#1
Much of the Gulf has budgeted for much lower oil prices. Gulf states, on average, need prices above $47 a barrel to keep from running budget deficits. But some states are more vulnerable than others: Bahrain's so-called break-even price is $75 a barrel, compared with Saudi Arabia's $49 and Kuwait's $33, according to the International Monetary Fund.
The speed of crude's tumble -- to about $64 a barrel -- has unnerved officials despite the apparent cushion. At an emergency meeting on Friday, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries hastily decided to cut output by 1.5 million barrels a day, the biggest single cut in almost eight years. After that move failed to curb crude's fall on Friday, some oil officials suggested over the weekend that another cut was in order.
Weeks of sliding equity prices have wiped out billions of dollars of wealth for the region's influential clique of local retail investors. Saudi Arabia's main stock-market index is down by more than 50% year to date. The fall has wiped some $205 billion of value off the region's biggest exchange by market capitalization since June.
#2
These are different 'break-even' prices than those I saw in an article a week or so ago, on this site I think. I tracked down a link to the IMF statement;
http://www.recexpo.com/recweb/News_show_news.asp?id=4139
I am suspicious of the numbers, and the main driver for my suspicions is the source of the data, the IMF. The IMF is not a clean-hands player in all of this. I will try to track down the earlier article when I get time; I recall SA's break-even being around $10. Big difference.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
10/27/2008 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
That's the governments' budget break even figures. I seem to remember is costs the Saudis around $4 to lift out of the ground, transport, clean and load onto tankers 1 barrel of oil.
Posted by: ed ||
10/27/2008 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Some interesting oil industry statistics "Production cost" includes a world-wide average of US $7.35 per barrel in finding costs, $3.57 per barrel in lifting cost (what it takes to operate a producing well), and $1.00 in production taxes per barrel. 2003 numbers from EIA.
That's a worldwide average of $12/barrel in 2003.
Posted by: ed ||
10/27/2008 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
break-even means different things to different people
it could mean "production + operations + maintenance"
or it could mean "production + operation + maintenance + required govt. rake off"
#6
The Canadian oil sands are break-even at $28 per barrel, *after* factoring in mandatory royalties, and that's about as expensive a type of oil as you might get. I expect that if you subtract those royalties, break-even point is either in the high teens or low twenties. The cash cost of the marginal barrel of oil is nowhere near $60 a barrel. And that marginal barrel of oil only needs to get produced if oil demand stays the same. US oil demand plunged 4m barrels a day (out of 20m) during the 1980's recession. This recession will be far worse. I expect a drop in demand of 10m barrels a day. OPEC is screwed. I'm looking for oil in the 20's before this bottoms out. That's where it was in the 2001-2002 time frame.
#8
Euro government budgets are going to see some pain because of this recession. A huge drop in gasoline demand will make a dent in their budgets, since they rely on it - partly - to pay for "free" health care.
#9
Just make sure those who bought oil futures pay the price they porked it up to. If they can't, they need to be banned for life from the commodities and trading markets as a minimum.
This is an Obama supporter going into an Obama rally in Fayetteville, NC over this caption;
PHOTOGRAPHS BY J.M. EDDINS JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Charlie W. Williams of Raeford, N.C., a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars and supporter of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, lines up early to get into a rally at the Crown Coliseum in Fayetteville on Oct. 19. "He's going to get a lot of white votes," he said of his candidate
I get real I also looked for images of Army Medals and discovered that I also needed to find some Navy Medals, too. The highest award is two awards of the Bronze Star, one with a 'V' for valor. Since it's illegal to claim a medal for valor you're not awarded, I absolutely believe that, without further evidence to the contrary. The rest are (in order viewers' left to right and descending);
Purple Heart/Army Commendation Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal/Army Meritorious Service Medal/Reserve Component Overseas Training/
Unknown/Army Acheivement/Good Conduct/Army of Occupation/Southwest Asia Service (Desert Storm)/Vietnam Service medal (3 stars)/National Defense
NATO Medal/Korea Service/Armed Forces Service Medal/Army Service RIbbon/Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Army Overseas Ribbon /Navy Meritorious Unit/Navy Combat Action
United Nations Service/RVN Campaign/Multinational Force and Observers/Outstanding Volunteer Medal
He has the Southwest Asia medal for Desert Storm,
the Armed Forces Service medal (which is for service after 1992).
