Iran Warns US

[okie52]

Iran warns U.S. over aircraft carrier

(CNN) -- Iran warned the United States Tuesday not to return a U.S. aircraft carrier "to the Persian Gulf region."

U.S. officials rejected the "warning" and another recent threat from Tehran that it could close the Strait of Hormuz. The White House and U.S. State Department called the latest threats signs that sanctions against Iran, the result of a standoff over its nuclear activities, are working.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning," said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, commander of Iran's Army, according to the state-run news agency IRNA.

Salehi "said the country will not adopt any irrational move but it is ready to severely react against any threat," the report added.

The commander spoke at the Port of Chabahar in southern Iran, as forces held a military parade the day after Iran ended naval drills in the region, IRNA reported.

Navy won't tolerate Iran 'disruption'
Iran was referring to the USS John C. Stennis, part of the U.S. Navy's fleet in the region. It moved last week from the Persian Gulf into the North Arabian Sea, as part of what the Navy's 5th Fleet called a pre-planned transit.

Iran said the ship's movement during Iran's naval exercises showed that the United States "understood" that Iran's maneuvers were not "suicidal or aggressive," but rather about Iran protecting its own "interests and power."

But Western diplomats last week described the naval drills -- which, according to Iranian officials, included test-firing missiles -- as further evidence of Iran's volatile behavior.

Iran's naval exercises began in the strait and also included waters in the Sea of Oman and the Indian Ocean up to the Gulf of Aden, according to IRNA.

After Tuesday's warning from Iran, a Pentagon spokesman issued a statement saying "deployment of U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades."

"These carrier strike group deployments are necessary to maintain the continuity and operational support to ongoing missions in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility," George Little said.

The United States has had forces in the Persian Gulf since World War II. Its ships sail through the Persian Gulf frequently, many on their way to and from the 5th Fleet's headquarters in Bahrain. The 5th Fleet's area of responsibility covers about 2.5 million square miles, including the Persian Gulf, which the Navy also refers to as the Arabian Gulf; the Red Sea; the Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean.

The dispute over the Stennis began last week. Tehran said an Iranian warplane identified a U.S. carrier patrolling the area of the drills. State-run media showed a picture of the vessel.

Iran's state-run Press TV said Tuesday the images it showed last week were of the Stennis.

Tuesday's events came amid growing tensions over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping channel.

Iran last week threatened to block the strait if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. France, Britain and Germany have proposed sanctions to punish Iran's lack of cooperation on its nuclear program.

Cmdr. Amy Derrick Frost, spokeswoman for the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, responded at the time, "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."

In his statement Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Little said the Navy "operates under international maritime conventions to maintain a constant state of high vigilance in order to ensure the continued, safe flow of maritime traffic in waterways critical to global commerce.

"Our transits of the Strait of Hormuz continue to be in compliance with international law, which guarantees our vessels the right of transit passage. We are committed to protecting maritime freedoms that are the basis for global prosperity; this is one of the main reasons our military forces operate in the region."

The dispute has been pushing up oil prices. Nearly 17 million barrels of oil a day pass through the strait, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. "Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35% of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20% of oil traded worldwide," the agency says.

"No one in this government seeks confrontation over the Strait of Hormuz," Little said. "It's important to lower the temperature."

But closing the strait would require means that likely are not available to Iran, said Jean-Paul Rodrigue, an expert in transport geography at Hofstra University. "At best, Iran can posture and potentially disrupt traffic for a short duration," he said.

China and Japan are more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than the United States is, he said, and he added that any move to close the strait would be "suicidal" to the current regime.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland noted Tuesday that Iran is already under sanctions for its failure to cooperate on nuclear issues.

