Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Moonsword on July 09, 2004, 11:04:35 am
-
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879057.stm)
This might be of interest to some of you guys, especially Sandwich.
-
I wonder how many people notice the oh so subtle pro-Israeli slant, even in an article about news critical of Israel. It pisses me off, because I see this is almost every Western media outlet.
Lets not call it a wall, that has negative conotations, lets call it a barrier. A fence. That way, people think "backyard chain-link fence" instead of "towering concrete monstrosity, 15 feet tall with barbed wire and machine-gun nests". Smarmy.
(to be fair I think I remember Sandwich pointing out that in places, the wall was somewhat less fortified, but I don't think that the one negates the other. What would be interesting to somehow, I don't know how, find out what the average is.)
-
Most of its length it's just a fence, I heard. It's only a real wall on the most critical spots.
-
There's a ****load of it that's a huge wall, but there's an equal amount that's just chain-link bakcyard fence.
-
Israel have stated that they will ignore the judgement anyway.
-
Natch
-
...o, natcho man. I want to be, a natcho man!
-
Like we didn't expect that. Diplomacy only works if backed up with the threat of force... and what chance is there of someone on this side of the old iron curtain actually doing it?
-
If they're still screwing around when I take over the country, I'm just gonna send a fleet of various helicopters to rocket the **** outta the whole damn thing. The wall, the fence, the Israel tanks, a few hundred Palestinians........
-
A balanced response?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Most of its length it's just a fence, I heard. It's only a real wall on the most critical spots.
that massive towering wall makes up a measly 5% of the planned route... most of it is fence with barbed wire ditches and the like.
-
And where might these fences with barbed-wire and ditches be?
-
Which makes the "£1,000,000 per mile" that the BBC TV report said seem very unlikely.
-
I bet you it's an electric chain link fence.
-
The fence is a sensored fence that warns of attempts to penetrate. It is not electrified. I served for 8 months along a similar fence on the Israeli-Lebanese border on Har Dov. There's a control center that receives warnings when the sensors go off, but that's the only thing that uses electronics. And even that isn't the most reliable - it was always giving off false alarms due to plastic bags in the wind, animals, breaking down completely, etc. As a matter of fact, I have an interesting picture...
Darnnit, I can't find the pic I wanted. It was of me and a friend bouncing on a malfunctioning part of the border fence, trying to get it to report movement to Control. Shame I lost that pic. :-/ Anyway, here's another picture, of the border fence between Israel and Lebanon, circa 1998.
-
Im glad the UN ruled against Isreal/U.S. Fencing. I know most of you will say US has nothing to do with it......LOL
Now maybe Isreali's and Palestinians can learn to turn the other cheek.
Pisses me off to see such religiously inclined races use that religion to justify their wars. Both need to stop fighting like angry brothers and start doing things for the people and not for land.
Both countries and its people who support war need to grow up because it is possible to co-exist you just have to try until it works instead of threatening genocide on each other.
DOWN WITH THE WALL!
LONG LIVE CO-EXISTANCE!
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Im glad the UN ruled against Isreal/U.S. Fencing. I know most of you will say US has nothing to do with it......LOL
Which it doesn't. More to the point, it won't work.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Which it doesn't. More to the point, it won't work.
what wont work?
the barrier/wall/fence?
already working... when was the last suicide bomber attack agaisnt civilians in Israel?... we have forced them to attack our army, forcing them to "play by the rules" if you will. seems like it works to me. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Splinter
what wont work?
the barrier/wall/fence?
already working... when was the last suicide bomber attack agaisnt civilians in Israel?... we have forced them to attack our army, forcing them to "play by the rules" if you will. seems like it works to me. :doubt:
Seriously? tell more please. I'm not mocking, I swear.
-
I think it's all a conspiracy because they don't want bunny rabbits and critters between the countries inter-breeding because it might give people ideas that we can all live in peace ;)
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Seriously? tell more please. I'm not mocking, I swear.
AAAAAAAAH lol cant tell .... sarcastic? not? AAAAAAAAAH
what more is there to tell?
there hasnt been a sucide bombing in like... months... not that they havnt tried but they have all been stopped or blown up at check points where army is present.
the last terrorist attack was with rockets that in the decade they have been lobbinb them finally hit somthing... unfortunatly it was a kindergarten and kiulled a child and seriously wounded a pregenant mother. therefore the army went in... again looking for the missles and thier launchers and gun battles ensued people died yadda yadda the whole mess continues the only diffrence is now the risk to civilians is so much less then it was and they havnt even finished the barrier/wall/fence that people are starting to breathe easeir (at least those who dont have family in the army)
I suspect this conflict will continue for a long time but in a number of months all suicide bombing attempts have been stoped or blown up prematurly. Im sure they will still manage to slip some guys through after all a barier is man made and therefore has weaknesses but even the amount of bombing attempts has dropped by more then 75% since the terrorist leader were "targeted"
most things cannot and should not be resolved with violence... however when all else fails... build a wall :lol:
And if you were being sarcastic... well who cares? at least somone might read this for serious :p
-
ummm... how deep does the wall go?
-
Tunnels, eh? I don't know.
-
yeah, well I wouldn't worry about it too much, I mean it's not like there known for digging tunnels or anything.........
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't God be protecting his chosen people?
-
he is, by way of the AH-64
-
I just wish they'd of built it in their own territory, instead of criscrossing over bits of the pally land.
-
well the thinking goes something like this
A) there atacking us
B) we have all the power
c) we can do it and suffer no repecusions
so why not error on there side of the line
-
Originally posted by an0n
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't God be protecting his chosen people?
IMHO, God's done his work. Whatever we do with the lives and skills we have is our own problem now.
-
What the wall very likely is, is a boundry line. Israel knows damn well that they can't keep this up forever, nor can they just wipe out the Palestinians. So, they know that a Palestinian state will at some point be created. This just pre-empts the whole thing, and established a "border of convenience" as in: "hey, since we have this handy dandy wall here, why not just call that the boundry line". Thats why it cuts into Palestinian land.
The other reason is to carve up the land in such a way as to isolate settlements form one another. Divided they fall. Already, several settlements are completely isolated from thier crops, their schools, their places of work, which as you might imagine, makes life a tab bit difficullt for the Palestinians.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well the thinking goes something like this
A) there atacking us
B) we have all the power
c) we can do it and suffer no repecusions
Well, in fact there have been repercussions in the past, for example concerning the attack on that iraqi nuclear reactor site in the 80's (it was called a "preventive strike" - deja-vu, anyone?). In this case, even the US didn't veto the UNSC resolution against Israel.
But it's one thing with receiving a letter and another with opening it and paying the bill. That the first part happens does not ensure the second won't be skipped to the wastebasket.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well the thinking goes something like this
A) there atacking us
B) we have all the power
c) we can do it and suffer no repecusions
so why not error on there side of the line
depends what you mean by B... that we have all the power in military fashion? or all the power to stop or continue this conflict? or the power to end the world? I mean thats a pretty vague comment.
C is just plain not true... we suffered the reprecusions before we did it. Basically it cant exactly get worse then it was. unless they start acquiring major offensive weapons. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What the wall very likely is, is a boundary line. Israel knows damn well that they can't keep this up forever, nor can they just wipe out the Palestinians. So, they know that a Palestinian state will at some point be created. This just pre-empts the whole thing, and established a "border of convenience" as in: "hey, since we have this handy dandy wall here, why not just call that the boundry line". Thats why it cuts into Palestinian land.
The other reason is to carve up the land in such a way as to isolate settlements form one another. Divided they fall. Already, several settlements are completely isolated from thier crops, their schools, their places of work, which as you might imagine, makes life a tab bit difficullt for the Palestinians.
Yeah I’m pretty sure that they gave up the right to "happy go lucky lives" when they started bombing someone instead of trying to sort it out the nice way without dead bodies. Actually you will probably say that they did in fact try and sort it out the easy way on paper telling us basically you go screw yourselves give us everything that is yours now that you have fought and won in 5 wars give us all that and we will let you live in peace on your own land.
Sure there is Joe and Jane Palestinian who just want peace and never wanted any of this conflict to start but they should be complaining to the B****rd terrorists making life miserable for both sides.
Life for them doesn’t have to be that way. If what they wanted was to simply live in peace they could do that easily... if all they wanted was their own state they would all be in Jordan. Unfortunately the "voice" of the Palestinians in this conflict is the terrorist organizations who want neither of these. And unfortunately for peace seeking Palestinians this casts a bad light on all of them. They were given ample chances to police their own... we even equipped and trained them... but they did f*** all to stop the terrorists they proved themselves unworthy or incapable of governing themselves and until they do I’m afraid someone else is going to have to police theme cause there is no way in hell that a country can stand by and say "oh wow look there’s another terrorist bombing... this is number 239? Wow I hope they do something about it soon" gimmie a break! They missed their chance. If they want another they will have to earn it. If you ask what makes it Israel’s responsibility? It’s when Israel’s civilians started paying with their own lives for the ineptness of the Palestinian authority to govern its own people.
-
clarification on point B) I meant military power, if you wanted to you could kill every last one of them, they on the other hand do not poses such an ability
-
Originally posted by an0n
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't God be protecting his chosen people?
Look at Israel's history since 1944. Out of the literal ashes of the piles of burnt bodies in the Holocaust, we formed a nation that was attacked the very day it was formed, by multiple enemies on all sides. We fought them off and won. In every war since then, Israel has - against all odds (and this includes military odds) - not only fought off her attackers, but gained territory by pushing the battles out into enemy land.
There are numerous stories of literal miracles during the heat of battle. One that comes to mind is the Israeli tank unit - no more than 10 tanks IIRC - that was told to hold a certain hill from the approaching Egyptian tank corps, which had them vastly outnumbered. As the Egyptian forces approached, all of a sudden they halted, abandoned their tanks and gave themselves up. When they were asked to explain their actions, they said to the Israelis, "You couldn't fool us! We saw the hundreds of glowing tanks you had behind that hill, waiting to ambush us!"
Israel, FYI, does not have any light-emitting tanks.
We are a drop of 6 million Jews in an ocean of mostly hostile Arab Muslims, surrounded by them on every side. Yet we're still here.
I'd say God's done a pretty amazing job protecting His people - we didn't always have the 4th most powerful military in the world. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
(...)Israel has - against all odds (and this includes military odds)
:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_war
EDIT:
I saw this on TV earlier but they showed a concrete barrier instead of er... barbed (sp?) wire... did they film the wrong stuff (:lol: ) or does it alternate?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
...
The other reason is to carve up the land in such a way as to isolate settlements form one another. Divided they fall. Already, several settlements are completely isolated from thier crops, their schools, their places of work, which as you might imagine, makes life a tab bit difficullt for the Palestinians.
origonaly posted by the Wikipedia
First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948
Right after the UN partition plan was approved, heavy fighting broke out in Palestine. The British Army frequently intervened, but as the end of British involvement in Palestine drew nearer and attacks on them by Irgun and Lehi increased, their intervention grew steadily more inconsistent and reluctant.
The Arabs concentrated their efforts on cutting off roads to Jewish towns and Jewish neighborhoods in areas with mixed populations. At the end of March, the Arabs completely cut off the vital road going from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem where one sixth of Palestine's Jews lived.
heh, Karma's a ***** ain't it :lol:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_war
EDIT:
I saw this on TV earlier but they showed a concrete barrier instead of er... barbed (sp?) wire... did they film the wrong stuff (:lol: ) or does it alternate?
The media knows that people wont care so much about a friggen fence but when they see this vast wall they are appalled... TV stations get ratings by bringing out more emotion in people plain and simple the wall is part of the barrier as said before but a very small part. They choose to film that small part because it will evoke emotions. Stupid media :hopping:
-
Well, Suppose you could try compromise, remove part of the wall, and if any terrorist activities take place, you would all be perfectly justified in putting back up, though media wouldn't be able to taint your reputation? I know it put's peoples lives at risk, but then, to get peace, you have to take those risks sometimes :(
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Look at Israel's history since 1944. Out of the literal ashes of the piles of burnt bodies in the Holocaust, we formed a nation that was attacked the very day it was formed, by multiple enemies on all sides. We fought them off and won. In every war since then, Israel has - against all odds (and this includes military odds) - not only fought off her attackers, but gained territory by pushing the battles out into enemy land.
There are numerous stories of literal miracles during the heat of battle. One that comes to mind is the Israeli tank unit - no more than 10 tanks IIRC - that was told to hold a certain hill from the approaching Egyptian tank corps, which had them vastly outnumbered. As the Egyptian forces approached, all of a sudden they halted, abandoned their tanks and gave themselves up. When they were asked to explain their actions, they said to the Israelis, "You couldn't fool us! We saw the hundreds of glowing tanks you had behind that hill, waiting to ambush us!"
Israel, FYI, does not have any light-emitting tanks.
We are a drop of 6 million Jews in an ocean of mostly hostile Arab Muslims, surrounded by them on every side. Yet we're still here.