He's also wearing a Navy Combat Action ribbon, which he only could've earned as a member of the Navy or Marines.
He also has an Overseas Service Ribbon which can only be awarded to people on active duty after 1981.
His National Defense Service Medal has an oakleaf cluster, subsequent awards of the NDSM are denoted by a bronze star device not an oakleaf.
Willie is wearing medals and ribbons that didn't come into existence until after he left the service since he says he was in Korea and Vietnam. He wears a star on his CIB so that means he had to have been in the Korean War before July 27, 1953. Since his Good Conduct Medal has five knots, he must've served between 15-18 years (each knot is three years of service) but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he did twenty, that means he retired before July 1973 and many of the medals he wears didn't even exist at the time he retired and they're awarded for service he couldn't have. And there's still one medal I haven't ID'd yet.
A few weeks ago, I busted out a warrant officer on Military.com who listed every conflict since Vietnam as wars he'd participated in during his thirty year career. Questioning him and comparing his profile to his medals, we narrowed his wartime service down to just the Global War on Terror - and surprise - he was an Obama supporter touting the IAVA report card.
Zero Ponsdorf and Wpage sent me this article about phony soldiers from the Chicago Tribune. They seem to be everywhere. If you've been in the military, just be proud of your service for what it was, you don't need to make stuff up to be accepted. Cheezum crow.
#7
Just from a quick look at this fruit salad, he was in Berlin or Japan after WWII, in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and served in the Navy/and or Marine Crops and the Army. Twice wounded? Wow, what a fellow. Just another highly decorated military man for Obama....
Posted by: Boss Cravilet8390 ||
10/27/2008 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Who are these birds doing this for? Not for the right. They don't know enough or care enough to be able to put a consistent set of medals with their story. It's too easy to refute to be effective at impressing conservatives. Are they doing it for the left? I can't see how playing a phoney warrior gets them any points with people who simply hate the military. That only leaves one target for them to impress, themselves. Clumsy, stupid ego-tripping is my best guess as to what makes them do that. I say, give them a mirror and some lubricante and let them entertain themselve - in private.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/27/2008 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Cheap Halloween version of Moammar Gadhafi -- no sprockets.
#15
I am so flashing on to a book that came from my Grannie Jessie's shelves - one of the minor sub-plots concerned the unmasking of a fake veteran by a pair of small boys who were as keen on 'medal watching' as serious birders are on spotting exotic birds.
"Country Mouse" by Louise Andrews Kent. So, medal faking and/or inflation does have a bit of a history - and so does the joy of unmasking them.
It does appear that Mr. Williams is packing his resume... just a little bit.
Either that, or he's a modern version of Casca, the forever soldier.
#2
I haven't bought a gun, but I'm beginning to make a new crossbow, and I'm replacing the elastics on my wrist-rocket. I try not to make noise - it attracts unwanted attention.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/27/2008 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Good point, OP.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/27/2008 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
OP: Best advice I got from a crusty old man who lived in the country.
"Don't ever drink my liquor."
He had a dozen bottles on a shelf in his living room. You would think he was a big drinker. But he didn't drink. The liquor was for the burglars.
#2
In past I have noted that the European Parliament desperately wants to Americanize Europe. They are amazed at how homogeneous America is, not appreciating that our States have always been homogeneous; and that there are very good reasons Europe has a multitude of nations.
It is also pathetic that the reason they want homogeneity is because they equate it with peace. They think that different peoples, with different languages and cultures, will invariably and perpetually fight, so that by eliminating differences and replacing them with bland sameness, they will end their 1700 years of murdering each other.
