. Any drunken goat herder could easily hit a parked tank with an RPG. And if he was too drunk to do so, he could hit the opposite side of the pass, cause an avalanche and bury the tanks alive. Iran is 4x the land area of Iraq, with about 3x the population. We can't pacify Iraq with our existing troops, so any attempt to pacify Iran would require massive levels of genocide that guarantee the US would become the outlaws of the world forever, or a mandatory draft sucking up several million soldiers in Vietnam 3.0. And in either case a civil war inside the USA.

Well sure, because today its part of the free market and supply vs demand. We were talking the worst case scenario here. IF Iran were to close down all oil out of the gulf, we could probably negotiate to rely on Mexico and Canadian oil as well as liquid coal and other sources. Its very recent that its been a good economic investment to go to the alternative energy sources and I can't help but think at some point in the next decade our oil usage will plateau and start to diminish as the costs continue to rise. Chavez has stated publicly that he'd stop exporting oil if Iran was invaded. You'll notice Venezuela pretty high up the list (5th as of today). Canada's side of NAFTA requires them to keep exporting oil to the US and the only way that CA can reduce exports would be to reduce their own domestic consumption by the exact same amount. Mexico's oil production is plunging (at about 15%/year) because Cantarell is running out of oil, and that single field produces 60% of Mexican oil production (and about 24% of the government revenue for MX). It doesn't matter if we boost Alaskan oil production as most of that oil gets exported to Japan already.

The problem is that we have to pay for oil at market prices. There have been some cases of supertankers making u-turns in mid ocean because someone else was willing to pay more for the oil than we were willing to pay. As I pointed out before, I believe that an attack of Iran would send oil prices over $1k/barrel within hours of the attack. We'd be bidding on the oil at the same prices that everyone else is bidding. That is how the commodities market works: highest bidder gets the prize, everyone else gets to stand there and watch. You might be forgetting that one of the complaints we have about China, Venezuela and Iran is that they're signing long term (think of 15 to 20 years) contracts for oil and natural gas. Our government's position is that there should be no contracts and that oil should only be sold at market prices.

The last president to do anything serious about alternative energy was Carter and everything he did was cancelled by Saint Ronnie. If it weren't for Reagan, CAFE would have gone up to about 40mpg - which means that the weighted average fuel economy of cars sold in the US would be at 40mpg or higher.

I recall reading something years ago, and wish I could remember where and what so I could link, regarding the oil companies based in the U.S. and the percentage of the oil and gas they sell to the American citizen versus how much goes to foreign countries. Frankly, I was amazed.

Anyway, now Bush and McCain are pushing for lifting the ban on coastal exploration, and also raising the topic of Anwar again. Anyone think it might be of any use to contact our Senators and Congressional Representatives to demand that any leases to drill given to these oil companies include provisons to sell the product to America first? After all, the justification for lifting the bans and opening up Anwar is to ease the pain we are feeling at the pump, so it would be foolish to let these folks drill the oil only to sell it at a profit to Japan, don't ya think?

I see the problem as Iran cutting off oil and our greedy oil exec's racing to make up the difference and some nice cash by selling to the high bidder rather than taking care of the U.S.

Further pressure from the West (primarily the EU atm).

http://www.reuters.fr/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2008-06-23T153328Z_01_L23607518_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-EU.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-4

What is that in English Fandros?

LMAO I grabbed the wrong link, sorry brb

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBRU00659920080623

How can so many countrys simply be wrong about Irans nuclear program? The EU which is HUGE, the US...ect. Jedd any insight?

How can so many countrys simply be wrong about Irans nuclear program? The EU which is HUGE, the US...ect. Jedd any insight?

So many countries have their own agenda, and crossing the United States is not one of them. We say "jump", they say "How high?"

Remember years ago, when we were using the IAEA's opinions as our justification for escalation? Here's what they're saying as of this month:



"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," said the IAEA chief.

ElBaradei, repeatedly stressing that a military strike would be the worst result for the region, added that an attack would give Iran more motivation to obtain nuclear power, Reuters reported.

This myth that they're building nukes over there is being dispelled constantly, but people are ignoring the facts in favor of the baseless rhetoric of escalation coming from Fox News.

You'd think that we wouldn't fall for the WMDs again so soon... At least make them change up how they trick us into going along with carrying out more war crimes.

....with the reports coming out from IAEA, one of which Sanchek just mentioned, and the track record of the worst and most corrupt administration in US history, it makes one wonder what is true about Iran's doings.

Every reliable report I have seen puts any real weapon production around ten years out...yet we continue to escalate now (I suppose because a certain someone, a speaker, and a VP only has until the end of the year to get another war started). I now have to question if Iran is doing anything to aid insurgents in Iraq....it seems like it may be true, but is it just more rhetoric getting us to that next war? How involved are they in the Hezzbollah and the rocket attacks on Israel, the evidence seems compelling, but consider the sources.

We here in the US like to think we here all sides of issues and that if something is blatantly false we'll hear about it. I'm confident at this point in time we don't on both counts....until much later when it's swept under a rug or ignored by the apathetic masses.

A war started against Iran would get my but out a chair and on the street protesting....I can find absolutely no justification at this point. Be looking for a nice manufactured attack on Americans or American interests made to look like it came from Iran in the coming months.:devil

At least make them change up how they trick us into going along with carrying out more war crimes.


LOL...that reminds me of my Dad when I was a teenager getting in trouble for the same crap over and over...he would say "Aren't you getting bored with this...go find something new to get in trouble with"