"Frankly, we see these threats from Tehran as just increasing evidence that the international pressure is beginning to bite there and that they are feeling increasingly isolated and they are trying to divert the attention of their own public from the difficulties inside Iran, including the economic difficulties as a result of the sanctions," she said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney made similar remarks. "I think it reflects the fact that Iran is in a position of weakness. It's the latest round of Iranian threats, and it's confirmation that Tehran is under increasing pressure for its continued failures to live up to its international obligation," he said. "Iran is isolated and is seeking to divert attention from its behavior and domestic problems. This is simply a measure of the impact that sanctions have been having on Iran and the broad international support for... putting pressure on Iran and isolating Iran because of its refusal to live up to its international obligations."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/world/meast/iran-u-s-/index.html

[KantoSooner]

I must confess to the childish desire to see them try something and then have an excuse to go eliminate a middling size city of theirs.

More than most from that part of the globe, the Iranians have a talent at annoying me.

[OULenexaman]

They have annoyed me since 1975....when they all still claimed to be Persians instead of Iranians. I would tell them they still smelled the same to me.

[Lott's Bandana]

I have seen Iran through a periscope.

I daresay somebody is doing exactly that right now.

[cleller]

I've read several different articles that talked with people who really know what is going on in Iran. They all come to the same conclusion: in time, the people of Iran will overthrow their dictators and hardliners, as they have a young populace that very much wants inclusion with the west.

I guess the current tough talk plays toward the goals of the hardliners. Maintain a militaristic stance toward you enemies, and you also have the power to control your people- due to your large armies, etc.

With regard to their nukes, it seems we've either got to convince them we have no plans to attack them, so they'll be willing to give it up. OR: Attack them and get it over with.

Glad I don't have to decide. Problem is we don't have anyone that can.

[KantoSooner]

To be fair, there are not any really good options.

[badger]

I must confess to the childish desire to see them try something and then have an excuse to go eliminate a middling size city of theirs..

As long as they don't retaliate against a middling size city of ours... like Tulsa :(

I heard that Al Qaeda was actually looking to do this (not Tulsa, but smaller big cities in the U.S.) because they knew that security wouldn't be as crazy as, say, NYC.

However, I think the status quo is the best way to go... good ol' mutually assured destruction.

[IBleedCrimson]

However, I think the status quo is the best way to go... good ol' mutually assured destruction.

http://kb3302.k12.sd.us/images/funnystuff/funny_animals_112.jpg

[AlboSooner]

The US could cripple Iran in a week, and set it back 50 years. But also it would ensure the Islamic rule for another 1000 years.

[KantoSooner]

I've been amused of late when looking at indices of religious influence on society. Iran and Saudi always vie for No. 1 position. And then, somewhere between #5 and #10, we find the good ole USofA.
Hell, we should get along great with Iran. They are, in a way, us.

[okie52]

I've been amused of late when looking at indices of religious influence on society. Iran and Saudi always vie for No. 1 position. And then, somewhere between #5 and #10, we find the good ole USofA.
Hell, we should get along great with Iran. They are, in a way, us.

Somehow the Saudi's and Iranians missed the democracy part.

[soonercruiser]

The US could cripple Iran in a week, and set it back 50 years. But also it would ensure the Islamic rule for another 1000 years.

....and, we don't need an aircraft carrier inside the Straight of Hormuz to do it either.

[IBleedCrimson]

Total bluff. Mullahs scared to death of defense bill which imposes super harsh sanctions. It bans any country who deals with Iran, from dealing with the US. That means if your Saudi, and you buy a pencil from Iran, we don't buy your oil... effectively imposing complete isolation on an already weak Iranian economy.

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have to kick this in until July, and he has power to allow certain nations to deal with Iran if there is a "national security reason." Based on past performance, one can rest assured that list will be very long, probably forcing Israel to use military action.

[okie52]

Knowing that the exemption list will be long, what are the Iranians worried about?

[IBleedCrimson]

Obama = list long as hell.

Republican = short list.

They fear the power we now hold over them. And Obama HAS to execute this now, its not optional. He can undercut it to some degree, but can't fully dodge it. And if a Pub gets elected and decides to take a hardline against Iran, the tools are there all he has to do is push a button. No haggling with the Senate, no filibusters, it just gets done.

Iranians economy is already fragile, and this would literally topple that government without a single shot being fired by us, Israel, or NATO.

[KantoSooner]

Somehow the Saudi's and Iranians missed the democracy part.