WFTV Channel 9's Barbara West puts Joe Biden on the hot seat over ACORN, voter fraud, and Barack Obamas Spread the wealth comments. The result? Best interview ever. The Gaffe-Master Joe Biden was so upset that the Obama campaign canceled an interview West's station had scheduled with his wife, Jill. The Orlando Sentinel reports: "Why did Barack Obamas campaign cancel a WFTV-Channel 9 interview with Jill Biden, wife of Sen. Joe Biden? The campaign cited an unprofessional interview WFTVs Barbara West did Thursday with Joe Biden. In a statement Friday, Adrianne Marsh, Florida spokeswoman for Obamas campaign, said the station, in talking with Sen. Biden, was both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts. Marsh said Wests insistence that Obama was an organizer for ACORN was 100 percent false. In a line of questioning that would make Rush Limbaugh proud, West even went as far as to quote Karl Marx, a Communist icon, in a disturbing attempt to associate Barack Obama with socialism, Marsh wrote. West said, I think I asked him some pointed questions... I dont think I was rude or inconsiderate to him.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And you're a racist too Barbara! Adrianne neglected to include that.
#3
I thought she was way under prepared, had no followup questions and didn't challenge Biden's bald faced lies at all. Such as Obama not funding ACORN for at least $800,000, equating McCain w/ ACORN, or the years Obama spent funneling the wealth of rich dead white guys to ACORN.
Posted by: ed ||
10/27/2008 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ed, she only had a few minutes to get her questions out, and Joe's a master of extending the time line to snuff out additional questions. Hard to tell if she was under-prepared since there wasn't enough time for an extended interview.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/27/2008 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Biden did very well considering how biased the interview was. He answered all the questions about socialism and Karl Marks perfectly.
Sure sure, thosed questions that needed to be asked, like Karl Marx quote needed to be said. If your a moron!
How about asking John McCain some tough questions. All you get from him is "I'm not going to answer, everyone in America knows the answer, everyone! Why should I answered a question everyone knows!"
Mrs. West is a real trollop, under the guise of being a friendly interview then throwing out questions based on rumors as they were 100% fact.
Good job Joey Boy! Compared to Palin, you aced it!
#7
Please keep in mind, this is NOT about WFTV's Channel 9 and Democratic interviews and coverage. This is about Barb West and the left's desire to see her FIRED! Terminated! Jobless! Scorned! Hate-branded! Ushered off to the re-education camps as an object lesson.
#8
"a disturbing attempt to associate Barack Obama with socialism"
He does the associating himself. He just doesn't want that pointed out while he's playing moderate for one more week.
The Obama campaign needs to face lots more of these pointed questions in the coming week.
#9
The Obama camp has already banned the station from any more interviews or information.
Lets Review:
Joe the Plumber asked Bambi a basic, simple, question, "Are you going to raise my taxes?" and gets the third degree from the Cannidate himself, his Vice President pick, and the MEDIA. We know more about Joe the Plumber then about the Democratic Candidate for the President of the United States.
One local TV station, out of the thousands in the USA, not to mention the major networks, asked Joe Biden a couple of simple questions about Bambi's socialist's ambitions - and the TV station gets banned from any more interviews or information from the Obama Campaign.
Sign of things to come if Obama gets elected.
Also - is anyone going to follow up on asking Biden about his outright lies during the interview?
#15
Well, let's see...universal health care, tax the rich and feed the poor...sounds like socialism to me. As for the middle class taking a hit, I don't feel like I took any hits at all until this sub prime mortgage mess hit the fan and it looks like Bawney Fwanks was the main man behind that.
#16
Sub prime mortgages were from Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, other Democrats and a few Republicans too and.... (drum roll please!)... Barak Obama (who sued citibank for ACORN to _force_ banks to make bad loans).
#17
Come on ZP, how can you possible deny that Bambi is a socialist? Please, let's hear it. Explain how 'redistributing the wealth' is not pure socialism?
#19
Well, it's good to see that after 36 yrs in the senate and as a former lawyer Joe Biden got one interview right.
sarc/off.
The scary thing about a Chairman Maobama el presidente is the fact that he and Joe the Career Politician will have a chance to finally fix the tax code. Nothing better than guys w/law degrees that have never really practiced law or have actually worked in the private sector or in coporate America should attempt to fix tax code. I know that when I need my car engine tuned up I go to my accountant.
How stupid or ignorant is the electorate in our Country? ...rhetorical.