I'd say God's done a pretty amazing job protecting His people - we didn't always have the 4th most powerful military in the world. ;)
considering what Israel's had to deal with in the past, you're doing a good job so far.
-
Splinter, does the wall become made of concrete around urban areas or is there some other reason why it alternates? In either case, they have a reason to complain... remember Berlin's wall?
-
Originally posted by Splinter
the media knows that people wont care so much about a friggen fence but when they see this vast wall they are appaled... tv stations get ratings by bringing out more emotion in peopel plain and simple the wall is part of the barrier as said before but a very small part. they choose to film that small part because it will evoke emotions. stupid media :hopping:
the media is usually subjective, they blow /everything/ out of proportion to get people's attention.
-
Yes, at times, its a fence. And at times, its this:
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1059480548449_2003/08/01/2n_wall,0.jpg)
(http://electronicintifada.net/artman/uploads/kidswall5_001.gif)
and here is a flash presentation that shows the route that the wall takes. Notice its relation to the Green Line.
http://gush-shalom.org/media/seperationmap_eng.swf
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, Suppose you could try compromise, remove part of the wall, and if any terrorist activities take place, you would all be perfectly justified in putting back up, though media wouldn't be able to taint your reputation? I know it put's peoples lives at risk, but then, to get peace, you have to take those risks sometimes :(
Why? Isn't the drastic reduction of successful suicide bombings since the security fence went up enough of an indication that the fence is doing its job?
-
Since you're a supporter of the wall, tell me, why exactly is it necessary to cut into Palestinian land? nearly 50% of the West Bank is to be annexed, according to the statistics I've read. If this is a legitimate measure, and not a land grab, then why was it not built along the Green Line?
-
Well if that barrier Guards against terrorist attacks then it's good :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Why? Isn't the drastic reduction of successful suicide bombings since the security fence went up enough of an indication that the fence is doing its job?
At what cost is the fence to the ordinary Palestinian, though?
EDIT;
Col. (res.) Shaul Arieli, who was the last commander of the Gaza regional brigade of the IDF, says that the effectiveness of the barrier is only short-term. "The fence provides a partial security response to the terror threats and a good response to prevention of illegal immigration and prevention of criminal acts," he explains, "but on the other hand, in its current format it creates the future terror infrastructure because this terror infrastructure is precisely those people living in enclaves who will support acts of terror as the only possible tool that they perceive as being able to restore them the land, production sources and water wells taken from them." Arieli also said that the barrier is designed to induce the Arabs of the border region to leave so that Israel can expand. (Haaretz, February 18, 2004)
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Since you're a supporter of the wall, tell me, why exactly is it necessary to cut into Palestinian land? nearly 50% of the West Bank is to be annexed, according to the statistics I've read. If this is a legitimate measure, and not a land grab, then why was it not built along the Green Line?
Dude, I'm not a supporter of the security fence. In my (faith-based) opinion, Israel is dividing God's land.
Now, I can't think of a human solution to the problem that exists between Israel and the Palestinians. But I also don't understand why the heck Israel's being pressured to give up land she won during the 67 war - a war which no sane person can deny we were provoked and threatened into.
But I'm not the goverment, and I don't set policy. Why does the fence not follow the pre-67 border? I don't know. I could hazard some guesses, but I'd rather not provoke things further.
If you play with fire, you're gonna get burned:
- If you amass armies on the borders of a neighboring country, one that you attacked the very day it came into being, asking for a fight, then by golly, you're gonna get one. And don't come crying to mommy when you lose the fight you started, either.
- If you send out wave after wave of suicide bombers to blow enemy civillians up, and then hide amongst your own civillians, don't be surprised when not only do you not get what you want ("No negotiation with terrorists."), but your own people pay the price for the terror you cause, since you've so wisely made yourself inseperable from them.
If you play with fire, YOU. ARE. GOING. TO. GET. BURNED.
Hell, even children learn after they get burned the first time not to mess with fire. Why can't terrorists?
EDIT:
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]Col. (res.) Shaul Arieli, who was the last commander of the Gaza regional brigade of the IDF, says that the effectiveness of the barrier is only short-term. "The fence provides a partial security response to the terror threats and a good response to prevention of illegal immigration and prevention of criminal acts," he explains, "but on the other hand, in its current format it creates the future terror infrastructure because this terror infrastructure is precisely those people living in enclaves who will support acts of terror as the only possible tool that they perceive as being able to restore them the land, production sources and water wells taken from them." Arieli also said that the barrier is designed to induce the Arabs of the border region to leave so that Israel can expand. (Haaretz, February 18, 2004)[/q]
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier)
I agree 100%. And do you think that the Israeli government is outright stupid? No, of course not. They know this, which is why they have repeatedly said that the fence is temporary.
-
Because playing with fire is what they percieve to be justice. Because Israel says "We have a right to have a country here" and they (they being Palestinians, but also Israel's enemies) say "Thats all well a good, but its not your land".
Might does not make right. Just because Israel has defended itself does not mean it that they are right. Similarly, if Israel was defeated in 1967, that would not make the other side right.
I can understand that your beliefs are founded in religion, but can you accept that religion is very, very subjective, and therefore makes for a terrible line of arguement when discussing interaction between nations and religions. If there is to be peace, both sides must base their actions on common sense and not religion. Because religion can't be argued, its a matter of faith. The solution must be a political one, because a religious one is almost impossible. Which means that neither side can use "God gave us this land, we are His chosen people" and similar arguements.
The IDF are as much terrorists to the Palestinians as suicide bombers are to Israelis. Neither side has a monopoly on suffering. So, saying that they are playing with fire by sending suicide bombers (which, "they" are not sending, it is individual organizations that are responsible) makes as much sense as saying you are playing with fire by killing civilians, hoardig the water, humiliating them, assassinating their leaders etc etc. I hope I'm getting the point across, I don't really know how much sense that makes to anyone but myself.
edit: heyyy, wierd. I was just reading that exact same paragraph on wikipedia a few hours ago.
-
A few weeks ago, I heard some interesting facts on the problem Israel vs. Palestine in the public international law lecture I'm attending this semester. Fact is : until the 1940's, the area around Jerusalem, including Jerusalem itself, was dominated by the Palestine people, while the Israeli were just a minority. Yet following the mass murders in Europe during the Nazi regime, and forced by some influential beings in the U.S., many, many (and I mean : MANY) jewish people, previously scattered all around the world, began immigrating into Palestine, which culminated in the founding of the state of Israel.
I guess that's a very important thing to recognize : imagine your home county is sort-of "invaded" over years, until you're the minority, and you just can sit and watch, because you have no means of stopping it. Wouldn't that result in "frustration", to say the least? And if this situation does not change over the years, but rather gets worse, wouldn't that result in pure hatred?
And here's a central aspect of the problem : the Israeli build the wall/fence to prevent terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks occured to get revenge for military assaults on the Palestine people. These assaults again were revenge for previous terrorist attacks, and so on, until you get to the point that it all started with the events that lead to the founding of Israel. However, who can blame them for founding "their" state? They were there for thousands of years, it is their origin. But the same is true for the Palestinians. But by the means that were employed so far, from both sides, they cannot co-exist in peace, and probably never will.
A marriage simply doesn't work when it's arranged from the outside. At least in most cases. And once the beds are separated it's difficult to change that again.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Which it doesn't. More to the point, it won't work.
Reported today on CNN:
US Approves the Isreali wall, however wants isreal to push it back a little bit compared to where they are now.
Sounds like support to me.
You isreali's didnt learn from the berlin wall? There are other solutions, more civil solutions but isreal is on such a war footing they wont even consider civil options.
Isreali's infringe on Palestinian lands and territory, palestinians bomb isrealis for doing so. Your both in the wrong, therefore neither deserves any support considering neither side is trying toi stop the war, only trying to aggravate it with this wall, or their patrols, or their suicide bombers.
World would be better off without any of them IMO. Its sad to see two cultures fight over land and territory in this day and age, but here they are, continuing a battle that is so old no one can remember how it really started anymore, and no one cares to know.
Maybe they will nuke each other, problem solved....
Its sad, but im sure im not the only one who thinks this way.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, Suppose you could try compromise, remove part of the wall, and if any terrorist activities take place, you would all be perfectly justified in putting back up, though media wouldn't be able to taint your reputation? I know it put's peoples lives at risk, but then, to get peace, you have to take those risks sometimes :(
They don’t even need to try that. Because as I said before terrorist attacks are still occurring but the point is they are being stopped within the barrier. They are being blown up on the army. If we opened a part in the barrier now they would just take the bombers off the army and back onto the civilian populous... that would just be dumb on our parts.
-
The whole area was dominated by the palestinian people, in 1931 there were 1 million palestinians compared to 80,000+ jews. Important fact most people overlook when discussing the conflict.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Reported today on CNN:
US Approves the Isreali wall, however wants isreal to push it back a little bit compared to where they are now.
Sounds like support to me.
You isreali's didnt learn from the berlin wall? There are other solutions, more civil solutions but isreal is on such a war footing they wont even consider civil options.
Isreali's infringe on Palestinian lands and territory, palestinians bomb isrealis for doing so. Your both in the wrong, therefore neither deserves any support considering neither side is trying toi stop the war, only trying to aggravate it with this wall, or their patrols, or their suicide bombers.
World would be better off without any of them IMO. Its sad to see two cultures fight over land and territory in this day and age, but here they are, continuing a battle that is so old no one can remember how it really started anymore, and no one cares to know.
Maybe they will nuke each other, problem solved....
Its sad, but im sure im not the only one who thinks this way.
So here we go just ignoring history and saying nothing has been tried before.... diplomacy? All that stuff... believe me they have tried so many of these things more then twice its not even funny. This is the first thing that has worked at stopping them since... well since almost 4 years... you tell me were being irrational to do this and you can get you family blown to hell if you like personally they brought it on themselves. They chose to start the violence and not continue with diplomacy... They chose death over life. And now it has gone on so long people have lost sight saying Israel never tried anything to help them never did this that the other... you obviously didn’t read my previous posts in this thread you would know we even armed and trained them for petes sake! Supplied them with stuff to build homes gave them jobs. You may say who are we to give them jobs in their own land? But you guys just don’t seem to be able to accept the fact that it is NOT their land anymore. They lost it. They fought to try and eradicate a people and in turn were conquered. I guess we should give all the land back let them set up their government continue to bomb us until they are big and strong enough to wipe us out completely.
After that we can give all of America back to the Indians... what say you? Who are you Americans to give Indians work on their own land... hell they didn’t even start the wars and here we have people giving Israel hell over defending itself in a war and winning.
I’m so sorry we won. Next time you attack we will try and be fair and let you slaughter us.
Do you even hear yourselves?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Dude, I'm not a supporter of the security fence. In my (faith-based) opinion, Israel is dividing God's land.
Remember - it's your 'Gods Word', not theirs.
And if you start making decisions based on whose God is the valid one, then you end up with, well, the current situation.
NB: I would think it's evident that all the military attempts to resolve the Palestinian issue have failed miserably. The term 'cycle of violence' is very apt.
Diplomacy may be a hard, painful road - but it's the only realistic way of a peaceful solution. The problem is that it may take 10, 15 maybe more years. But it's the only way - you just have to look at the world today to know that. Even if Israel was able to seal off the Palestianian territories completely, there would still be attacks - on Jews / Israelis in other countries, or by foreigners coming into Israel 'legitametly', such as the British bomber.
No-one (at least, no-one sane) is against Israels right to exist, their right to live free lives without fear. But people don't want to see a state resorting to giant walls, house demolition and helicopter-gunship assassinations either, especially when that hurts innocent people.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Remember - it's your 'Gods Word', not theirs.
And if you start making decisions based on whose God is the valid one, then you end up with, well, the current situation.
Oh, believe me, I'm quite aware of that. Which is why I only say that when I'm asked my opinion on how to resolve the problem. :)
-
fences make good neighbours... remember that
-
Bull****
-
He's right. Remeber Wilson from Home Improvement? He was a kick ass neighbor. :D:D
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
fences make good neighbours... remember that
Good fences make good neighbours...
-
Nice rebuttal, Gank. ;)
And Ghost's right - GOOD fences meke good neighbors. And a fence is "good" when it accomplishes it's purpose - keeping what belongs on one side from getting into the other, and vice versa.
Speaking of which, a bomb just exploded near the Old Central Bus Station in Tel-Aviv. From Jerusalem Post:
[q]Bomb placed behind bus stop near old central bus station; Shabak: 47 terror alerts - build the fence[/q]
And here's a picture of what the majority of the fence looks like - an actual fence.
-
...my great-aunt lives in Tel-Aviv...
-
Incidentally, when was the last time an "incident" was resolved permanently using diplomatic means?
-
Something goes the Palestinian's way, so what happens? Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades decide to strength Israel's case for the fence.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Incidentally, when was the last time an "incident" was resolved permanently using diplomatic means?