Saudis? Yes. Iranians? Pretty democratic. Their government represents pretty accurately the will and desires of the majority of their population. Their population, in large portion, are *******s. Their government represents them well. The demonstrators of the last several years are a small portion of the population, mostly urban and educated. The majority roam across the land, staring at the wrong end of sheep and stewing in sectarian hatred, as they have since time began.

What they really both lack is a Bill of Rights to prevent any authority, elected or self-annointed, to invade the individual's space. But it's always been difficult for those acting on direct instructions from the almighty to accept any restraint on their own actions.

[Midtowner]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E-QOnTGFX_o/TA_BY5JupmI/AAAAAAAAJ4o/Oe7G3uM13HA/s1600/100531-N-0553R-215.jpg

Beware of Iranian naval power.

--we're doomed.

[okie52]

Saudis? Yes. Iranians? Pretty democratic. Their government represents pretty accurately the will and desires of the majority of their population. Their population, in large portion, are *******s. Their government represents them well. The demonstrators of the last several years are a small portion of the population, mostly urban and educated. The majority roam across the land, staring at the wrong end of sheep and stewing in sectarian hatred, as they have since time began.

What they really both lack is a Bill of Rights to prevent any authority, elected or self-annointed, to invade the individual's space. But it's always been difficult for those acting on direct instructions from the almighty to accept any restraint on their own actions.

I have always believed the Iranian elections were rigged but I could be wrong. Certainly their persecution/prosecution of the protesters wouldn't lead one to believe there was free speech which is fundamental to a democracy.

LOL...well when you receive direction from above it supersedes all other concerns. Haven't you received your orders yet?

[KantoSooner]

It's hard for him to reach me, here in the bunker, wearing my tinfoil hat.

But, who am I to complain, the Vienna Sausages are fresh, the condensate water is cool and I've got OU football '75 on the teevee.

Seriously, yes, the Iranian elections are more than likely highly rigged. On the other hand, it's one group of paranoid Islamofascists rigging against another. It's not like the opposing party(ies) is made up of Jeffersonian freethinkers.

The Shah may have been an a-hole, but dayum! those people sure took to the Ayatollah with a powerful lovin' and a quick step.

[okie52]

The youth of Iran tend to be pro west (from what I've heard). Yet our presence there now pushes them towards their religious leaders in some nationalistic fervor. Hopefully the chaos and overthrow of the last year in the ME can catch on in Iran. But we sure don't need to be there to inhibit that movement.

[KantoSooner]

We can indeed hope, but I'm not going bet much of my own money. It's still got a lot of peeps who are not MTV watching, rappin' fools.
I'm starting to like the Turks more and more.

Note: our presence is in Iraq (big embassy, no more troops) Kuwait and Afghan and Dubai (navy only). Their bitchin' about our military presence has about the resonance as NK bitchin' about our troops in SK. Also keep in mind that they are Persians, not even ethnically Arab; so what's going on in the rest of ME has less impact there than geography might imply.

[okie52]

Yeah, I like Iranians making that distinction about being Persians.

I actually don't like our troops being in SK or most other places. Maybe there are political and/or influential reasons for doing that I am not aware.

Seemed like Iran's protests were internet based but I really can't remember.

[KantoSooner]

As much as I love Libertarianism, you've got to be a bit more involved in foreign affairs than Ron Paul. That whole thing about letting Hitler just burn out without getting involved seems, in hindsight, to have been a bit hopeful. For example
That said, it does seem kind of bizarre to have over 50,000 troops in both Japan and Germany as the final people with living memory of WWII are dying off.

[okie52]

I am tired of our interventionist mentality. Only Afghanistan can I really justify since WWII. We've had Korea, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Libya, probably some others I have forgotten to mention. Some of them have been called UN actions but when you are 2/3 of the forces it doesn't "feel" like it. Now if it is taking down some Somali pirates, sure. NATO countries really aren't in jeapordy from the Russkies anymore.