#23
Maybe Biden doesn't really know about Obama's past associations and speeches, but he'd better get informed real quick. Just gleaning other posted articles on RB show video's of the wealth redistribution plan, his foundation's funding of the former Communist Party leader, Michael Blonsky along with Ayers, and Farrakhan's goals to expand the Nation of Islam so other "oppressed" Native Americans and Hispanics like Raza, can collect reparations from the new guvmint. A little more digging clearly shows links to ACORN and Alinsky, another Communist inspiration from his youth. His past associations would prevent him from being an FBI agent, yet he has not been forthcoming on releasing his records and producing a birth certificate proving his presidential eligibility. Maybe Sean Hannity should send Biden a copy of last night's Hannity's America to catch him up to speed.
There are many of us, immigrants from all continents that experienced socialism and communism on our skins an minds and we have been sensitized to catch even a whiff of it. A spade is a spade, even if plated by false gold. We did not come here to find ourselves in that crap again.
Therefore:
NOBAMARX!!!
Posted by: Ho Chi Bin ||
10/27/2008 16:52 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Yup its unprofessional to ask questions of the choosen one's illuminati party. Silly Barbara!
Have you ever held a job that required a simple background investigation or a security clearance? For much of my time in the Army, my duties required that I have a top secret security clearance. The special background investigation conducted to get and then maintain a top secret security clearance is quite extensive. One must provide 15 years of personal history consisting of references, credit records, relatives, neighbors, affiliations with organizations, workplaces, schools and you name it - and they are all checked. Each 5 years thereafter, all of the information must be updated and checked again. Your life is an open book and if you try to hide any of that your security clearance is lost and you could face serious criminal charges for hiding it. Some of my military jobs required that I be trusted with critically sensitive national security information. The security clearances, which gave me access to information that certainly would damage our national security if it ended up in the wrong hands, was not as high as a Whitehouse level security clearance.
So, whenever I hear about a politician, especially one who wants to be our president, refusing to release documents about his personal life it makes me distrust that person with the security of my family and country. Anyone who is not bothered by that either does not realize what is at stake or is just plain ignorant of the world in which we live and the potential for the rapid destruction of our country by our enemies. With the stroke of a pen, the President of the United States can declassify sensitive national security information. When your political alliances include self-admitted communists and people who think it is cute to have their pictures taken standing on the American flag that for me is a problem. Dont you find it disconcerting that Privates in the Army who work with sensitive information and equipment are more investigated and must meet more stringent security requirements than a potential Commander in Chief? I do.
Remember 2004? Dan Rather produced fraudulent and forged documents about George Bushs military service. Everything about President Bush was scrutinized and largely mischaracterized by the media. John Kerry on the other hand was defended. John Kerry who refused then and still refuses to release his complete military records. Before it was sent into cyber hell, I reviewed the DD Form 214 that John Kerry posted on his website. Within 30 seconds, I saw problems that the average person without knowledge of such records would not have noticed. One of his awards was listed as a Silver Star Medal with a V device. It was clearly an amateurish attempt to present a hero to Americans. In case you might not know it, a Silver Star is awarded for Combat Valor. There is no V device (for Valor) affixed to a Sliver Star. The V device is affixed to awards that are given for Combat Valor when the same award might also be earned for meritorious achievement. Examples are the Bronze Star Medal or the Army Commendation Medal. The second red flag on Mr. Kerrys DD 214 was the annotation on his discharge concerning a review by a Board of Officers in the authority for discharge. The only reason this annotation would appear on a DD 214 is that if a Board of Officers were required to review for upgrade an Other than Honorable Discharge. If you need your memory refreshed, Thomas Lipscomb wrote interesting articles here and here about Mr. Kerrys records. The authors of Fake Warriors talked about it here. Mr. Kerry could have cleared up any mystery or allegation simply by releasing all of his military records for public scrutiny. He did not and the mainstream American media while campaigning for him did not insist that he do it either. Mr. Kerry had plenty of questionable political alliances and even documented meetings with the North Vietnamese in Paris while he was still a Naval Reserve officer that was also not addressed in the media. If all of this was widely reported, this charlatan would not have had even a tiny chance of being elected to the Presidency. Fortunately, enough of his history was known to prevent his election.
