Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war" (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war"
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the US stopped using oil in the medium term, there will be more than enough demand from China and India to offset the loss. There might be a short term fall in price, but that would just encourage Asian dependence on the resource.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
If the US stopped using oil in the medium term, there will be more than enough demand from China and India to offset the loss. There might be a short term fall in price, but that would just encourage Asian dependence on the resource.

Thing is, US goes off of an oil based economy, particularly because we've made it economically viable to use non-oil based alternatives to transportation. It WILL be adopted in Europe and Japan in fairly short order.

China and India are starting to have a fairly prosperous class of people who can afford things like automobiles. However when it comes to buying cars, most of their cars are going to come from outside their borders. IE: Japan/Europe in particular, the US to a lesser extent.

If all they're making/designing in those contries is fuel efficient vehicles, that is what the people in the third world nations are going to be getting as well.

The hurdle is getting the technology to the point where it is widely accepted, and widely produced. The third world may be years/decades behind us in many things, but the technology being used in their vehicles is not one of those areas.

Though admitedly, they tend to buy more from the "value" end of the product line... but that is kind of the point I'm trying to make, if the more efficient tchnologies are created/deployed to the point that the "value" line of vehicles come with it, it will phase its way into the third world at a pace not much slower than what we'll find over here.

[ February 27, 2007, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Proven? So suddenly now you're calling Rumsfeld the ideal tactician?
Far from it, but he nevertheless has demonstrated what happens when you send in an overmuscled, yet underpowered force to fight an enemy that won't fight by the same set of rules and refuses to stand still to be killed. We don't have enough bombs to "kill the memes" from the air, so what do you suggest?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However when it comes to buying cars, most of their cars are going to come from outside their borders. IE: Japan/Europe in particular, the US to a lesser extent. - TheDaemon
Actually, quite the opposite: from news.xinhuanet.com
quote:
China will become world's biggest auto manufacturing center worldwide in the next three to five years, said leading European consultant organization Capgemini
According to Wikipedia(article), China produces more cars annually than all but 3 other countries, producing almost half the number of cars as either the US or Japan. India is far behind (12th place) but their industry is also growing.

Point being, these countries will soon have more cars on the road than North America, and China's need will more than support Iran if the US cuts itself off.

Unless these new non-petroleum based vehicles end up being cheaper to manufacture and run than ones based on the 'classic' technology (taking into consideration the price-pressures due to new technology) 2nd and 3rd world countries will continue to use the former.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Point taken, I knew they had an auto industry coming online, didn't know it was that progressed.

The non-oil alternative is probably going to be a more technicaly complex vehicle, which all things considered is likely to keep it out of some parts of the world, as they can't afford to pay for someone with the level of training and associated equipment needed to service them properly.

Complexity and government incentives aside, I don't think that a less oil-intensive automobile is going to rally catch on in the US unless it is clearly more economical to operate, and doesn't have any other serious drawbacks. Basically all the incentives third world buyers would be looking for when buying a car as well. Their Automakers will adjust their production priorities accordingly as the technology becomes more approachable to more of the people in their country.

But then, I'd be pushing it from the National Security angle for the United States. If we could cut our need for Oil down to the point where we were largely self-sufficient again... At that point I don't really care what happens in the middle-east or other oil producing regions. It may be a fungible commodity and as such cause price spikes in the US, but when push comes to shove on the international stage, it isn't our energy(and by extension, economic) security directly on the line at that point.

[ February 27, 2007, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I didn't condemn our actions in NK, I merely called our "economics and assistance" package by another name.
What else do you call a boat load of money and things they need in return for doing something we don't want them to do? Quid-pro-quo might be more tasteful, but a bribe by any other name…

Anywho, I wasn't speaking to our actions, but looking at it from NK's point of view. They have used that technique several times now, so it stands to reason that Iran might be working the same angle.

-------

On the alternative energy thing, it's nothing more than simple economics - supply and demand and the cost of production and shipment. If alt energy is cheaper than oil, and the cars or vehicles or power generation equipment is at least equal to a similar petrol burning machine, then people will stop using oil.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes and no, jm. When demand for oil falls (because of cheapness of alternative energy) then the price of oil will also fall due to lack of demand. Unless the price of oil falls below the cost of manufacture and distribution (or the price of oil processing and distribution exceeds that for alt energy delivery) it will still be used.

Regardless, it's highly unlikely that
  • any alternative energy technology will be significantly cheaper than oil
  • (and to TheDaemon's point) as simple to operate and maintain
  • that this tech will immediately replace all the in-situ internal combustion engines in use today. Heck, there are still 30 and 40 year old cars tooling around 2nd and 3rd world countries today.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So there is no solution at all other than we simply wait for Iran to do whatever it is that they are planning or going to do?

Given that even if we suddenly became the most energy independent and green nation in the industrialized world, we would be unlikely to accomplish such a feat in even five years & the very fact that we are doing so may be taken as a direct threat to Iran makes it more likely that Iran may feel compelled to redouble its efforts to at least become a nuclear energy power.

Is this the best solution we have? No solution?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
General Allenby (the fictitious version of the Lawrence of Arabia screenplay) in response to:

"We can't just do nothing."

says this:

"Why not? It's usually best."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes and Allenby turned out to be wrong, even in the film version.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Awwww SNAP.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jm0397:
Pete, I didn't condemn our actions in NK, I merely called our "economics and assistance" package by another name.
What else do you call a boat load of money and things they need in return for doing something we don't want them to do? Quid-pro-quo might be more tasteful, but a bribe by any other name…

I have no problem with Bribing iran to not develop nukes, providing that the deal could be ENFORCED. Unfortunately, there is no way. If Bush had done what the Euros and lefties had wanted, this deal with NK and China would never have happened. Everyone wanted the US to meet alone with NK, and that would have meant no enforceable deal.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yes and Allenby turned out to be wrong, even in the film version."

Compared to ??? Ousting the Arabs who'd just f9ought half his war for him? Never mind reality. Even in the film version?

Hardly. He sat back and let the fires burn themselves out. The Arabs left of their own.

That done, he was able to tidy up Damascus.

I'm talking, of course, about the movie. Did we see the same one?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Bush had done what the Euros and lefties had wanted, this deal with NK and China would never have happened. Everyone wanted the US to meet alone with NK, and that would have meant no enforceable deal.
What enforceable deal are you talking about? This was only an agreement to negotiate toward specific objectives. Those goals are essentially the same ones that the "lefties" (i.e., Clinton's people) negotiated long ago, with the same problems. Also, don't forget that a lot of people in the Administration were opposed to or are suspicious of this kind of deal, like Cheney and John Bolton.
quote:
...But the agreement, [Darryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington] adds, is only the beginning of a difficult road ahead. The accord "fails to do what the 1994 agreement framework also failed to do - and that is to really settle the issue of North Korea's insistence on light-water nuclear energy capabilities."

It essentially "kicks the issue down the road," he says. He adds that "this may be the wise way to deal with it" for now. "But it's still something - a big thing - they will need to tackle."

It's a step forward, but we're not there yet.

[ March 06, 2007, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1