Don't know if that counts as an "incident" as you mean it, but what about the Cold War? ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And Ghost's right - GOOD fences meke good neighbors. And a fence is "good" when it accomplishes it's purpose - keeping what belongs on one side from getting into the other, and vice versa.
Exactly, but no neighbor, no matter how rude he is, expects to see a fence in the middle of his backyard! Or even dividing his house in two!
-
and the palistinians have bombed the isaerlies, becase, for much the same reasons as the isaerlies ignore UN mandates, the palistinians know there will be no consiquences from there actions (other than the Isreali counter atack wich will only serve to help them in the political arena)
-
I think its more like they think it doesnt matter if they bomb the israelis or not, the israelis are still going to continue dispossesing them and settleing their land and the rest of the world isnt going to do anything about it except make noise.
-
thank you for proveing my point
-
Originally posted by Splinter
So here we go just ignoring history and saying nothing has been tried before....
I’m so sorry we won. Next time you attack we will try and be fair and let you slaughter us.
Do you even hear yourselves?
Whos ignoring history? You by the looks of things, Israels neighbours have only started one war against it, two if you count the 1948 war, which wouldnt have happened if the Zionists hadnt decided that Arabs couldnt live with them in their new country. 1956 war was started by Israel France and Britain, 67 war was started by Israel, allegedly in her defence but Golda Meir herself is on the record as saying Nassers two divisions in the Sinai posed no threat to Israel, 73 war was started by the Arabs, and the invasion of Lebanon was started by Israel. As for you winning them all, the 56 war was a failure, the 73 war cost Israel far more than the gained and the invasion of the Leb was an abject failure, not only did you fail to neutralise the palestinian organisations operating from there, but you managed to create the Hez'bollah, probably the most dangerous paramilitary group in the world.
Originally posted by Splinter
You may say who are we to give them jobs in their own land? But you guys just don’t seem to be able to accept the fact that it is NOT their land anymore. They lost it.
Bull****, you dont have any rights to the land, whether they lost it or not. Or are we forgetting what happened when Iraq "won" Kuwait? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PALESTINIAN LAND.
Originally posted by Bobboau
thank you for proveing my point
You're welcome.
Originally posted by Lonestar
World would be better off without any of them IMO. Its sad to see two cultures fight over land and territory in this day and age, but here they are, continuing a battle that is so old no one can remember how it really started anymore, and no one cares to know.
:wtf: Its well documented how the conflict started, at the turn of the century European jews founded zionism, which preached that jews must return to palestine to fulfill prophecies as well as escape anti-semitism from european christians. Immigration grew over the first part of the century until ww2 when the world shocked at the scale of the nazis slaughter of the jews agreed to partition the british mandate of palestine. The jewish state was allocated about 20% of the land but still were in a minority in this area, zionist leaders agreed that transfering the arab population was the only way to solve this and through various acts of terror drove approximatly 1 million palestinians from their land.
Surrounding arab nations sent troops to help defend the palestinians but ultimatly were defeated leaving Israel in control of 70% of the mandate of palestine. All arab occupants had been forcibly expelled like at Lyda or Ramla where 60,000 people were removed by force, or fled in terror because of acts like Deir Yassin. That in a nutshell is how it started, prior to the twentieth century there was no conflict between muslims and jews in the area, although jews had to pay a special tax under muslim law but this was to the Ottoman turks, not the palestinians.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Whos ignoring history? You by the looks of things, Israels neighbours have only started one war against it, two if you count the 1948 war, which wouldnt have happened if the Zionists hadnt decided that Arabs couldnt live with them in their new country.
you'll really need to stop lying. The Israelis said no such thing. Or how do you explain the israeli arabs?
-
Think of it this way...
I start my own religion after having a dream (wink wink) and it says my people (the Javarians... Java + rians = religon name now :p) have been instructed by God to take back our holy land... France.
Now, this doesn't exactly catch on at first. Sure there's a few nut jobs who become desciples and claims my word is the truth, but nothing really happens right away. Over the next few decades (let's compress the time required for argument sake) Javarians become one of the world's biggest religions (something to do with all the free-living sex thing I slipped in one of my first sermons).
We are persecuted for years, then get our own country thanks to the UN slicing up part of Germany. The French are pissed, because they know we want thier land based on something no more provable than the Jewish faith. We decide to build an army and invade part of France and shoot several civvy's (including Nico, hence robbing HLP of a modder) and won't give up the land we take.
We then go crying to the UN when we come under terror attack day in and day out. The UN says, that's pretty **** but you ignored us when we told you to behave so... you're both on your own.
And thus, France becomes a hotly contested Holy Land.
*gets coat and leaves, awaiting followers*
-
You're right Vyper. We have a right to France. The whole west of France was controlled by England during the hundred years war. It's ours.
We'll move in tomorrow and start building a fence to keep the french out immediately.
It's time we take back what was ours!!!!!111111
-
:lol:
Why just France? Why not the EUA, India, Australia and the rest of your previous colonies?
:lol:
-
France is the holy land. :D
Or maybe it's just cause I've always fancied leading a pogrom to EuroDisney. It's amazing how quickly you get onto the rides when you have an army with you :)
-
dbl post
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
you'll really need to stop lying. The Israelis said no such thing. Or how do you explain the israeli arabs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus
Plenty of quotes on here to back that up.
You really need to start checking your facts before you start lying.
-
Originally posted by Gank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus
Plenty of quotes on here to back that up.
You really need to start checking your facts before you start lying.
:rolleyes:
From that article: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
:lol:
Why just France? Why not the EUA, India, Australia and the rest of your previous colonies?
:lol:
good luck with that BTW
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
good luck with that BTW
No need for luck. The plan is working perfectly well so far. 12 more years of republicans like Bush and half of the country would throw a ticker tape parade for the Redshirts :D
-
Originally posted by Gank
Bull****, you dont have any rights to the land, whether they lost it or not. Or are we forgetting what happened when Iraq "won" Kuwait? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PALESTINIAN LAND.
Does the US have claims to its land?
How many countries current borders been founded on wars conquering land etc? Pretty much all of them and yet when we do it suddenly its a crime? Wtf dude quite being a hypocrite!
Explain exactly how that land isn’t ours... really? They live on it so it’s not our land? I live in this part of Jerusalem so it belongs to America because I’m American.
A settler in the Gaza Strip moved there before many, many years when it was all sand dunes and the seashore. The Arabs around called them crazy and asked her what she planned to do in this cursed place? She said farm. They said you are crazy no one has grown anything here since the time of Abraham and Isaac. She replied simply "we will see" soon afterwards more and more Zionists arrived turning the desert into thriving farmlands and the Arabs of the region blessed them and said you provide us jobs we love you! They started moving into the strip by the thousands and all was good... now lets see... whose land is that? Ok lets see it became Arab land and not part of Israel at its creation because of changes made to the original plan to give the Jews all of current day Israel including west bank etc and Jordan but because of the tremendous populace of Arabs brought into that area because of the work provided by the pioneering Jews did not want to live in a Jewish nation the UN gave them two thirds of the original land (Jordan, the west bank) many left and many stayed. Some stayed because they had good lives good jobs. Others stayed in protest of the combination of not wanting to move but also not wanting to live under Jewish rule. A couple wars later what happens? Israel takes the Gaza strip and the entire Sinai Peninsula within artillery range of Cairo the entire West Bank and the Golan heights. This being not the first time they were attacked and not being fools Israel gave the peninsula back which it had no need of but kept the Gaza strip West Bank and Golan Heights. Why? Strategic disadvantage. Israel did not have to give back squat but they did. Fine ok lets just ignore the fact that we are the reason the Arabs are in the gaze strip to begin with, how after fighting for it in a war we were forced into by them and after winning and giving back most of the land won to Egypt how exactly is that not now our land? Seriously? French people drove the English out of France and Scottish people drove the English out of Scotland and so on and so forth are you saying that France and Scotland should be given back to England? :rolleyes:
Your views and who started the wars are very interesting speculation. Israel started 1 of the wars no more no less and as lame as it sounds it was still pretty much in self defense... they had been attacked numerous times before barley surviving each war and this build up was a sign of another if they had waited they may have lost that one... MAY HAVE I’m not saying the preemptive strike was the right move but it was motivated by the will to survive not hatred or eradication.
-
[q]France is the holy land[/q]
I have a follower!!!!!1111oneoneone :lol:
-
France and Scotland given back to England? What in the name of Robert the Bruce are you on about?
-
ummm. this Javarians thing, will we get a big ass military?
-
Originally posted by Splinter
Does the US have claims to its land?
How many countries current borders been founded on wars conquering land etc? Pretty much all of them and yet when we do it suddenly its a crime? Wtf dude quite being a hypocrite!
Explain exactly how that land isn’t ours... really? They live on it so it’s not our land? I live in this part of Jerusalem so it belongs to America because I’m American.
Because the UN Charter which Israel has signed specifically prohibits the colonisation of land taken in war, whether it was defensive war or not. Stop being such a hypocrite yourself, if Arabs had captured Israeli soil you'd be shouting they have no right to it.
Originally posted by Splinter
A settler in the Gaza Strip moved there before many, many years when it was all sand dunes and the seashore. The Arabs around called them crazy and asked her what she planned to do in this cursed place? She said farm. They said you are crazy no one has grown anything here since the time of Abraham and Isaac. She replied simply "we will see" soon afterwards more and more Zionists arrived turning the desert into thriving farmlands and the Arabs of the region blessed them and said you provide us jobs we love you! They started moving into the strip by the thousands and all was good... now lets see... whose land is that? Ok lets see it became Arab land and not part of Israel at its creation because of changes made to the original plan to give the Jews all of current day Israel including west bank etc and Jordan but because of the tremendous populace of Arabs brought into that area because of the work provided by the pioneering Jews did not want to live in a Jewish nation the UN gave them two thirds of the original land (Jordan, the west bank) many left and many stayed. Some stayed because they had good lives good jobs. Others stayed in protest of the combination of not wanting to move but also not wanting to live under Jewish rule.
Trans-Jordan was seperated into a seperate state in the late 1930s, the mandate of palestine at the time of the proposed partition consisted only of the land west of the Jordan. You're talking utter ****e. Palestinians did not flee because they did not want to live under jewish rule, they were evicted because the jews did not want to live under arab rule, as arabs were in the majority in the land allocated to Israel under the UN plan, which was only 20% of the land it presently occupies. Legally, Jews owned 12% of the land they had at the end of the 1948 war, according to the jewish national fund.
Originally posted by Splinter
A couple wars later what happens? Israel takes the Gaza strip and the entire Sinai Peninsula within artillery range of Cairo the entire West Bank and the Golan heights. This being not the first time they were attacked and not being fools Israel gave the peninsula back which it had no need of but kept the Gaza strip West Bank and Golan Heights. Why? Strategic disadvantage. Israel did not have to give back squat but they did. Fine ok lets just ignore the fact that we are the reason the Arabs are in the gaze strip to begin with, how after fighting for it in a war we were forced into by them and after winning and giving back most of the land won to Egypt how exactly is that not now our land? Seriously? French people drove the English out of France and Scottish people drove the English out of Scotland and so on and so forth are you saying that France and Scotland should be given back to England? :rolleyes:
Again see above, you have signed charters binding you to abide by their rules, which put Israel under obligation to protect people whose land it occupies, not evict them and settle their land.
Originally posted by Splinter
Your views and who started the wars are very interesting speculation. Israel started 1 of the wars no more no less and as lame as it sounds it was still pretty much in self defense...
Ok, so it was the Lebanese who invaded Israel, and the egyptians started the suez canal war against the Israeli, British and French, who just happened to have numerous aircraft carriers in the area along with parachute divisions and marines offshore:rolleyes:
You can harp on with this ****e all you want, but the fact of the matter is the Yom Kippur war is the only one in which the arabs started the offensive and then it was an offensive to recapture land taken in the 1967 war. Even in 1948 the Arab nations didnt sent troops until after hostilities had started and massacres like the one at Deir Yassin had happened. For example Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948. Deir Yassin happened on April 9th, the British withdrew and the Arab countries declared war on May 15th.
Originally posted by Splinter
they had been attacked numerous times before barley surviving each war and this build up was a sign of another if they had waited they may have lost that one... MAY HAVE I’m not saying the preemptive strike was the right move but it was motivated by the will to survive not hatred or eradication.
Thats nice but Israeli leaders at the time disagree with you
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces
"In June l967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfolio
"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."
General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff
"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war."
General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command
"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces
"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."
Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing
Kinda ****s all over what you're saying.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Because the UN Charter which Israel has signed specifically prohibits the colonisation of land taken in war, whether it was defensive war or not. Stop being such a hypocrite yourself, if Arabs had captured Israeli soil you'd be shouting they have no right to it.
interesting, I never heard of that charter... which is a real shame. although I heavily doubt your wording of its contents is quite adequate. do you have a link to where I can read it?
and I cant be called a hypocrite in this situation because it never happened. *sniff* :(
Trans-Jordan was seperated into a seperate state in the late 1930s, the mandate of palestine at the time of the proposed partition consisted only of the land west of the Jordan. You're talking utter ****e. Palestinians did not flee because they did not want to live under jewish rule, they were evicted because the jews did not want to live under arab rule, as arabs were in the majority in the land allocated to Israel under the UN plan, which was only 20% of the land it presently occupies. Legally, Jews owned 12% of the land they had at the end of the 1948 war, according to the jewish national fund.
yes and originally it consited all of Jordan as well... It was given to them so that they didnt have to like get kicked out with no where to go. Dude read up many many Palestinians at the time jsut known as arabs fled because they were scared they were unhappy and stuff. some others were probably kicked out yes. and still others stayed. and I dont see how if the UN allocates 20% of the land they could only leagally own 12% exactly how does that work?
Again see above, you have signed charters binding you to abide by their rules, which put Israel under obligation to protect people whose land it occupies, not evict them and settle their land.
whos evicted? afaik there are 1.3 million palestinians in the gaza strip... thats not evicted... the jewish settlements were there before most (notice the most) of them anyway. why do you think they are even there? If you didnt notice its sand dune city barren they called it a curssed place. how exactly did a curssed place become the single most densly populated spot in the world? So we are under obligation to portect them? ok well when somone attacks us again we will see what happense but atm THEY are the ones doing the attacking.
Ok, so it was the Lebanese who invaded Israel, and the egyptians started the suez canal war against the Israeli, British and French, who just happened to have numerous aircraft carriers in the area along with parachute divisions and marines offshore:rolleyes:
You can harp on with this ****e all you want, but the fact of the matter is the Yom Kippur war is the only one in which the arabs started the offensive and then it was an offensive to recapture land taken in the 1967 war. Even in 1948 the Arab nations didnt sent troops until after hostilities had started and massacres like the one at Deir Yassin had happened. For example Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948. Deir Yassin happened on April 9th, the British withdrew and the Arab countries declared war on May 15th.
lol dude Israel started one war that was the 6 day war. the thing in lebanon wasnt considered a war. If it would be then yes Israel started it. But its not labled a war for the most part. thus the confusion.
Thats nice but Israeli leaders at the time disagree with you
Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces
Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfolio
General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff
General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command
General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces
Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing
Kinda ****s all over what you're saying.
I never heard those quotes before they are quite fascinating. I wish I had heard them sooner. however simply reading all my life that it was a defensive war started for that purpose I had no reason to doubt. thank you for pointing that out.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ummm. this Javarians thing, will we get a big ass military?
Of course, and our troops will be such avid believers of our religion that they will treat our enemies with the utmost contempt and disgust.
-
Count me in vyper... the Javarians will overrun this Earth :devil:
Splinter, technicaly, Israel is still at war with Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.
-
Mwahahaha.... we Javarians rock. ;)
-
Originally posted by Splinter
interesting, I never heard of that charter... which is a real shame. although I heavily doubt your wording of its contents is quite adequate. do you have a link to where I can read it?
and I cant be called a hypocrite in this situation because it never happened. *sniff* :(
You've never heard of the UN charter :doubt:
Originally posted by Splinter
yes and originally it consited all of Jordan as well...
Trans-Jordan was seperated from Palestine under the rule of King Abdullah in 1923 and became independant in 1946, it was not part of palestine in 1948
(http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png)
Originally posted by Splinter
It was given to them so that they didnt have to like get kicked out with no where to go
Under the partition plan nobody was supposed to get kicked out from anywhere, transfer of population was a jewish concept employed because under the UN partition plan Arabs were still in the majority in the jewish state.
Originally posted by Splinter
Dude read up many many Palestinians at the time jsut known as arabs fled because they were scared they were unhappy and stuff. some others were probably kicked out yes. and still others stayed.
Thats what I've been saying. :rolleyes: If you want the figures 85% fled or were evicted, just under a million people.
Originally posted by Splinter
and I dont see how if the UN allocates 20% of the land they could only leagally own 12% exactly how does that work?
First of all my bad, the jewish state was to recieve 55% of the palestine mandate, while 7% of the mandate was legally owned by jewish interests. As to how it worked, the partition plan was about government only, it did not involve the transfer of land from arab to jewish hands or vice versa, so apart from the areas of desert nobody owned the jewish ownership of land would have remained the same after partition.
Originally posted by Splinter
whos evicted? afaik there are 1.3 million palestinians in the gaza strip... thats not evicted... the jewish settlements were there before most (notice the most) of them anyway. why do you think they are even there? If you didnt notice its sand dune city barren they called it a curssed place. how exactly did a curssed place become the single most densly populated spot in the world? So we are under obligation to portect them? ok well when somone attacks us again we will see what happense but atm THEY are the ones doing the attacking.
Umm, where the **** to you think those people came from, the land youre living on right now, or are you really that ignorant of your own countrys history?
Originally posted by Splinter
lol dude Israel started one war that was the 6 day war. the thing in lebanon wasnt considered a war. If it would be then yes Israel started it. But its not labled a war for the most part. thus the confusion.
I see your just ignoring the 1956 war again, and the fact that fighting between zionists and arabs was already well underway by the time the arab countries entered the 1948 war. And Lebanon wasnt a war now? :rolleyes: Usually when a country invades and occupies a soveriegn neighbour thats exactly what it is. And the only confusion I've ever seen about calling it a war or not is among Israelis when they try to claim they've never started a war.
Glad you liked those quotes, heres another one from David Ben Gurion in 1938, 10 years before he became the first president of Israel:
"after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine" In 1948, Menachem Begin said, "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever"
-
And no one thought of dealing with that at the time? Jesus the UN needed it's arse kicked...
-
The Un was two years old at the time and still reeling from ww2, it had a lot to deal with so a few comments from a jewish paramilitary leader probably slipped under its radar. Anyways the zionists destroyed the Un partition plan and became the first nation to break a UN resolution, a tradition they've carried on to this day.
-
And who ever cared for UN resolutions? They're there now, they have the strength to control it, and that's all that matters, anything else is just whining. It's how countries grew and expanded throughout all of history, the might makes right rule has always been the only one to universally apply (types of might may vary).
If the Palestinians really want "their" land back, they should organize a rebel army and expel the Israelis by open use of force, no other means will work past this point. Political "solutions" to the problem are beyond any hope.
-
Unchecked agression and violence, thats the way forward! Onward brothers, to a brave new world, where endless war is king, and he with the greatest means to inflict harm always gets his way.
...you're talking out of your ass Styxx. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
And who ever cared for UN resolutions?
That's the irony. If everyone had come down hard on Israel the first time one was broken everyone would respect them but since Israel got away with breaking one everyone else figured they could.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Unchecked agression and violence, thats the way forward! Onward brothers, to a brave new world, where endless war is king, and he with the greatest means to inflict harm always gets his way.
...you're talking out of your ass Styxx. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If you think any other way will work, you're dreaming. And making a fool of yourself. This is the real world, after all. ;)
Originally posted by karajorma
That's the irony. If everyone had come down hard on Israel the first time one was broken everyone would respect them but since Israel got away with breaking one everyone else figured they could.
Too late for that now, too.
-
No, the real irony is that the US invaded Iraq, citing broken UN resolutions and WMD, while unconditionally supporting Israel, which has WMD and has defied more UN resolutions than Saddam could ever dream of.
-
Sorry, but its you who is making of fool of himself. Why?
Simple; I understand that I am weak, and that any country in which I could see myself living would also be considered weak. Same goes for Brazil. I can understand how the strong want a "might makes right" policy, but if the weak support something like that, its working against their own interests. Unless you are a US citizen, or a citizen of a handful of Western European nations, advcating that international law is meaningless is very, very stupid.
International law is the force that protects you from invasion, opression, exploitation etc. Why you would be against it is beyond me.
edit: slagging off admins, yeah, real smart of me. :nervous: :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Sorry, but its you who is making of fool of himself. Why?
Simple; I understand that I am weak, and that any country in which I could see myself living would also be considered weak. Same goes for Brazil. I can understand how the strong want a "might makes right" policy, but if the weak support something like that, its working against their own interests. Unless you are a US citizen, or a citizen of a handful of Western European nations, advcating that international law is meaningless is very, very stupid.
International law is the force that protects you from invasion, opression, exploitation etc. Why you would be against it is beyond me.
edit: slagging off admins, yeah, real smart of me. :nervous: :nervous:
I'm not for or against any of that, I'm just stating the truth. Yes, a world where just and strong international laws existed and bound all nations would be a much better place, probably (emphasis on just), but it's not the world we have now. And yes, Brazil would probably be easily defeated in a war against the United States, as would any country right now (despite the pride any of their citizens might have on their country and armed forces), but it's not their interest to do so right now.
You're talking about how it should be, I'm talking about how it is. And unfortunately, none of us - no one who wants it, in fact - can change the way things are right now.
-
Amazing how the same twats who claim Israel has a right the do whatever it wants with land its captured are the first people to cry when the people whose land they're taking blow themselves up. You live by the sword you die by the sword, and Israelis are setting themselves up for a mighty fall.
And if you want to know how that fall is going to come about, read up on the worlds current oil supply.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
And who ever cared for UN resolutions? They're there now, they have the strength to control it, and that's all that matters, anything else is just whining. It's how countries grew and expanded throughout all of history, the might makes right rule has always been the only one to universally apply (types of might may vary).
If the Palestinians really want "their" land back, they should organize a rebel army and expel the Israelis by open use of force, no other means will work past this point. Political "solutions" to the problem are beyond any hope.
:yes: I agree
UN laws don't work anymore so UN need
much stronger leadership or replacement for UN
-
Originally posted by Gank
Amazing how the same twats who claim Israel has a right the do whatever it wants with land its captured are the first people to cry when the people whose land they're taking blow themselves up. You live by the sword you die by the sword, and Israelis are setting themselves up for a mighty fall.
And if you want to know how that fall is going to come about, read up on the worlds current oil supply.
If they want to blow themselves up, more power to them, but then they shouldn't whine when Israel retaliates by bulldozing homes and killing terrorists with missile strikes. The fact remains that suicide bombings will never change the situation, no matter how gruesome the results.
And yeah, talk about "mighty falls" all you want, your talking won't change reality: reality being that Israel has strong support from the world's most powerful nation, and that isn't about to change anytime soon. And any talk about the world's oil supply is nothing but wild speculation, seeing that we should be completely out of oil by now if we went by the eighties estimates.
;)
-
I say the UN should build an army (real one) and send it to the frontier between palestine and israel (green border, not some pretty fence)... anyone that tries to pass without autorization would be shot on site.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
If they want to blow themselves up, more power to them, but then they shouldn't whine when Israel retaliates by bulldozing homes and killing terrorists with missile strikes. The fact remains that suicide bombings will never change the situation, no matter how gruesome the results.
Ah, so you are saying the suicide bombings are justified?
Originally posted by Styxx
And yeah, talk about "mighty falls" all you want, your talking won't change reality: reality being that Israel has strong support from the world's most powerful nation, and that isn't about to change anytime soon. And any talk about the world's oil supply is nothing but wild speculation, seeing that we should be completely out of oil by now if we went by the eighties estimates.
;)
I dont regard Israel as mighty, as a marine captain in the leb put it its a fourth rate army fighting off seventh rate armys. As for the oil, any eightys estimates I've seen give oil production hitting its peak at about 2015, which has been revised down to about 2008 now, whats you source for your statement, or are you just making it up? The reality is Israel is completely dependant on Russian oil, if and when russia finds better prices elsewhere, such as China or even the US, Israel is ****ed with a capital F. Even now Israel has had a continual energy shortage since the Iranians kicked out the Shah. Like it or no, Israels current position of dominance in unsustainable in the long run.
Btw Sandwich, if you're reading this what's your thoughts on Israels dependance on Russian oil and the Gog-Magog war?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Ah, so you are saying the suicide bombings are justified?
No, but then, what is? If you go on that tangent, no nation in the world has a right to its own existance. Suicide bombings are the way they find to "fight back", and they have as much right to it as anyone has a right to do anything as long as they face the consequences - in this case, the retaliatory strikes, curfews, and bulldozings.
The fact that it's not helping at all never even crosses their minds.
Originally posted by Gank
I dont regard Israel as mighty, as a marine captain in the leb put it its a fourth rate army fighting off seventh rate armys. As for the oil, any eightys estimates I've seen give oil production hitting its peak at about 2015, which has been revised down to about 2008 now, whats you source for your statement, or are you just making it up? The reality is Israel is completely dependant on Russian oil, if and when russia finds better prices elsewhere, such as China or even the US, Israel is ****ed with a capital F. Even now Israel has had a continual energy shortage since the Iranians kicked out the Shah. Like it or no, Israels current position of dominance in unsustainable in the long run.
It's mighty enough, with the help of the US, to hold off any of the nations that pose a credible threat to it, and that's more than good enough. As for the oil problem, it's never gonna happen, for the same reason that military force didn't work against Israel - like it or not, they have the US behind them, and that's not likely to change.