I only rehashed Mr. Kerrys questionable record and history to demonstrate for you a pattern of deception by liberal candidates and their supportive Pravda like media sycophants attempting to conceal information that voters should know. This is the most dangerous combination in the history of our country. The worlds worst and most dangerous leaders gained power under similar circumstances. Now, we have a candidate that refuses to release what should be harmless documents - his birth and school records. I am not trying to infer anything one way or the other concerning these records. Only that someone who wants to be my President and hold the security of my family and country in his hands should be happy to release documents that tell me who he is. You and I have a right to know. He has an obligation to tell us. The media has an obligation to insist that he does. When there is a refusal to release records, like John Kerry, I can only conclude that there is something to hide.
Would you allow someone to sit with your children or to protect your other most precious possessions like freedom - if you didnt know everything possible to know about them?
#1
Man's absolutely right. There's way too much we don't know about Bama, and what we DO know makes him look like quite probably the worse Presidential candidate we've had since Aaron Burr.
#2
One of the little known flaws in our system - the POTUS/CINC does not undergo any formal and/or official background check worthy of even a Confidential clearance. But you and I both know that the "black" sections do this on an informal basis in order to keep safe those areas they do not want to expose to some one like The One, even if he is POTUS. It will be very interesting to see how much DoD/CIA/NRO etc. really end up trusting this guy. But then the CIA is filled with ex-Clinton types who are probably going to be Obama loyalists.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/27/2008 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Unfortunately the electorate is so angry & confused enough about the economic crisis, that the majority don't care whether or not Obama is the Manchurian candidate bent on crippling this country, only that he stands for "change." Pitiful.
Apparently not everyone in the MSM is walking around with blinders on...
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall.The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.
#1
The media's bias during this campaign seems the final legacy of George W. Bush. Otherwise, you'd see a feeding frenzy over THIS. This video, should go viral.
#2
WMT, what we seem to be failing to understand is that most Americans now WANT redistribution of wealth. They have been deluded into believing it will improve their lot in life rather than just pull others down faster than themselves. Or maybe all that really matters to them is to improve their RELATIVE wealth.
#7
Because it's natural for them to want a monopoly on information delivery.
Posted by: ed ||
10/27/2008 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Because the media is feeling their monopoly on information being severely eroded by the internet, blogs, etc...
They feel that they can get a government mandated monopoly again by baking someone who will bring back the fairness doctrine, a 'internet czar' who will control internet content (see Google), and a 'civilian defence force' to impose it all.
Sign of things to come: The treatment of Joe the Plumber and that station in Florida who actually asked Biden a real question.
#9
This was a great, but long overdue article by one of the illuminati media. I wish other people had a conscience like man. Well, in about 6 months I guess none of us will be able to voice an opinion different than the Prince himself.
Posted by: Titus Grong5196 ||
10/27/2008 22:45 Comments ||
Top||
U.S. adversaries were delighted by the economic crisis -- until it affected the price of oil.
A FEW WEEKS ago, the leaders of Russia, Iran and Venezuela were gloating gleefully that the financial crisis would depose the United States as the world's leading power. Yet as the price of oil dropped below $65 last week -- or less than half its peak price last summer -- it was looking more likely that global economic turmoil would produce a quite different result: the substantial weakening of those countries' challenge to U.S. interests in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America.
Unless oil prices quickly recover, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are likely to face even tougher domestic economic challenges in 2009 than the next U.S. president. According to independent estimates, both countries need an average oil price of up to $95 a barrel to fund the populist subsidies and social programs they have launched in recent years -- not to mention billions of dollars in arms purchases from Russia. Venezuela has been furiously importing food to fill empty shop shelves, while Iran heavily subsidizes domestic fuel. Even if Mr. Chávez and Mr. Ahmadinejad manage to continue those politically sensitive programs, they may find it harder to sponsor foreign clients -- from Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East to Cuba's Castro brothers. Already Mr. Chávez has stiffed Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, to whom he had promised a $4 billion oil refinery.
Though somewhat less reliant on oil revenue, Russia may be even worse off, because of its dependence on foreign investment. The Russian stock market has dropped more than 70 percent since last spring, and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has had to commit more than $200 billion of the country's reserves to shore up banks. In the past several years, Mr. Putin has several times interrupted energy deliveries to European clients to make political points; he may have less financial leeway to wield that weapon in the future.