[SicEmBaylor]

I am tired of our interventionist mentality. Only Afghanistan can I really justify since WWII. We've had Korea, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Libya, probably some others I have forgotten to mention. Some of them have been called UN actions but when you are 2/3 of the forces it doesn't "feel" like it. Now if it is taking down some Somali pirates, sure. NATO countries really aren't in jeapordy from the Russkies anymore.

Even WWII is halway questionable as far as Europe is concerned. We were clearly intervening in the European war by supplying Britain and Russia with munitions and even protecting those shipments with US naval assets. Yes, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor but we were already at war with them for all intents and purposes. Things may have turned out very differently had we not inserted ourselves into the middle of that ****.

The Strait of Hormuz, if I'm not mistaken, is within the territorial waters of Iran. They have every right to shut down shipping that passes through their waters regardless of how strategically important that particular area is. If we're going to respond then we need to bear in mind that our response will be an act of war, and we should have a good healthy debate in this country on whether we want to go to war with Iran over this and the pro's/con's.

Let's not act as if Iran is without any rights here.

[Lott's Bandana]

Even WWII is halway questionable as far as Europe is concerned. We were clearly intervening in the European war by supplying Britain and Russia with munitions and even protecting those shipments with US naval assets. Yes, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor but we were already at war with them for all intents and purposes. Things may have turned out very differently had we not inserted ourselves into the middle of that ****.

The Strait of Hormuz, if I'm not mistaken, is within the territorial waters of Iran. They have every right to shut down shipping that passes through their waters regardless of how strategically important that particular area is. If we're going to respond then we need to bear in mind that our response will be an act of war, and we should have a good healthy debate in this country on whether we want to go to war with Iran over this and the pro's/con's.

Let's not act as if Iran is without any rights here.


The Strait of Hormuz is an International Passage with a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) operated by Oman that ships use to transit the Iranian and Oman territorial waters. Closing the Strait would violate an International Agreement that Iran is a signatory to.

It is pretty comical to watch the smuggling that goes on in and out of Iran with small Boston Whaler boats being driven by turbaned operators. I had to bring the periscope down several times to avoid being run over by those crazies. Thankfully they can be heard miles away and it is great fun to see a body-less head and beard go by at high-speed, oblivious to our presence.

[IBleedCrimson]

It is pretty comical to watch the smuggling that goes on in and out of Iran with small Boston Whaler boats being driven by turbaned operators. I had to bring the periscope down several times to avoid being run over by those crazies. Thankfully they can be heard miles away and it is great fun to see a body-less head and beard go by at high-speed, oblivious to our presence.

That is awesome. When were you in the region?

[ictsooner7]

I've read several different articles that talked with people who really know what is going on in Iran. They all come to the same conclusion: in time, the people of Iran will overthrow their dictators and hardliners, as they have a young populace that very much wants inclusion with the west.

I guess the current tough talk plays toward the goals of the hardliners. Maintain a militaristic stance toward you enemies, and you also have the power to control your people- due to your large armies, etc.

With regard to their nukes, it seems we've either got to convince them we have no plans to attack them, so they'll be willing to give it up. OR: Attack them and get it over with.

Glad I don't have to decide. Problem is we don't have anyone that can.

The Iranian "leaders" the crazy conservative Ayatollahs are itching for someone to attack them to keep their population under their thumb, they keep saying everyone wants to invade us and rule us and if they provoke an attack it will be see we told you. Then we go back to 1979 and have to wait for another generation to grow up before we get another chance to have the people overthrow them and put in a less strict government. Attacking them is doing exactly what they want. Obama wont let the crazy right bully him into getting in the way of letting nature take its course.

[okie52]

The Strait of Hormuz is an International Passage with a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) operated by Oman that ships use to transit the Iranian and Oman territorial waters. Closing the Strait would violate an International Agreement that Iran is a signatory to.

It is pretty comical to watch the smuggling that goes on in and out of Iran with small Boston Whaler boats being driven by turbaned operators. I had to bring the periscope down several times to avoid being run over by those crazies. Thankfully they can be heard miles away and it is great fun to see a body-less head and beard go by at high-speed, oblivious to our presence.

Could Iran terminate the agreement? Does it have an expiration.