My sources for 80s esitmates on oil are many magazine and newspaper articles I read at the time, and I can't link to them because there's no Internet archive. Alarmism in regards to oil production is just that, though - alarmism, and never went beyond that, and I'd wager that it won't for some time yet. Certainly not during our lifetimes, but that's a whole other topic.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
No, but then, what is? If you go on that tangent, no nation in the world has a right to its own existance. Suicide bombings are the way they find to "fight back", and they have as much right to it as anyone has a right to do anything as long as they face the consequences - in this case, the retaliatory strikes, curfews, and bulldozings.
The fact that it's not helping at all never even crosses their minds.
I have to interject on this, all apologies.
You mentioned the bombings "aren't helpng at all". Well, yes and no.
For the various "movements" hell bent on driving the Jews out of that part of the world, no, the suicide bombings don't help. They aren't enough of them. Israel isn't going anywhere.
For the various movements content to let Israel sit there, but want their stupid little bits of territory back, the bombings don't help there either. Israel has more soldiers, more weaponry, more allies willing to put their money where their mouths are, etc.
For the individual who can't get a decent job to support his/her family, it does help. It's a known fact that several of the "Martyr Brigade" movements pay some rather hefty ransoms to the families of suicide bombers. For someone who has, in their mind, nothing to live for an an opportunity to not only go out of this life a "hero" in the eyes of their God, but to know that their family will be taken care of, it makes sense to them and probably helps...every so often.
Does that make the bombing justified? hell no. I think getting your home bulldozed in response is paltry by comparison. You don't see the Israelis nerve-gassing entire camps in the Palestinian territory every single time some member of Al-Aqsa decides the best way to serve his/her country is to detonate explosives on a civilian bus.
it sounds retarded, but it would be nice if in response to these 'ransom offers', someone else could offer a greater ransom NOT to do it....
*thinks*
Oh here's a ludicrous thought. Instead of all these tech companies in America outsourcing to Africa, India, and the Phillipines...what about outsourcing to the Palestinian territories and paying a hell of a better wage? Give someone a reason to live and they'll stop looking for reasons to die.
(or not outsourcing at all....)
*ducks tomatoes*
-
Originally posted by Styxx
No, but then, what is? If you go on that tangent, no nation in the world has a right to its own existance. Suicide bombings are the way they find to "fight back", and they have as much right to it as anyone has a right to do anything as long as they face the consequences - in this case, the retaliatory strikes, curfews, and bulldozings.
The fact that it's not helping at all never even crosses their minds.
As has been pointed out by the few israelis on this board, it doesnt matter whether they continue the bombings or not, Israel regards their land as its own to to what it likes with, which in Israels case is ethnic cleansing and colonisation. The suicide bombings are one of the few ways of bringing the reality of the conflict to the Israeli public and as such are helping the palestinians because with or without them, Israel will still continue its actions.
Originally posted by Styxx
It's mighty enough, with the help of the US, to hold off any of the nations that pose a credible threat to it, and that's more than good enough. As for the oil problem, it's never gonna happen, for the same reason that military force didn't work against Israel - like it or not, they have the US behind them, and that's not likely to change.
The US is declining in power and influence, its economy is in a shambles and its heavily reliant on Arab oil. I wouldnt count on them backing Israel to the point where the **** themselves over.
Originally posted by Styxx
My sources for 80s esitmates on oil are many magazine and newspaper articles I read at the time, and I can't link to them because there's no Internet archive. Alarmism in regards to oil production is just that, though - alarmism, and never went beyond that, and I'd wager that it won't for some time yet. Certainly not during our lifetimes, but that's a whole other topic.
Actually even the most optimistic predictions give about 35 years, these are form the US and Saudi governments and lack figures to back them up. What you call alarmism is actually accepted fact, people are just arguing over the timing.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Btw Sandwich, if you're reading this what's your thoughts on Israels dependance on Russian oil and the Gog-Magog war?
Sorry, been at work for 12 hours today. Oy.
Russian oil: I don't know where we get our oil - ceeertainly didn't know it was Russian. I do know that we've found oil in the Mediterranian / Red Sea (can't recall which).
Dunno if it makes much difference, but a majority of Israel's military - at least the armored ground forces - runs off diesel, not gasoline.
Gog-Magog war: I say, bring it on. I'm getting tired of all the back-biting, accusations, international war crimes trials, threats, bombings, etc etc etc. If the Bible is true (which, as most of you know, I believe it is), then Israel is the only nation on the face of the earth with a guarantee of survival. Yeah, we'll be battered hard, but when Jesus comes back wielding the heavy end of the Hammer of God™ against all those nations who came up against Jerusalem.... :nervous:
...If the Bible is true. You, of course, need not subscribe. ;)
Originally posted by Styxx
It's mighty enough, with the help of the US, to hold off any of the nations that pose a credible threat to it, and that's more than good enough.
Actually, we're "mighty" enough today to hold off any one nation that might attack us even without the help of the US, with the (obvious) exceptions of the US, China, probably Russia, and maybe India. But there's two partially-interconnected things in relation to a war that Israel cannot, under any circumstances, allow:
- A war on multiple fronts
- A battle on Israeli soil
Part of the reason Israel struck first in 67 was that first point - all her neighbors were amassing on her borders, and she cannot withstand such an assault effectively. Thus the pre-emptive strike on Egypt's (grounded and unmanned, I might add) air force.
And the second point has to do with sheer size... or rather lack thereof. Israel is so tiny that you can drive from one end of the country to the other in about 7 hours - and that's the long, north-south way. East-west, you can cross Israel by car in approx. 1 hour.
That simply leaves zero room for error. :doubt:
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17039-2004Jun4.html
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Russian oil: I don't know where we get our oil - ceeertainly didn't know it was Russian. I do know that we've found oil in the Mediterranian / Red Sea (can't recall which).
As of 2002 Israel imported all of its 250,000 + barrel a day needs, most of which comes from Russia. Its oil reserves were 3.8 million barrels in 2003, not sure if the mediterranian find is included in that, but with all the required industry its enough to keep yis going for 16 days :)
Originally posted by Sandwich
Dunno if it makes much difference, but a majority of Israel's military - at least the armored ground forces - runs off diesel, not gasoline.
Not really
Originally posted by Sandwich
Gog-Magog war: I say, bring it on. I'm getting tired of all the back-biting, accusations, international war crimes trials, threats, bombings, etc etc etc. If the Bible is true (which, as most of you know, I believe it is), then Israel is the only nation on the face of the earth with a guarantee of survival. Yeah, we'll be battered hard, but when Jesus comes back wielding the heavy end of the Hammer of God™ against all those nations who came up against Jerusalem.... :nervous:
But how are you going to defeat the russian horde along with the guts of the arab world if you've got no oil to run your tanks and planes? Oh yeah, god will help. Should be interesting.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Actually, we're "mighty" enough today to hold off any one nation that might attack us even without the help of the US, with the (obvious) exceptions of the US, China, probably Russia, and maybe India. But there's two partially-interconnected things in relation to a war that Israel cannot, under any circumstances, allow:
Well that 3 billion a year blank check the US keeps writing is probably the only reason you're in that position so maybe you should give them credit where its due.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Part of the reason Israel struck first in 67 was that first point - all her neighbors were amassing on her borders, and she cannot withstand such an assault effectively. Thus the pre-emptive strike on Egypt's (grounded and unmanned, I might add) air force.
Actually Nasser only sent two divisions into the Sinai, hardly qualifies at massing. If you want to try a realistic defense of Israels starting the war you could argue that Israel has a citizens army and couldnt keep it mobilised for ever as it cripples the economy but then as the quotes I posted earlier shows there was no real threat to Israel according to Israeli leaders at the time.
-
Originally posted by Gank
As has been pointed out by the few israelis on this board, it doesnt matter whether they continue the bombings or not, Israel regards their land as its own to to what it likes with, which in Israels case is ethnic cleansing and colonisation. The suicide bombings are one of the few ways of bringing the reality of the conflict to the Israeli public and as such are helping the palestinians because with or without them, Israel will still continue its actions.
So, what you're saying, is that it doesn't help. The reality has been "brought to the public" many times already, and did squat. Thanks for agreeing.
Originally posted by Gank
The US is declining in power and influence, its economy is in a shambles and its heavily reliant on Arab oil. I wouldnt count on them backing Israel to the point where the **** themselves over.
Right, dream on.
Originally posted by Gank
Actually even the most optimistic predictions give about 35 years, these are form the US and Saudi governments and lack figures to back them up. What you call alarmism is actually accepted fact, people are just arguing over the timing.
Oh yeah, it's the hard and unrelenting truth when you want to keep oil prices high. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I say the UN should build an army (real one) and send it to the frontier between palestine and israel (green border, not some pretty fence)... anyone that tries to pass without autorization would be shot on site.
Problem is that the UN do not have the means to do so. The UN Charter only offers military intervention through delegation to member states. But seriously : which government in which state on this planet would volunteer to do so?
-
Of course, like a lot of people, you don't realize that North America alone has enough oil reserves to fuel the oil-needs of North America (including the growth rate) for at least 50 years if all the accessible reserves were tapped.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gank
The US is declining in power and influence, its economy is in a shambles and its heavily reliant on Arab oil. I wouldnt count on them backing Israel to the point where the **** themselves over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*laughs*
Here, let me help lift that rock you apparently seem to be living under.
-
The Soviet Union looked like a mighty and well-oiled war machine, right up until the moment it collapsed. The US is declining in terms of power. Do you realize that if the Asian economies decided they liked the Euro better than the dollar, what a blow that would be? With (relatively) widespread opposition to globalization and neo-liberalism, a world-wide opposition to militarism and imperialsim (thank you Mr.Bush) and military overextension, I don't think its wrong to assume that its all downhill from here.
With China up and coming, the EU already strong and somewhat independent, and (I'm going to sound cliched here) the power of information via the Net (especially political weblogs and such), it would appear that the golden days of unmatched supremacy are fast winding down for the US.
...maybe I'm just an optimist...
-
I hope I get the quotes right...
---------------------------------------
Originally posted by Styxx
And who ever cared for UN resolutions?
Maybe you should have a chat with Saddam on this topic. I think he may have some experience to share.
Originally posted by karajorma
That's the irony. If everyone had come down hard on Israel the first time one was broken everyone would respect them but since Israel got away with breaking one everyone else figured they could.
It's not that simple. The average resolutions against Israel contained suggestions, appeals or, condemnations for whatever they did. Yet none of them clears the way for direct action against Israel, and you don't really believe the US as a veto power in the Security Council would have agreed to any such resolution?
Originally posted by Sandwich
...If the Bible is true. You, of course, need not subscribe.
Aye, thank god we don't. :D
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
UN laws don't work anymore so UN need
much stronger leadership or replacement for UN
I disagree. The UN law works perfectly, if the major players stick to the rules. However, it needs some corrections with regard to the votings in the Security Council, which should foremost improve the time it takes them to react to dangerous situations. Sudan or Ruanda, anyone? That's the problem with such a major organisation like the UN, respecting everybody's (= every state's) interests can be counted in deaths per minute. :blah:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
With China up and coming, the EU already strong and somewhat independent, and (I'm going to sound cliched here) the power of information via the Net (especially political weblogs and such), it would appear that the golden days of unmatched supremacy are fast winding down for the US.
Nah. I would not say the US are collapsing. While the US were the only economical superpower (fact the facts : it's all about economy) for some years after the end of the Soviet Union and the decline of Japan, there are simply some new players in the game, namely the EU and China. These to "bodies" have major differences to the SU or Japan, as the Soviets and the US sealed off their markets to each other, as did the Japanese versus the US; yet, these new parties are either deeply involved in US economy (EU) or are increasing their influence (China). It's just a new situation they - the US - need to adapt to, and I'm sure they will, though it may take them some time.
And, honestly said, they sure as hell do not need to fear Europe in its current condition, i.e. the condition of the individual member states...
-
Originally posted by mitac
Maybe you should have a chat with Saddam on this topic. I think he may have some experience to share.
Sure, 'cause we all know that that was about UN resolutions... ;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Sure, 'cause we all know that that was about UN resolutions... ;)
Mhmm, remember Gulf War '91 (sounds almost like an album remix...)? Reading all those resolution from ~600 - ~700 is quite entertaining, they almost follow the structure of a shakesperean drama. :D
-
Originally posted by Gank
Well that 3 billion a year blank check the US keeps writing is probably the only reason you're in that position so maybe you should give them credit where its due.
Yeah, true, but I meant purely and directly military.
Originally posted by Gank
Actually Nasser only sent two divisions into the Sinai, hardly qualifies at massing. If you want to try a realistic defense of Israels starting the war you could argue that Israel has a citizens army and couldnt keep it mobilised for ever as it cripples the economy but then as the quotes I posted earlier shows there was no real threat to Israel according to Israeli leaders at the time.
Uhh.... wrong about the number of divisions... 7 to Israel's 3.
The Wikipedia is - as always - a very good read on the 6 Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War).