Will the decline of revenue lessen the hostility of these regimes toward the United States? There are some intriguing early signs. Russia unexpectedly announced last week that it would not oppose an extension of the U.N. mandate for U.S. troops in Iraq. Though it has refused to rein in its nuclear program, Iran has at least temporarily curbed Hamas, Hezbollah and the "special groups" of Iraq, which in recent months have all but ceased attacks on American and Israeli targets.
Mr. Chávez was notably disturbed when both Barack Obama and John McCain pledged in their final debate to eliminate U.S. dependence on Venezuelan oil within a decade. The caudillo quickly appeared on television with an appeal to the candidates that "instead of saying that they are going to free themselves [of Venezuelan oil], what we have to do is sit down and talk and come to an agreement because we need each other." Is that the "Bolivarian revolutionary" suddenly seeking rapprochement with "the empire?" If so, it may not be the last such offer that the global economic crisis delivers to the next president's desk.
#2
I think Chavez does need us... how many other places are equipped to process the sludge they produce in Venezuela?
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
10/27/2008 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"leaders of Russia, Iran and Venezuela were gloating gleefully that the financial crisis would depose the United States as the world's leading power."
When you buy gasoline, remember that LUKOIL is the largest oil company in Russia.
#5
A few years back, an American oil company sold its last remaining refinery for Venezuelan crude to the Venezuelans - that refinery is in the Caribbean. Outside the US, only the Venezuelans and that refinery in the Caribbean are setup to refine the sludge that Chavez exports. The refinery in Nicaragua was supposed to increase the refinery base for Chavez.
A must read-essay by Ron Pickrell I found over at Free Republic on the Grand Strategy of the War on Terror. The author began by discussing the various hypothetical responses a President Gore might have had to the 9/11 attacks.
The key in warfare is not to find the path to victory. This is the view of the short-sighted, who never will understand that no battle plan or strategy ever survives first contact with the enemy. Contact exposes the current mindset of the enemy commander through his actions, the dedication of his troops, and the true constraints that he must operate under. They define what you face and must overcome, in order to force your will upon the enemy.
Therefore the key to warfare is not to find the path to victory. It is instead, "...to arrange and prepare the starting point so that all paths lead to victory..."
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain ||
10/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suspect there are possible "Third Ways" here. Specifically, if the military had war correspondents of their own putting together their own reports of what's happening using the military's own video sources,..
But the generals never allocated resources to do that, and probably never will unless they're hammered to. Too many are specialists by choice who can read the dictum that 'war is politics by other means' but can't grasp that they must in the end engage in politics. They only want to fight the battle on the front lines and not fight the battle on the home front. If you win every battle on the front lines but lose the battle on the home front, you lose the war just the same. No matter how effective and efficient the battle was, it was for naught if you don't win and it all becomes waste.
#2
I utterly reject the axiom that W. Bush is or was stupid. In fact, his "strategery" is to strategy what chess is to checkers. Several times he has executed plans six months before his opponents had even begun planning.
In his first election, he had locked up all the major Republican contributors before primary season had begun. By then, he had broken ground at the site of his Crawford, TX ranch. It was finished before Inauguration Day.
He very pointedly did not interfere in military operations, objectively rewarding success and punishing failure. He decisively beat the Democrat congress more times than can be counted.
He reordered the federal government, abolishing bureaucracies, consolidating agencies, and severely trouncing the federal employee union.
He almost single-handedly "opened" India, which everyone in Washington had ignored for decades, as or more important than Nixon opening China.
With Rumsfeld, forced force modernization on a hesitant Pentagon. And he ramrodded ballistic missile defenses through adamant opposition in congress. When they were built, he made sure our allies were defended as well as ringing Iran with anti-missiles. And in Alaska, against North Korean missiles.
He defeated opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in the UNSC. He busted up the Khan proliferation network.
#4
But the generals never allocated resources to do that, and probably never will unless they're hammered to.They only want to fight the battle on the front lines and not fight the battle on the home front.
Probably because there have always been restrictions, both legal and de facto. There have been repeated attempts; 3-4 years ago, there was such a proposal which got shouted/shot down.
Perhaps there will eventually be a military PR equivalent of Petraeus, who can successfully flank Congress, the media and the various 'interest groups'. But I won't hold my breath.