[okie52]

The Iranian "leaders" the crazy conservative Ayatollahs are itching for someone to attack them to keep their population under their thumb, they keep saying everyone wants to invade us and rule us and if they provoke an attack it will be see we told you. Then we go back to 1979 and have to wait for another generation to grow up before we get another chance to have the people overthrow them and put in a less strict government. Attacking them is doing exactly what they want. Obama wont let the crazy right bully him into getting in the way of letting nature take its course.

Yea, Obama showed great restraint on libya.

[ictsooner7]

Yea, Obama showed great restraint on libya.

A: He did, your party screamed and yelled about leading from behind. Not a single American military personnel was put in a position to be fired upon. We did not spend ten years, a TRILLION dollars and four thousand Americans killed to liberate Libya.



B: There is no correlation between Libya and Iran. I don't recall seeing the Iranian people raising up and trying to overthrow the government.

[sappstuf]

A: He did, your party screamed and yelled about leading from behind. Not a single American military personnel was put in a position to be fired upon. We did not spend ten years, a TRILLION dollars and four thousand Americans killed to liberate Libya.



B: There is no correlation between Libya and Iran. I don't recall seeing the Iranian people raising up and trying to overthrow the government.

They tried in 2009.. Obama stayed silent and this is what happened to them.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/3647758424_892b6e59a1.jpg

[ictsooner7]

They tried in 2009.. Obama stayed silent and this is what happened to them.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/3647758424_892b6e59a1.jpg

It was a protest against a rigged election not a upraising trying to over throw the government.

Iran's post-election political unrest claimed its first confirmed fatality yesterday when shots were fired at supporters of the defeated presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had defied an official ban on a mass rally in central Tehran.

Basij militiamen loyal to the hardline incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were said to be responsible for the shooting, which took place as hundreds of thousands of pro-Mousavi demonstrators marched through the city centre to Azadi (Freedom) Square demanding the result of last Friday's election be annulled.

Photographs taken at the scene appeared to show one man dead and several others with bullet wounds.
Precise figures were not available, but some estimates suggested that more than 500,000 people were involved in the protest against the election "theft". Such large-scale protest has not seen in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"Mousavi we support you! We will die but regain our votes," shouted supporters, many wearing the green of the moderate's election campaign and carrying signs with the message "Where is my vote?"

Several vehicles were set alight in Tehran's streets and there were reports that protesters had taken to city rooftops at nightfall, shouting "Death to the dictator". Last night protesters promised they would be back on the streets again today.

The presence of huge crowds on the streets – and reports of other fatalities – appeared to dash earlier predictions that the unrest of the past three days would fade away. There was also a fresh twist when it was announced that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had ordered the powerful guardian council to investigate claims of election fraud.

Diplomatic sources said this was not a major shift, suggesting that Khamenei had merely warned Mousavi that he should proceed with his fraud complaints carefully, using only "legal" means available to him. Khamenei, who stands at the apex of Iran's complex political system, endorsed the election result on Saturday, dashing opposition hopes that he might be persuaded to order a recount or even annul the result.

The guardian council, comprised of 12 senior clerics, said it would rule within 10 days on two official complaints it had received from Mousavi and Mohsen Rezaie, another election candidate. The council vets candidates and must formally approve results for the outcome to stand.

The interior ministry, which announced the election result on Saturday, and the president have rejected charges of fraud. Ahmadinejad compared protesters to football fans angry that their team had lost.

Questions were asked though how 40 million Iranian votes had been counted and the results announced so soon after the polls closed.

Observers were stunned by the size of the Tehran rally, in defiance of a ban. And there was no sign of the anger diminishing: "Many of my friends are in prison," said Saman Imani, a student beaten by police. "Iran is becoming a dictatorship. Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust because he's as brutal as Hitler was."

Ebrahim Yazdi, leader of the banned opposition Freedom Movement and a veteran of the revolution, warned that Ahmadinejad's attacks on his opponents had opened a "Pandora's box" which had led to a deep crisis within the regime.