[q]Israeli forces concentrated on the border with Egypt included 3 divisions, which consisted of 9 brigades, of which 5 were armored; there were also three reserve brigades. The Egyptian forces consisted of 7 divisions, five of them infantry and two armored. Four infantry divisions were near the Eyptian-Israeli border in the Sinai, an infantry and an armored division in central Sinai, and a second armored division in the west. In addition, a reinforced brigade (with 200 tanks) under Colonel Shazly was deployed in the southern Sinai with orders to encircle Eilat in the case of war. Overall, Egypt had over 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks in the Sinai, backed by an appropriate number of artillery guns. This arrangement was based on the Soviet doctrine, where mobile armor units at strategic depth provide a dynamic defense while infantry units engage in defensive battles at the border.[/q]
And you seem to think that the 6 Day War was only between Egypt and Israel. It was Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and a few Iraqi forces against Israel.
Anyway, the point is, don't belligrently mass your military forces on Israel's borders, or you're gonna get yourself in a world of trouble.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Wikipedia is - as always - a very good read on the 6 Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War).
Anyway, the point is, don't belligrently mass your military forces on Israel's borders, or you're gonna get yourself in a world of trouble.
I"m reading the Wik on the 6 Day War as we speak.
Wow. I had no idea the Israelis put up such an impressive fight, those were some tough odds to beat.
You're right, let that be a message to agressors. If you pick a fight and you lose, be a man and accept it.
-
Wikipedia rocks.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
So, what you're saying, is that it doesn't help. The reality has been "brought to the public" many times already, and did squat. Thanks for agreeing.
What I'm saying is its intention is not to help, as it doesnt matter what the palestinians do, the religious zealots running Israel are going to kick them off their land anyways.
Originally posted by Styxx
Right, dream on.
Originally posted by ionia23
Here, let me help lift that rock you apparently seem to be living under.
When empires are in decline, and the US had an ecomic empire if anything else, they wave to resort to waging war as a means of enforcing their aims. Let me put it this way, politics = economics, econmics = oil, and the US is having to resort more and more to the use of force as a means of securing safe oil supplies. Apart from this the US's old allies refusing to back the war on Iraq and the wave of "anti-american" sentiment should be proof enough that the US no longer weilds the power it enjoys, sure its still powerful, but at the moment its influence is declining. Take the Phillipines recent announcement that they're going to withdraw from Iraq in compliance with terrorist demands:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040712/ts_nm/iraq_philippines_withdrawal_dc
Originally posted by Styxx
Oh yeah, it's the hard and unrelenting truth when you want to keep oil prices high. ;)
Actually oil prices are kept deliberatly low for a good reason, higher oil prices mean more interest in other energy sources. If oil prices rise its because there are problems with supply and demand, take for example the Saudis recent statement that $35 a barrel is their new desired price as opposed to the old $22-$28. A increase of 25-33% in oil is going to cause people to look for alternative energy source, which the Saudis do not want seeing as oil is their only way of getting money. Pretty basic economics.
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Of course, like a lot of people, you don't realize that North America alone has enough oil reserves to fuel the oil-needs of North America (including the growth rate) for at least 50 years if all the accessible reserves were tapped.
You need to realise that thats complete and utter ****e. US oil consumption in 2002 was 20 million barrels per day and its known reserves stood at 22 billion barrels in 2003. Thats enough for roughly three years, disregarding growth. If you disagree back it up with some figures please.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yeah, true, but I meant purely and directly military.
Ahh you mean with F16s, AH64s, M16s and M113s?
Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhh.... wrong about the number of divisions... 7 to Israel's 3.
Right you are, I was going by the quotes above. Is the 7 the total number that fought or the total Nasser sent into the Sinai before the conflict was fought, the quote I posted before seems to indicate the later.
Originally posted by Sandwich
And you seem to think that the 6 Day War was only between Egypt and Israel. It was Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and a few Iraqi forces against Israel.
Technically they were all under Egyptian leadership, but Nassers mobilisation into the Sinai is the most often given reason for the war. Yes the other countrys had most of there armys deployed near the Israeli border, but they had been that way since 1948.
Originally posted by ionia23
You're right, let that be a message to agressors. If you pick a fight and you lose, be a man and accept it.
They didnt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
Complacency cost the Israelis dearly.
-
Originally posted by Gank
What I'm saying is its intention is not to help, as it doesnt matter what the palestinians do, the religious zealots running Israel are going to kick them off their land anyways.
So, you agree with me, but in a disagreeing tone?
Originally posted by Gank
When empires are in decline, and the US had an ecomic empire if anything else, they wave to resort to waging war as a means of enforcing their aims. Let me put it this way, politics = economics, econmics = oil, and the US is having to resort more and more to the use of force as a means of securing safe oil supplies. Apart from this the US's old allies refusing to back the war on Iraq and the wave of "anti-american" sentiment should be proof enough that the US no longer weilds the power it enjoys, sure its still powerful, but at the moment its influence is declining. Take the Phillipines recent announcement that they're going to withdraw from Iraq in compliance with terrorist demands:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040712/ts_nm/iraq_philippines_withdrawal_dc
You're wrong, but we'd have to wait a couple of hundred years to prove it in any way.
Originally posted by Gank
Actually oil prices are kept deliberatly low for a good reason, higher oil prices mean more interest in other energy sources. If oil prices rise its because there are problems with supply and demand, take for example the Saudis recent statement that $35 a barrel is their new desired price as opposed to the old $22-$28. A increase of 25-33% in oil is going to cause people to look for alternative energy source, which the Saudis do not want seeing as oil is their only way of getting money. Pretty basic economics.
Okay, so, in your opinion, the prices are kept deliberately low? And because of fear of alternative energy sources? Thanks for sharing.
By the way, this discussion will lead to the same place as all others about this subject before: precisely nowhere.
:p
-
@gank
22 billion is the available reserves. That is, the oil that is currently "ready-to-be-pumped-out" in a manner of speaking.
What I'm referring to is the oil that's there but not yet necessarily economically feasible to extract.
Also note that I said N. America and not USA. Canada also has about 10 billion in currently accessible reserves.
Canada's oil sands are thought to be the world's largest known hydrocarbon resource. With 300 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, Canada's oil sands exceed Saudi Arabian reserves of 262 billion barrels. Most of Canada's oil sands are found in Alberta, and the highest quality oil sands are the Athabasca deposits found in northern Alberta.
http://www.westernoilsands.com/html/business/introduction.html
The point is that if we were really _that_ reliant on oil, there's still a lot of it. However, the rising costs of extracting the stuff should hopefully force alternative energy sources to the forefront.
Personally, I'm hoping that they eventually get the breakthrough in fusion technology so that we could really have a hydrogen based energy economy.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
@gank
Also note that I said N. America and not USA. Canada also has about 10 billion in currently accessible reserves.
Dumb question over here. Does Canada export oil to anyone else?
-
Besides the USA and using it ourselves you mean?
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Besides the USA and suing it themselves you mean?
Yup, besides the USA and themselves.
-
Highly doubt it (although I actually don't know much about this).
The reason why I count the Canadian reserves as available to the USA is because our leaders have a tendency to suck up to our neighbours down south quite a bit.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
@gank
22 billion is the available reserves. That is, the oil that is currently "ready-to-be-pumped-out" in a manner of speaking.
No its not, its known reserves, ie the exact amount that has been proven to be there, anything over this is an educated guess. Its also total known reserves, not recoverable reserves. After a certain amount of time oil costs more energy to recover than it produces when used. Sauid Arabias Gahwar field for example requires 7 million barrels of water to be pumped into it in order to recover 1 million barrel of water, and even then produces one barrel of water for every 3-4 barrels of oil recovered. This field produces near half of Saudi production btw.
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
What I'm referring to is the oil that's there but not yet necessarily economically feasible to extract.
Maybe if you supplied some figures you'd be more convincing, I mean figures of known reserves btw, not undiscovered ones.
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Also note that I said N. America and not USA. Canada also has about 10 billion in currently accessible reserves.
7 billion according to the article you posted, but then that quotes US reserves at 8 billion more than the US Government so I doubt its accuracy.
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
http://www.westernoilsands.com/html/business/introduction.html
A source other than the company developing the fields would be nice, companys usually paint the stuff their involved with in a rosier light than somebody else would. Oil sands are fairly costly to refine and I seriously doubt these guys have made any revolutionary breakthroughs
a less rosy picture:
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/040606-03.html
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
The point is that if we were really _that_ reliant on oil, there's still a lot of it. However, the rising costs of extracting the stuff should hopefully force alternative energy sources to the forefront.
Of course we're reliant on oil, without it the world would grind to a stop. Where'd the food you ate today came from, how did you get to school/work, even the damn keyboard youre typing with is made using oil. And the rising costs in extracting the stuff is directly related to the fact that its running out.
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Personally, I'm hoping that they eventually get the breakthrough in fusion technology so that we could really have a hydrogen based energy economy.
I wouldnt lay any bets, fission is miles off.
Originally posted by Styxx
You're wrong, but we'd have to wait a couple of hundred years to prove it in any way.
You're wrong, and you wont have to wait a hundred years to see it, few decades at most. Lets just wait and see will we?
Originally posted by Styxx
Okay, so, in your opinion, the prices are kept deliberately low? And because of fear of alternative energy sources? Thanks for sharing.
By the way, this discussion will lead to the same place as all others about this subject before: precisely nowhere.
Like I said its basic economics, if you have trouble understanding that theres not really much point in continuing talking to you.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Ahh you mean with F16s, AH64s, M16s and M113s?
And many other acronyms, yes. ;)
Originally posted by Gank
Right you are, I was going by the quotes above. Is the 7 the total number that fought or the total Nasser sent into the Sinai before the conflict was fought, the quote I posted before seems to indicate the later.
Ok, well the Wikipedia doesn't go into details about who was stationed where, when. I'll see about looking that info up - if I get a chance to breathe around here.
Originally posted by Gank
Technically they were all under Egyptian leadership, but Nassers mobilisation into the Sinai is the most often given reason for the war. Yes the other countrys had most of there armys deployed near the Israeli border, but they had been that way since 1948.
No, there was a definite ammassment - Jordanian forces broke through the border to try and cut off Jerusalem IIRC the same day Israel struck in the Saini. That's not a "Oh look at what they did, let's encircle their capital with out border guards" event.
Originally posted by Gank
They didnt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
Complacency cost the Israelis dearly.
Yes, it did. Very much so.
-
Originally posted by Gank
You're wrong, and you wont have to wait a hundred years to see it, few decades at most. Lets just wait and see will we?
Ok, no point in keeping telling each other we're wrong. Come back here in a few decades then, after the United States has collapsed.
Originally posted by Gank
Like I said its basic economics, if you have trouble understanding that theres not really much point in continuing talking to you.
I'd say your "basic economics" teacher forgot to mention a few points about the oil industry, but at least we can both agree there's no point in continuing to talk to each other.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Ok, no point in keeping telling each other we're wrong. Come back here in a few decades then, after the United States has collapsed.
I didnt say it was going to collapse, I said its power and influence was declining, do you have problems reading as well?
Originally posted by Styxx
I'd say your "basic economics" teacher forgot to mention a few points about the oil industry, but at least we can both agree there's no point in continuing to talk to each other.
Aye, seeing as you cant actually support anything you're saying with anything other than blind statements.
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, there was a definite ammassment - Jordanian forces broke through the border to try and cut off Jerusalem IIRC the same day Israel struck in the Saini. That's not a "Oh look at what they did, let's encircle their capital with out border guards" event.
By June 5th it was clear war was inevitable, all the parties involved had long since mobilised their armies including Israel. Jordanian troops only acted after Israel had destroyed the Jordanain air force. You'll note Syrian forces did not conduct a ground offensive, apart from a minor thrust towards the Tel Dan waterplant.
One thing I dont see mentioned in the wikipedia is Moscows alleged informing of Nasser that Israel was massing its armys to attack Syria (falsly), which is often given as the reason Nasser sent troops into the Sinai.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intel67.html
Israeli source so I'd treat most of its claims with sceptisism but I'm sure its accurate on the historical details. It also states that it was orginally 2 divisions which entered the Sinai and escalated the crisis, the 7 must be the total number that fought in the war.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I didnt say it was going to collapse, I said its power and influence was declining, do you have problems reading as well?
Maybe you should have chosen an expression different than "****ing themselves over", or refrained from bundling it on the "declining empires" category. You didn't state it, but you implied it heavily, and now you resort to technicalities because you can't prove your point.
;)
Originally posted by Gank
Aye, seeing as you cant actually support anything you're saying with anything other than blind statements.
http://www.financeone.com.br/noticia.php?lang=br&nid=10287
From the article, translated:
[q]Ali Rodriguez, president of the [Venezuelan] state-owned oil company PDVSA, attributed the high oil prices to the low refinement capacity of the Unites States, and not to any shortages of the product in the market.[/q]
Looks like someone wants to keep the prices high, huh?