#5
I agree with most Anonymoose's list of Bush's accomplishments.
However I do believe that Bush's approach, a very limited "Long War" was a very risky and reckless decision that may yet have fatal consequences for the US and the west in general.
The political environment in the United States should be a factor in planning, just as much as e.g. the topography of Afghanistan.
A war plan in Afghanistan that does not have the support of the electorate will end in catastrophic failure, just as much as a plan that neglects logistics.
The election of a new president in 2008 at the latest was a foreseeable contingency in 2001.
One that any planning should have considered, and one that might have suggested that a war of 7+ years duration might not be sustainable.
On a fundamental level, it is a trivial truth that the longer any time span, the higher the likelihood that unforeseeable contingencies come up.
These contingencies might impede the prosecution of the war, or they might force the war to come to an
end, even at the price of defeat.
In this economic crisis McCain will have about a year to wrap up the war before the 2010 elections.
To do that he will have to abandon the "smart" approach, and he will have to settle for a less than optimal but not a catastrophic outcome.
That is, of course, in the unlikely event that McCain defeats B. Hussein Obama. If B. Hussein Obama wins, both theaters will swiftly collapse.
It will be defeat that is very dangerous for the west, its consequences much worse than Vietnam.
The world will know that a mass fatality attack on the continental US is a winning move.
CHICAGO (NNPA) - As the message of change resonates throughout America, the African-American Muslim community may be in line for a change of its own.
That's when the Nation of Islam (NOI) will reportedly extend its membership to Whites, Hispanics, Asians and other ethnic groups under the leadership of Minister Louis Farrakhan. The announcement took place on Sunday, October 19, when the NOI leader hosted a special dedication service at his South Side worship center.
The move comes six weeks after the Sept. 9 death of Imam Warith Deen Mohammad, who denounced the teachings of his famous father, Elijah Muhammad, when he took over the helm of the organization in 1975. The reforms, which included renaming it the World Community of Al Islam in the West (and later American Muslim Mission), relaxing its dress code, removing its paramilitary infrastructure and renouncing Whites as blue-eyed devils, were replaced with efforts to move the faith toward orthodox Islam.
The measures angered some converts of the man they called The Messenger, and according to a 1996 NOI press release disoriented many of the followers and lead to the Nations financial ruin. In 1977, Farrakhan - the former national spokesman for Muhammad - reestablished the traditional NOI and begin reuniting disillushioned members. His passionate rhetoric of Black self-help and resistance to White supremacy enamored him in the eyes of many African-Americans, including many who were not members of his group....etc, etc.
Balance at the link if you have the stomach for it.
#1
Actually, the age of false prosperity is over. Since WWII, the US and much of the world has been behaving like a teenager who has just moved out of their parents home, and has credit cards for the first time.
A spending spree.
And their credit cards are maxed out. And the bills are coming due.
But this does not mean the end of prosperity. It just means that we all must learn to live within our means while paying off our debts.
FY 2008 federal tax revenues are about $2.6T. This year, the government spent $2.73T. Next year, tax revenue might be as little as $2T.
But if you have to live within your means, and we do, there is no alternative.
#2
Debt is potential wealth.
Debt is your future wealth used NOW.
Debt used for purposes that do not raise your utility/productivity more than the interest payments makes you poorer.
#3
That's it. Going in debt to buy shiny luxury crap is out, though s me will stubbornly refuse to get the memo. Among the most beloved of the shiny crap is ever growing government entitlements. Guess who will be most stubborn about ignoring the memo...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/27/2008 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
s me should be some. The o key didn't get the memo...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/27/2008 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
My wife and I got into financial trouble when I first retired from the Air Force. Since then, we have lived without credit cards, and the only long-term debt we have is a line of credit we used to finance our daughter's wedding and buying essentials for them. Credit that's too "easy" to get, and too tempting not to use, is the source of a lot of this nation's problems, and not just with housing. There was a statistic being thrown around a couple of years ago that the average household had $30,000 in credit card debt. Unless you're making over $20/hour, you don't clear that much money in a year's time. For some reason, most kids today can't understand that, even when you spell it out for them.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/27/2008 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