"The result of such a crisis now is that the rift among the ... personalities of the revolution is getting deeper," he said. "It is also between people and their government ... a rift between state and the nation. It is the biggest crisis since the revolution."

Further reports tonight spoke of people in Isfahan, Ahwaz, Zahedan, Yazd and Mashhad shouting "Allahu Akbar [God is great]" in support of the Tehran demonstrations. Mohammad Khatami, the reformist ex-president and a backer of Mousavi, attacked the government for banning the rally.

Ahmadinejad delayed a visit to Russia but was due to arrive tomorrow.
Concerned governments around the globe were watching the situation closely. "The implications are not yet clear," said David Miliband, the foreign secretary.

The US president, Barack Obama, said he was "deeply troubled" by the post-election violence. "It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," he said, adding that Washington wanted to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran.

[okie52]

A: He did, your party screamed and yelled about leading from behind. Not a single American military personnel was put in a position to be fired upon. We did not spend ten years, a TRILLION dollars and four thousand Americans killed to liberate Libya.



B: There is no correlation between Libya and Iran. I don't recall seeing the Iranian people raising up and trying to overthrow the government.

Just swallow that pablum every time, don't you? We had no right to intervene and it doesn't matter if repubs or dems say we did. Every pilot that flew over Libya was put in harms way.

Why don't you tell me why it was a necessary war.

[ictsooner7]

Just swallow that pablum every time, don't you? We had no right to intervene and it doesn't matter if repubs or dems say we did. Every pilot that flew over Libya was put in harms way.

Why don't you tell me why it was a necessary war.

My mistake, they were fired upon.

Necessary war? Who said that? It sure wasn't me. It was your party that complains when we don't load up the troops and land on the beach.

My point is that it does not matter what Obama does, you people think it's wrong. Go look at what really happened in Libya Obama took his time in engaging and then he stopped early leading the right to cry and howl about leading from behind then you claim that he didn't show restraint. Which one is it?

[okie52]

My mistake, they were fired upon.

Necessary war? Who said that? It sure wasn't me. It was your party that complains when we don't load up the troops and land on the beach.

My point is that it does not matter what Obama does, you people think it's wrong. Go look at what really happened in Libya Obama took his time in engaging and then he stopped early leading the right to cry and howl about leading from behind.

You can say my party until you are blue in the face but it won't true. I don't like our constant interventions. I never heard repubs state we should be invading Libya.

We don't know if we just helped put al Qaeda in power in Libya.

This still goes back to energy independence and why we continue to thrust ourselves into the ME. And that is where Obama is letting us down.

[AlboSooner]

Saudis? Yes. Iranians? Pretty democratic. Their government represents pretty accurately the will and desires of the majority of their population. Their population, in large portion, are *******s. Their government represents them well. The demonstrators of the last several years are a small portion of the population, mostly urban and educated. The majority roam across the land, staring at the wrong end of sheep and stewing in sectarian hatred, as they have since time began.

What they really both lack is a Bill of Rights to prevent any authority, elected or self-annointed, to invade the individual's space. But it's always been difficult for those acting on direct instructions from the almighty to accept any restraint on their own actions.

I agree with this.

[ictsooner7]

You can say my party until you are blue in the face but it won't true. I don't like our constant interventions. I never heard repubs state we should be invading Libya.

We don't know if we just helped put al Qaeda in power in Libya.

This still goes back to energy independence and why we continue to thrust ourselves into the ME. And that is where Obama is letting us down.

So now your not a republican? This is what I'm talking about. As for energy independence what we really need is two oil men in the white house......oh yeah we tried that, see how that worked out?

Sorry, I missed the al Qaeda comment, again this is what I'm talking about. Obama took out a known terrorist who has killed Americans,that your party normalized relations with and now you have a problem with it.

[Lott's Bandana]

That is awesome. When were you in the region?


Halloween to Christmas 1996

[okie52]

So now your not a republican? This is what I'm talking about. As for energy independence what we really need is two oil men in the white house......oh yeah we tried that, see how that worked out?

Oh I'll probably vote repub vs obama because he is so lame. But in no way am I bound to repub dogma the way you are with dem talking points.