And:
[q]In general, OPEC ministers agree that prices are excessively high and artificially inflated.[/q]
According to the OPEC, oil shortages are a fiction created by, mainly, the United States oil industry, who's deliberately keeping prices high. That enough for you?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Maybe you should have chosen an expression different than "****ing themselves over", or refrained from bundling it on the "declining empires" category. You didn't state it, but you implied it heavily, and now you resort to technicalities because you can't prove your point.
I didnt imply it was going to collapse, I said its influence is declining, which it quite clearly is. Also my ****ing themselves over was in reference to its support of Israel. Now you're resorting to telling me I was implying something more than what I said because YOU cant prove your point :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Styxx
http://www.financeone.com.br/noticia.php?lang=br&nid=10287
From the article, translated:
[q]Ali Rodriguez, president of the [Venezuelan] state-owned oil company PDVSA, attributed the high oil prices to the low refinement capacity of the Unites States, and not to any shortages of the product in the market.[/q]
Looks like someone wants to keep the prices high, huh?
And:
[q]In general, OPEC ministers agree that prices are excessively high and artificially inflated.[/q]
According to the OPEC, oil shortages are a fiction created by, mainly, the United States oil industry, who's deliberately keeping prices high. That enough for you?
Couldnt find an article in english to back yourself up? How convenient. Anyways so Opec say its the US's fault oil price is rising? Why then are they also saying they think they current prices are fair?
http://www.dawn.com/2004/07/02/ebr9.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/01/markets/oil.reut/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5332321/
What you're saying makes little sense anyways, and is just a blatent attempt by Opec to make the US look like its too blame.
-
@ Gank
From Styxx article
No geral, os ministros da Opep concordam que os preços atuais estão excessivamente altos e "artificialmente inflados", acrescentou.
(...)
Ali Rodriguez, presidente da estatal PDVSA, atribuiu a alta do petróleo à baixa capacidade de refino nos Estados Unidos, e não ao déficit de produto no mercado.
I can back his claims about the truthfulness of his translation. Why is that convenient?
And the articles you gave links to only mention Saudi Arabia's "opinion", not the whole OPEC.
-
Convenient because I cant understand it, and read what context the remarks are made in, ie are they made as to the overall price of oil or is the Venezualan blaming the US for spikes in the market like the one which brought prices above $40 a barrel. Looking at the date of the article (27th may) it was published at the time prices were hitting $42 a barrel (25th may) so I suspect the latter
btw Venezua;a would blame the US if it pissed the bed so I'd treat any remarks like this coming form a government official with a bit of sceptisism (sp)
As for the articles I posted only mentioning the Saudis, they didnt:
The Saudi comments, coupled with concerns raised by Nigeria, Iran and Venezuela, are early signs that Opec may not go ahead with a 500,000bd increase in its quota when it meets in Vienna later this month.
Nigeria's top oil official said on Thursday he wants oil prices to stay in the mid-$30 a barrel area, and believes OPEC producers should beware of releasing too much supply at current prices.
Anyways its in Opecs interest to keep a high oil prices, high prices curb demand, which they are unable to meet:
t is commonly believed that among the oil producers, only Saudi Arabia has now some spare capacity. Rest are producing at almost their peak level. Hence analysts feel that the supply demand balance is resting now on a 'knife edge,' and even a small disturbance in the long crude supply change affects the crude market sentiments significantly.
-
Originally posted by Gank Originally posted by Styxx
Okay, so, in your opinion, the prices are kept deliberately low? And because of fear of alternative energy sources? Thanks for sharing.
By the way, this discussion will lead to the same place as all others about this subject before: precisely nowhere.
Like I said its basic economics, if you have trouble understanding that theres not really much point in continuing talking to you.
So your basic economics have somehow changed over the last few posts...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Like I said its basic economics, if you have trouble understanding that theres not really much point in continuing talking to you.
So your basic economics have somehow changed over the last few posts... [/B][/quote]
Three cheers for backpedaling.
-
Excuse me?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Excuse me?
Not you, Ghostavo.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I didnt imply it was going to collapse, I said its influence is declining, which it quite clearly is. Also my ****ing themselves over was in reference to its support of Israel. Now you're resorting to telling me I was implying something more than what I said because YOU cant prove your point :rolleyes:
You did imply it, and of course I can't, as it's an unprovable point. The fact remains that, unless the US suffers dramatic changes in the future, its support for Israel will remain, and the situation will not change. And you can't prove that the kind of change needed to alter the situation in the middle east will ever occur, so your initial point is invalid. Unless you have a time machine, that is.
Originally posted by Gank
Couldnt find an article in english to back yourself up? How convenient. Anyways so Opec say its the US's fault oil price is rising? Why then are they also saying they think they current prices are fair?
http://www.dawn.com/2004/07/02/ebr9.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/01/markets/oil.reut/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5332321/
I didn't bother to find one in english, actually, as the one I had in portuguese raised all points I was addressing quite handily, and I translated the relevant sections.
And Ghostavo's comment is true - other countries are only mentioned in passing, and as "having expressed concerns". That doesn't seem to me like an OPEC-wide move. The fact that the Saudi Arabia is the OPEC country most closely connected to US oil interests (except for Iraq right now) is also very interesting.
Originally posted by Gank
What you're saying makes little sense anyways, and is just a blatent attempt by Opec to make the US look like its too blame.
Or what you are saying makes little sense, and it's just a blatant attempt by the US to make the OPEC look like it's to blame.
;)
-
This thread is making me dizzy :(
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Like I said its basic economics, if you have trouble understanding that theres not really much point in continuing talking to you.
So your basic economics have somehow changed over the last few posts... [/B][/quote]
Umm, no they havent, if you really need that explained you should keep out of the thread. I'll explain it for you anyways.
Actually oil prices are kept deliberatly low for a good reason, higher oil prices mean more interest in other energy sources. If oil prices rise its because there are problems with supply and demand, take for example the Saudis recent statement that $35 a barrel is their new desired price as opposed to the old $22-$28. A increase of 25-33% in oil is going to cause people to look for alternative energy source, which the Saudis do not want seeing as oil is their only way of getting money. Pretty basic economics.
Anyways its in Opecs interest to keep a high oil prices, high prices curb demand, which they are unable to meet:
Very very simple, low prices = more demand, high prices= less demand, Opec not able to meet current demand, prices raised. Not exactly rocket science now is it?
Originally posted by Styxx
You did imply it, and of course I can't, as it's an unprovable point. The fact remains that, unless the US suffers dramatic changes in the future, its support for Israel will remain, and the situation will not change. And you can't prove that the kind of change needed to alter the situation in the middle east will ever occur, so your initial point is invalid. Unless you have a time machine, that is.
Right whatever, no point in continuing this.
Originally posted by Styxx
I didn't bother to find one in english, actually, as the one I had in portuguese raised all points I was addressing quite handily, and I translated the relevant sections.
Yes but this one was published at a time oil was at the highest price in a long time and is obviously refering to that, pity its in portugese and we cant actually read the whole thing. It couldnt be related to the Saudi announcement as it was published two months prior to that. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Styxx
And Ghostavo's comment is true - other countries are only mentioned in passing, and as "having expressed concerns". That doesn't seem to me like an OPEC-wide move. The fact that the Saudi Arabia is the OPEC country most closely connected to US oil interests (except for Iraq right now) is also very interesting.
If you actually read what I originally said it was the Saudis I mentioned, not Opec, you brought them into it. And the fact that Saudi Arabia is most closely connected with US has nothing to do with it, its the fact that Saudi is the world leading oil producer and has 30% of the worlds proven reserves. The other countries are only mentioned in passing, but thats because the Saudis are the big boys and what they say eventually goes.
Originally posted by Styxx
Or what you are saying makes little sense, and it's just a blatant attempt by the US to make the OPEC look like it's to blame.
Ya right, would work if it was the US making the announcements, but seeing how its opec and the Saudis themselves its your statement which makes no sense.
Do yourself a favour and find an english article which backs you up, if I'm as wrong as you say I am it shouldnt be that hard to do.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Three cheers for backpedaling.
Three cheers for idiots who cant follow whats being said and just make noises when they think somebodys caught out somebody they dont like :rolleyes:
-
The part that doesn't make any sense in the whole thing is:
Why would OPEC have any interest whatsoever in lowering oil prices? Particularly when dealing with the United States, it's not like we're going to cut back on the purchasing of crude oil just because the prices go up. I think it's known we'll pay whatever it costs. You could say they have us over a barrel, if you'll pardon the pun.
Deploying alternative energy sources for vehicles along would be a huge expenditure, plus we'd be dealing with 40 years worth of vehicles out there that are depended on fossil fuels. For now, we're stuck with what is.
-
OPEC have an interest in keeping the price of oil just low enough to prevent governments being forced into developing proper alternative energy sources (BTW, I believe there are hybrid / electric cars coming onto the market now, so that's a very good start).
Plus, if they push the price up too high, then the Arab countries will get invaded. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
OPEC have an interest in keeping the price of oil just low enough to prevent governments being forced into developing proper alternative energy sources (BTW, I believe there are hybrid / electric cars coming onto the market now, so that's a very good start).
Hee. Yeah, some of the new hybrids available out here are actually pretty sweet. You even get a tax credit for buying one. If I could afford it, I'd do it. The idea of being able to drive from here to Denver, Colorado on a single tank of gas is awfully appealing. I doubt it's THAT good though.
Of course, you get a bigger tax credit for an SUV apparently. Go figure that.
-
Gank, I know the supply/demand principles, but you gave two oposite afirmations... first you said that they were trying to get the prices low, then you said that they were trying to get them high... if you consider that as me not following the discussion, you should be the one to keep out of this thread.
And for god's sake, use the thing right! I didn't say that, I just quoted from you and said what's below.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Very very simple, low prices = more demand, high prices= less demand, Opec not able to meet current demand, prices raised. Not exactly rocket science now is it?
OPEC never stated that they're not able to meet the demand, it's an assertion by your part. Iran, for example, is discovering substantially more large new oil fields than predicted, and they are quite confident. This whole discussion is just a sideline, though, and you still didn't prove with any kind of certainty that Israel will to collapse any time soon - or will you deny having stated that too?.
Originally posted by Gank
Right whatever, no point in continuing this.
Exactly, took you long enough.
Originally posted by Gank
Yes but this one was published at a time oil was at the highest price in a long time and is obviously refering to that, pity its in portugese and we cant actually read the whole thing. It couldnt be related to the Saudi announcement as it was published two months prior to that. :rolleyes:
I never said it was related to the Saudi announcement, and it's as relevant as any other recent article. As for the fact that it's in portuguese, feel free to use babelfish or ask for someone to translate the whole article for you if you have so much trouble believing the snippets I posted.
Originally posted by Gank
If you actually read what I originally said it was the Saudis I mentioned, not Opec, you brought them into it. And the fact that Saudi Arabia is most closely connected with US has nothing to do with it, its the fact that Saudi is the world leading oil producer and has 30% of the worlds proven reserves. The other countries are only mentioned in passing, but thats because the Saudis are the big boys and what they say eventually goes.
[...]
Ya right, would work if it was the US making the announcements, but seeing how its opec and the Saudis themselves its your statement which makes no sense.
You're stating that OPEC can't meet the demand, and that's the reason for the high prices, yet provided no actual, clear statement by them for it. I provided a statement from the president of the company that controls oil production in Venezuela, who's a member of OPEC, saying that demand can be met and that prices are artificially inflated by the lack of refinement capacity of the US, which is a major regulator of the oil prices. You dismissed that statement in the basis that anyone under Chavez' government would try to blame the US for anything, while you accept without reservations a Saudi statement, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is comfortably sitting inside the United States' pocket. Interesting, isn't it?
Show me a quote by an official from an OPEC country stating that they can't meet the demand, and I'll accept that you may be right about the oil crisis. The problem with oil alarmists is that they're very similar to the eco alarmists - it's all about "the world is about to end", and no analysis of the full picture. Sure, oil will end someday, but there is a lot of it out there yet, and it's much more probable that current political situations will change of their own accord or other external reasons before we reach the point where decreased supply will be able to cause a major shift.
Originally posted by Gank
Do yourself a favour and find an english article which backs you up, if I'm as wrong as you say I am it shouldnt be that hard to do.
You're the one asserting that a future oil crisis will lead to the collapse of the Israeli state, so feel free to post definitive proof of it instead of wild speculation, or just drop the subject.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Gank, I know the supply/demand principles, but you gave two oposite afirmations... first you said that they were trying to get the prices low, then you said that they were trying to get them high... if you consider that as me not following the discussion, you should be the one to keep out of this thread.
And for god's sake, use the thing right! I didn't say that, I just quoted from you and said what's below. [/B]
What I actually said was in the past they've tried to keep it low but they're raising it now, right there in plain english the first time I mentioned it.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FG10Dj01.html
Read this, hopefully it'll help make things clearer for you. Havent time to read it all myself but it seems to be about the right thing.
As for the quote, thats the forums fault, Ionias post did the same thing.
