Discussion in 'Current News' started by usmarinemike, Sep 7, 2010.
The US is a net exporter of oil.
I've heard about ten different figures in the media WRT how much oil the US consumes and how much it produces.
Really? I've never heard that. We're a major oil producer, but we're THE major oil consumer.
Third paragraph - should have clarified about the "refined products" part.
We are the main helium exporter in the world, and that comes from natural gas wells mostly.
Refined products we are a net exporter of but we still are a net petroleum importer because we import mostly crude oil but generally only export refined products.
/petroleum engineer rant
Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk
This - I'm not advocating "nuking" anyone - I'm just saying leave - get our people the hell out of there now. The "nation building" can't succeed when they don't want to build their own nation and they can't keep their police/military/etc from murdering our own people who are supposed to be there to try to help them.
Besides there's no need to kill anyone else over there - they'll kill each other plenty as soon as the external support leaves and their government falls apart. So be it.
As a taxpayer, I don't want another damn cent spent over there for anything except keeping our own people safe while we get them home. Now.
If another need for military force arises there in the future, I am sure our team will be up to the challenge.
In case you haven't noticed, that's kind of the plan. It just doesn't happen overnight.
Article on wnd.com discussing POTUS ambiguous statement about punishing the book burners and NATO's statement saying they would be prosecuted in A-Stan. Scary stuff.
I have noticed - that the current plan is 2014, supposedly after we've trained 'em up to run their own nice, safe pleasant country in the modern world. Seems like the evidence is pretty quickly adding up that the current plan is BS.
I understand we can't get out overnight. But we can do better than two more years. If they want help, they need to get on the team. How many more ISAF troops & other westerners - supposedly there to help "nation build" - are you OK with the Afghan military & security forces murdering? They're up to about 60+ so far.
At that rate, probably only about 100 more dead American & allies until we leave in 2014. I'm talking about advisers & the like being murdered on Afghan bases & in Afghan government facilities by people in the government we're trying to help, not military deaths in combat operations)
I'm just not OK with that - & we can do better than 2014.
It's not as black and white as you would portray. I don't think we retain the illusion that Afghanistan will become a shining liberal democracy anytime soon. That said, there is value in setting Afghanistan up for as much success as they're likely to have - that means continuing to train their security forces. This is obviously not without risk to our personnel. Don't make the mistake of interpreting US policy as us "doing a favor" for an ungrateful Afghanistan. We're continuing to expend blood and treasure because in the calculus done at the various levels of leadership, a more stable Afghanistan is ultimately in the national security interests of the US. We're going to have a significant support presence in Afghanistan (I've heard the 20K number thrown around recently) for years to come (way beyond 2014). The more we're able to set them up now, the easier their job will be going forward.
I agree Brett. It's not Black and White, it's ROYGBIV. In my humble opinion the 800 lbs gorrilla in the room are the Pakastanies, in particular some high ranking India obsessed ISI types. Until they get on board with whatever the plan is (and they won't), I don't see this ending well but I still have hope.
The Pakistanis aren't "on board" because they're hedging their bets that the US won't fully commit to the area (which we aren't/shouldn't). This lets them have some semblance of a working relationship with the Taliban, who like it or not, will regain a degree of power (political and military) once we're gone. We have a reputation (sometimes deserved) for not finishing what we start. Pakistan is simply making a rational calculation based on that reality. It's not particularly helpful to our cause, but you can't really blame them for acting in their own best interests.
there's hedging your bets and then there's looking the other way while bin Laden sets up camp around the corner from "West Point"....
I'm not excusing it, just explaining it. It's not that big of a mental leap to see elements within the Pakistani establishment doing that. They (obviously) have a very different outlook on the entire situation than we do.
I don't know how accurate this report is, but the gov't of Afghanistan believes the personnel who were involved in this incident are going to stand trial...
I can't believe that this would be possible. Do these guys really deserve to be brought to trial (either in the US or Afghanistan) for this incident?
Isn't there a SOFA?
How would this square with the civil rights of the soldiers who stand accused?
Yeah, I'm thinking absolutely not. What's the crime? These guys aren't subject to Sharia or the Afghan justice system (lol). I'm thinking this is just lip service until the whole thing blows over. The "perps" will be found to have acted out of ignorance or unintentionally, blah, blah, blah.
I don't think Pakistan is hedging any bets, they want us out of thier backyard preferably unsuccseful. They paly both sides because they need our money and didn't want to piss us off after 9/11. We put up with thier shit because of the Nukes.
The Taliban is a creation of the ISI and the the AQ element was the price for the Saudi cash they took to stabalize southern Afganistan and thier own northern provinces after the Soviets left so they could focus on India. It's a messed up part of the world.
The Afghan government believes a lot of things that sometimes doesn't square with reality. I am speculating but we may have said something along the lines of looking at 'reprimanding' those who did it, which we probably take as sternly cautioning those who did it not to do it again, while the Afghans take it as something quite different than what was actually said. Several times in dealing with some of our 'partners' overseas myself or the guys I was with would say we would look into/examine/see if we could do something for them and they would claim later that we promised them that we would do it. Uhhhh, no. It was a bit of a game with them, trying to extract anything they could out of us. They knew exactly what we said but if they weren't getting what they wanted they would try and get it by haggling with/haranguing us. It didn't work very often but that was their way of doing 'business' or just socially interacting. Was it frustrating at times? Yeah, but haggling over tea is a lot better than shooting each other.
Putting our folks on trial though? I am not seeing it happen in the real world.
Playing both sides... I think that's exactly what I said - hedging their bets. The Taliban's relationship with AQ and Pakistan is/has been extraordinarily complex.
I should have wrote "They appear to paly both sides because they need our money and didn't want to piss us off after 9/11". Us being succseful in any way is something Pakistan will fight.
Well, that's certainly one interpretation.
don't laugh too hard at the article helolumpy posted - I would not be surprised at all to see this administration's senior civilian leadership lean heavily on the chains of command to hold article 32s - at a minimum....
Separate names with a comma.