[ionia23]

Originally posted by Sandwich
The Wikipedia is - as always - a very good read on the 6 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.

[vyper]

Wikipedia rocks.

[Gank]

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.

[Styxx]

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.

[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.

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.

[ionia23]

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?

[ChronoReverse]

Besides the USA and using it ourselves you mean?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Besides the USA and suing it themselves you mean?

Yup, besides the USA and themselves.

[ChronoReverse]

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.

[Gank]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[Styxx]

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.

[Gank]

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.

[Styxx]

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?

[Gank]

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

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.

[Ghostavo]

@ 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.

[Gank]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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...

[ionia23]

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.

[Ghostavo]

Excuse me?