Originally posted by Styxx
OPEC never stated that they're not able to meet the demand, it's an assertion by your part. Iran, for example, is discovering substantially more large new oil fields than predicted, and they are quite confident. This whole discussion is just a sideline, though, and you still didn't prove with any kind of certainty that Israel will to collapse any time soon - or will you deny having stated that too?.
Oil is only being discovered at roughly half the rate it is being used, and Exxon-mobil projects in ten years time demand will be 180% of what it is now. Regardless of what Opec says, the simple facts are that exploration is not finding enough to replace whats being used at the current rate, let alone future demand.
Originally posted by Styxx
I never said it was related to the Saudi announcement, and it's as relevant as any other recent article. As for the fact that it's in portuguese, feel free to use babelfish or ask for someone to translate the whole article for you if you have so much trouble believing the snippets I posted.
Interesting, I ran it through Babelfish and although its gibberish at parts its kinda understandable. The Venezualans comments were made in responce to Saudi calls to increase production, they say its not neccessary to do so because its the US's fault prices are high. Right after the comments we have this:
Analysts affirm that Venezuela is operating with its maximum capacity and that it does not have idle capacity to increase the production.
Pretty clear here that Venezuela isnt able to increase production and is pointing a finger at anyone handy to get out of it. If you actually use your brain and think about it, what hes saying makes no sense anyways, a lack of refing capability would affect the price of end products like petrol and diesel, not the price of crude oil.
Originally posted by Styxx
You're stating that OPEC can't meet the demand, and that's the reason for the high prices, yet provided no actual, clear statement by them for it. I provided a statement from the president of the company that controls oil production in Venezuela, who's a member of OPEC, saying that demand can be met and that prices are artificially inflated by the lack of refinement capacity of the US, which is a major regulator of the oil prices. You dismissed that statement in the basis that anyone under Chavez' government would try to blame the US for anything, while you accept without reservations a Saudi statement, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is comfortably sitting inside the United States' pocket. Interesting, isn't it?
Opec arent going to come out and say they cant meet demand, as this would cause governments and corporations to start looking at alternative energy sources. They want to milk their only cow for as long as they can, so expect assurances from them from some time. Independant analysts, like the one quoted above, agree that all countries except Saudi are already operating at maximum capacity. If you want a clear statement from OPEC about the matter dont hold your breath, they're not exactly known for being clear about anything.
As for how this all will affect Israel, lets wait until your able to grasp the basics of whats being said, dont want to overload your brain altogether.
Nother article
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/index.html
-
I'm sure analysts connected to the United States oil industry will keep saying that oil is about to run out despite anything the countries actually producing the oil say. And I'm also sure that oil will eventually run out, but that's far from now, farther than most alarmists (and the oil industry) want you to believe, and the likelyhood of a smooth transition to different energy sources is much higher than that of a collapse (or decline to the brink of collapse) of the United States economy and subsequent removal of support to Israel.
That last article you pointed even says that most analysts agree that oil production will stop meeting the demand "still in our lifetimes". That's bloody vague, could be a long time from now, and it's hardly indicative of a soon-to-come crisis that may affect the balance of power in the middle east. Actually, it's a very good indication that they cannot reach a proper consensus, and that they don't have enough data to actually predict the peak of the production curve.
So yeah, go ahead and tell us how all that affects Israel, bacause your failed arguments so far were hardly enough to overload anyone's brain.
And try to refrain from insulting people in future posts, we don't want this to turn into a flame war. :)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
I'm sure analysts connected to the United States oil industry will keep saying that oil is about to run out despite anything the countries actually producing the oil say. And I'm also sure that oil will eventually run out, but that's far from now, farther than most alarmists (and the oil industry) want you to believe, and the likelyhood of a smooth transition to different energy sources is much higher than that of a collapse (or decline to the brink of collapse) of the United States economy and subsequent removal of support to Israel.
Who says these analysts are connected to the US oil industry? thats an assumption on your part with nothing to back it up, in fact the analysts quoted in both articles quite clearly have nothing to do with the oil industry. Also I dont see how you could claim to know better than the "alarmists" or the oil companys, exactly what information do you have that they dont? Blind optimisim and a refusal to listen to facts it seems.
Originally posted by Styxx
That last article you pointed even says that most analysts agree that oil production will stop meeting the demand "still in our lifetimes". That's bloody vague, could be a long time from now, and it's hardly indicative of a soon-to-come crisis that may affect the balance of power in the middle east. Actually, it's a very good indication that they cannot reach a proper consensus, and that they don't have enough data to actually predict the peak of the production curve.
It doesnt say that at all, it quotes one 46 year old saying it will end in his lifetime. As for data being limited, yes it is, reserve figures are given by Oil companys like Shell and BP, and oil producing nations which arent exactly quick to release figures, Saudi reserve figures for example are a state secret. These figures arent set in stone:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877763409.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
So yeah its hard to make accurate predictions, the most accurate so far were made by Hubbard, who correctly predicted US production would peak in the 70s. He gave world production to peak in 2010. Increased demand is causing analysts to move that date closer.
Originally posted by Styxx
So yeah, go ahead and tell us how all that affects Israel, bacause your failed arguments so far were hardly enough to overload anyone's brain.
So my arguments have failed because you've refuted them with the comments of a solitary opec minister whos deflecting attention away from his countries ability to step up production as is quite clearly shown in the article you quoted from. I think I'll save the rest for somebody who's capable of discussing it, you seem unable to understand articles in your own language about the matter.
-
Originally posted by Gank
It doesnt say that at all, it quotes one 46 year old saying it will end in his lifetime.
My grandfather died at age 84, and I know many people considerably older than that, above 90 years old. That puts a limit of roughly forty years, discounting any possible medical advances, to his prediction, unless you think he belives he'll die relatively young. That's plenty of time for a smooth transition to alternative energy sources - which is already starting in many countries - to make any prospect of an "oil crisis" moot. Also, the same article says that not all analysts agree that it'll happen so soon, which would give even more time for the "crisis" to be averted.
Originally posted by Gank
So my arguments have failed because you've refuted them with the comments of a solitary opec minister whos deflecting attention away from his countries ability to step up production as is quite clearly shown in the article you quoted from. I think I'll save the rest for somebody who's capable of discussing it, you seem unable to understand articles in your own language about the matter.
No, they failed because you couldn't provide a single fact, only speculation. You claimed that an oil crisis is very close, and that it will seriously affect the current global political situation to the point of causing the collapse of Israel, and it's your job to prove it. Unfounded speculation, which was never confirmed by any OPEC country - and is being outright refuted by at least one of them - proves nothing.
Your argument is based on guesses, and that's just not enough. Post verifiable facts, or be more careful about your claims in the future.
-
Originally posted by Gank
What I actually said was in the past they've tried to keep it low but they're raising it now, right there in plain english the first time I mentioned it.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FG10Dj01.html
Read this, hopefully it'll help make things clearer for you. Havent time to read it all myself but it seems to be about the right thing.
Originally posted by Gank
Actually oil prices are kept deliberatly low for a good reason, higher oil prices mean more interest in other energy sources.
:rolleyes:
But I think I got your point... in your own language ;)
Thanks
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
But I think I got your point... in your own language ;)
Thanks
You're still having problems with this? Read the whole thing:
Actually oil prices are kept deliberatly low for a good reason, higher oil prices mean more interest in other energy sources.If oil prices rise its because there are problems with supply and demand, take for example the Saudis recent statement that $35 a barrel is their new desired price as opposed to the old $22-$28. A increase of 25-33% in oil is going to cause people to look for alternative energy source, which the Saudis do not want seeing as oil is their only way of getting money.
You see the part right after the bit you quoted, where it says theres problems with supply and demand, thats what this refers too:
Anyways its in Opecs interest to keep a high oil prices, high prices curb demand, which they are unable to meet:
It doesnt contradict the prices being kept low
You obviusly havent got that good a grasp of english as you'd like to think you have.
Originally posted by Styxx
My grandfather died at age 84, and I know many people considerably older than that, above 90 years old. That puts a limit of roughly forty years, discounting any possible medical advances, to his prediction, unless you think he belives he'll die relatively young. That's plenty of time for a smooth transition to alternative energy sources - which is already starting in many countries - to make any prospect of an "oil crisis" moot. Also, the same article says that not all analysts agree that it'll happen so soon, which would give even more time for the "crisis" to be averted.
Eh, no country has started any "smooth transition" to alternative energy yet, because there is no alternative to oil atm, at least one which can compete pricewise. As for averting the crisis, I thought you were arguing there wasnt going to be one in the first place :rolleyes: Btw I believe average live expectancy in the US is 77 years according to the CDC, probably best to use this one instead of your grandfathers.
Originally posted by Styxx
No, they failed because you couldn't provide a single fact, only speculation. You claimed that an oil crisis is very close, and that it will seriously affect the current global political situation to the point of causing the collapse of Israel, and it's your job to prove it. Unfounded speculation, which was never confirmed by any OPEC country - and is being outright refuted by at least one of them - proves nothing.
Your argument is based on guesses, and that's just not enough. Post verifiable facts, or be more careful about your claims in the future.
Well if you want facts that will be verified by OPEC ministers, you'll be waiting a long time. Are you that niave that you think OPEC is going to tell us when its time to stop relying on their only milk cow? Ffs, get real. OPEC arent going to tell you anything of the sort until long after its happened, for two simple reasons: they dont want people to start looking at other energy sources while they still have a large amount of the stuff left, and because when the stuff starts to run out, they stand to make an obscene amount of money on it. As for me guessing and speculating what the **** is this?
I'm sure analysts connected to the United States oil industry will keep saying that oil is about to run out despite anything the countries actually producing the oil say.
Speculation
And I'm also sure that oil will eventually run out, but that's far from nowfarther than most alarmists (and the oil industry) want you to believe,
More speculation
and the likelyhood of a smooth transition to different energy sources is much higher than that of a collapse (or decline to the brink of collapse) of the United States economy and subsequent removal of support to Israel.
Again more speculation with nothing behind it.
None of what I've said is unfounded, it has a lot to back it up. Even Janes agrees:
http://www.janes.com/business/news/fr/fr040421_1_n.shtml
Like I said, I'll elaborate more on Israel if needed, but if you're going to wait on Chavezs oil man to confirm everything I've said theres no real point in talking to you.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Eh, no country has started any "smooth transition" to alternative energy yet, because there is no alternative to oil atm, at least one which can compete pricewise. As for averting the crisis, I thought you were arguing there wasnt going to be one in the first place :rolleyes: Btw I believe average live expectancy in the US is 77 years according to the CDC, probably best to use this one instead of your grandfathers.
No? How come I can go to car store and buy an alcohol-powered car, then go to any service station and fill it up with automotive alcohol right here in Brazil? How come the vast majority of electrical energy here is produced on hydroelectrical plants? There's no transition happening whatsoever, I see.
And I didn't say the oil wasn't going to end - I said there won't be a major international crisis because of it - because it will be "averted" (notice the quote marks) through a smooth transition to other energy sources. Maybe you should do as you keep telling others and read the posts more carefully.
And you can choose whichever age you want, I'm sure whoever said that doesn't actually expect to die soon. Or do you hope the average to apply to you too? If he wanted to say that it would happen in his lifetime, and believed it to be the american average, he could have simply said that it would happen in 31 years, that would be a lot more clear.
Originally posted by Gank
Well if you want facts that will be verified by OPEC ministers, you'll be waiting a long time. Are you that niave that you think OPEC is going to tell us when its time to stop relying on their only milk cow? Ffs, get real. OPEC arent going to tell you anything of the sort until long after its happened, for two simple reasons: they dont want people to start looking at other energy sources while they still have a large amount of the stuff left, and because when the stuff starts to run out, they stand to make an obscene amount of money on it. As for me guessing and speculating what the **** is this?
I want facts, verified by a reputable and trustworthy source. You posted nothing but speculation - it may have a basis in reality, under your own eyes - but it's still only speculation.
Originally posted by Gank
Speculation
More speculation
Again more speculation with nothing behind it.
Yes, speculation, more speculation, and yet more. Just as you posted yourself, perhaps. I, however, didn't make any claims about the collapse of nations based on those same speculations.
Originally posted by Gank
None of what I've said is unfounded, it has a lot to back it up. Even Janes agrees:
http://www.janes.com/business/news/fr/fr040421_1_n.shtml
Like I said, I'll elaborate more on Israel if needed, but if you're going to wait on Chavezs oil man to confirm everything I've said theres no real point in talking to you.
As for the article, yes, oil prices are the highest in nearly 15 years. What they fail to mention is that oil prices adjusted for inflation reached much higher marks in the early eighties, and yet oil didn't end and the world failed to collapse. So much for that argument about high prices being a clear indicator of lack of production capacity, huh? It also shows that Shell has a bunch of incompetent/malicious people working for it, but that's irrelevant.
If you want a source, here's one (http://www.janes.com/business/news/fr/fr040421_1_n.shtml).
And you could start elaborating on the Israeli issue by providing actual facts to back your statement instead of spewing out the same guesses about an oil crisis again and again.