The Russians were sizing BO up from Day One!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by David, Mar 9, 2014.

  1. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum


     
  2. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    "dated 2001. Source at the moment is unknown". Plus a couple of 2011 articles calling for drilling. None of it does anything to elucidate your little scenario regarding how Russia would have been deterred from doing what it's currently doing in Crimea. Some interesting stuff on caribou though.

    Thanks, oil boy. :)
     
  3. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    One final thing, from the link:

     
  4. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    Except that it worked in 1989 and you have no evidence that it will not work again.
     
  5. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    You are looking for little facts, how about this one;
     
  6. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Yeah, that'll scare Putin's ass right out of Crimea.
     
  7. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    Exactly. Notice how the argument has suddenly shifted away from what effect all this would realistically have on Russia and Crimea?
     
    2 people like this.
  8. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    I'm just trying to stay on topic. Like I said before, it's their agenda, then trying to fit the facts into that agenda. Inevitably, they end up twisting themselves into a pretzel logically and coming up with some off the wall conclusions.
     
  9. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member


    It may have contributed to the decline of a moribund empire racked by effective internal dissent, facing defiance and unrest in its client states, and already falling under its own weight. Not to mention the Soviet Union had a leadership that had been implementing policies that, intentionally or not, would ultimately help to speed its collapse not stave it off. This does not describe Russia today.

    Russia today, for all its weaknesses and faults, is a much more viable and stable entity than was its Soviet predecessor. What it is doing is attempting to establish effective control over a small piece of real estate that it considers vital to its national security. In this endeavor it has the support of probably a majority of the people who live there.

    You have consistently failed to demonstrate what practical effect implementation of Keystone and ANWR would have or would have had on Russia in terms of forcing it to abandon or significantly modify what it is doing in Crimea.
     
    2 people like this.
  10. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Excellent points but Reagan? Reagan did it all.
     
  11. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Anyway, back to thoughts grounded in reality. I was thinking the other day that if Russia chooses to ignore the treaty it signed with Ukraine back in the early 90's respecting Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of it's nukes, why should Ukraine not also toss the treaty out of the window and rearm? This seems like the ultimate stick to beat Putin with. I mean who wants a hostile nuclear neighbor? Russia might want think this one through a bit more.
     
  12. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    I agree that Russia should have put a little more thought into this one. But Russia, whether Tsarist, Soviet, or as currently constituted under its version of the Republican Party doesn't seem to operate like that a lot.

    I think that Ukraine has a reasonably effective military as it stands, but lacks the resources to maintain any sort of extended operation without significant material support from the outside. I'm not sure it's in our interest to go there. Putin has his faults. Among them are arrogance, narcissism, and quite possibly an emerging tendency to write checks that he will have trouble cashing. He could very well be his own worst enemy.

    As far as America is concerned, we're probably doing exactly what needs to be done in concert with our European fellow corporatists. David Brooks expressed this view on NPR the other night and, somewhat unusually, I agree with him.
     
  13. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    I have posted backup for keystone/ANWR/drilling to reduce the price of oil. You have no evidence against that.
    I have show and you agreed to some extent that the price of oil had something to do with the fall of the Russian empire and no hint that it will not work again.

    BTW, my sources indicate that the Russian economy is much more dependant on oil today than it was in the 1980's.
     
  14. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    So we are supposed to believe that more drilling for oil would have could have prevented Russia from invading the Crimea region.

    Perhaps if we had thrown everyone out of social programs in this country Vietnam would never have happened. Maybe if we cut corporate taxes the space shuttle would not have disintegrated when it re-entered the atmosphere. Perhaps if we had gone to school vouchers hurricane Sandy would have by-passed the east coast. I think I'm beginning to see their reasoning.

    If it was some Right-wing agenda talking point and it wasn't implemented, then the consequences are whatever the next disaster, invasion, or crisis happen to be.
     
  15. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    Yeah, and if you had a match you would burn down the Wisconsin Capital building and if you knew my address you would sent your brother-in-law to beat me up.
     
    2 people like this.
  16. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    A. I do have a match and apparently the Capital building in Madison is quite safe.

    B. My brother-in-law? WTF?

    C. Is this really the best you can respond?

    D. You're pathetic.

    E. You're really pathetic.

    F. You're so very really pathetic.
     
  17. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    Your promises! You don't remember them?
     
  18. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    Your argument is that with both ANWR and Keystone fully online they would have been dumping enough crude on the world market to depress prices sufficiently to cause Russia some serious financial grief. Enough financial grief not only to have prevented them from doing what they are now doing in Crimea, but to cause the regime to collapse.

    Let's look at ANWR first. In 2008 The Energy Information Administration, the analytical branch of the US Dept of Energy, issued a report on ANWR at the request of then Alaska senator Ted Stevens. The full report is linked below. Here are two excerpts that are relevant to your argument. For the purposes of the report, 2008 is assumed as the start date for the ANWR project.

    So based on projected peak production and maximum global impact, the report concludes:

    Now moving on to Keystone, our friends at TransCanada tell us:

    So lets add Keystone's max capacity of 830,000 barrels per day to ANWRs most optimistic figure of 1.45 million barrels. I think this comes to less than 3% of 89,000,000, which is the number of barrels consumed per day in 2011.

    The average price per barrel in 2011 was around $100. As of today, WTI crude is at $98.89. Applying the EIDs ANWR price reduction calculations we have a max reduction in the price per barrel of a whopping $2.50, which does not take into consideration any measures oil producers might take to offset this reduction. Somehow I don't think this would bring about the collapse of the Russian regime much less force it to give up its goal of securing its military installations in Crimea.

    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/2008/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

    http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-project/

    http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/

    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx

    http://www.oil-price.net
     
  19. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    So your argument is that it is just a little bit. Therefore, we should do nothing? For real?

    BTW, what about:
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" And I can assure you that Romney would not be asking Brazil to drill in the Caribbean - we would be.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" Federal permits would not have been cut, but increased.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" The point was if we open our oil production, the price of oil would drop. The exact amount depends on the rest of the world's politic.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" Maybe just having a leader would settle the politic and the price of oil would drop just because of that also.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331"Now, you can nit pick that all you want, but the one thing you cannot change is that Russia invaded Ukraine under the Obama administration and not under a Republican administration. Have I given the perfect answer? Absolutely not, but it can be no worse than what Obama has done.[/quote]
     
  20. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" Federal permits would not have been cut, but increased.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" The point was if we open our oil production, the price of oil would drop. The exact amount depends on the rest of the world's politic.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331" Maybe just having a leader would settle the politic and the price of oil would drop just because of that also.[/quote]
    [quote="rlm's cents, post: 237424, member: 331"Now, you can nit pick that all you want, but the one thing you cannot change is that Russia invaded Ukraine under the Obama administration and not under a Republican administration. Have I given the perfect answer? Absolutely not, but it can be no worse than what Obama has done.[/quote][/quote]

    :)
     

Share This Page