Yeah. W had his flaws but he didn't deny the US the use of its resources or revenues or thousands of jobs the way your boy has.

How's that green energy working out?

[Lott's Bandana]

Could Iran terminate the agreement? Does it have an expiration.


There are many of these sea lanes that exist, all under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Straits of Malacca (the busiest sea lane in the world) and the Straits of Gibraltar are probably two of the best known.

Iran could get snippy, but Oman runs the TSS and the U.A.E. also has territorial waters in SoH, so the world (US) would likely ignore them.

[okie52]

There are many of these sea lanes that exist, all under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Straits of Malacca (the busiest sea lane in the world) and the Straits of Gibraltar are probably two of the best known.

Iran could get snippy, but Oman runs the TSS and the U.A.E. also has territorial waters in SoH, so the world (US) would likely ignore them.

Thanks.

I am still unclear though if Iran would be within its rights to terminate the treaty and/or claim its territorial waters and thereby prevent shipping thru the SOH. Is it wide enough for shipping to use the SOH and not be in Iranian waters?

[ictsooner7]

Oh I'll probably vote repub vs obama because he is so lame. But in no way am I bound to repub dogma the way you are with dem talking points.

Yeah. W had his flaws but he didn't deny the US the use of its resources or revenues or thousands of jobs the way your boy has.

How's that green energy working out?

When was the last time you voted for a dem? If so, what is your ratio of repub votes to dem?

W had flaws? hhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa, flaws that's rich. Talk about regurgitating the party line. Incompetent, stupid, lazy, arrogant, a lair and a drunk are not flaws.


Green energy is working pretty dang well....we have a huge plant making wind turbines in Kansas.


Explain this to me....




The New Age Of America’s Energy Abundance: The No. 1 U.S. Export This Year Will Be Petroleum

By Mark Perry on December 30, 2011 | More Posts By Mark Perry | Author's Website
Top 15 U.S. Exports, January-November 2011



Rank Export Category

Jan.-Nov. 2011 (millions)

1 Petroleum products $87,543

2 Pharmaceutical preparations $37,547

3 Industrial machines, other $37,456

4 Semiconductors $36,898

5 Chemicals-organic $32,514

6 Plastic materials $30,219

7 Telecommunications equipment $29,885

8 Electric apparatus $29,147

9 Nonmonetary gold $27,821

10 Civilian aircraft $27,179

11 Medicinal equipment $26,591

12 Computer accessories $26,520

13 Chemicals-other $24,150

14 Industrial engines $23,246

15 Engines-civilian aircraft $21,648

Source: BEA

NEW YORK (AP) — “For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world’s biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel.


Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990 (see table above of the top 15 categories for U.S. exports through November of this year). It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels. The last time the U.S. was a net exporter of fuels was 1949, when Harry Truman was president.

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasn’t even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, America’s top export was aircraft.


The trend is significant because for decades the U.S. has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.


Fuel exports, worth an estimated $88 billion in 2011, have surged for two reasons:


1. Crude oil, the raw material from which gasoline and other refined products are made, is a lot more expensive. Oil prices averaged $95 a barrel in 2011, while gasoline averaged $3.52 a gallon — a record. A decade ago oil averaged $26 a barrel, while gasoline averaged $1.44 a gallon.


2. The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier.”

[SicEmBaylor]

Thanks.

I am still unclear though if Iran would be within its rights to terminate the treaty and/or claim its territorial waters and thereby prevent shipping thru the SOH. Is it wide enough for shipping to use the SOH and not be in Iranian waters?

Any nation can terminate anything it wants at any time, but it has to be prepared to suffer the consequences. It is perfectly within Iran's right to shut off any sea lanes that are within its territorial waters, international agreement or not. But of course Iran isn't immune from the consequences of such action.

[Lott's Bandana]

Any nation can terminate anything it wants at any time, but it has to be prepared to suffer the consequences. It is perfectly within Iran's right to shut off any sea lanes that are within its territorial waters, international agreement or not. But of course Iran isn't immune from the consequences of such action.


Well put.

The Strait is between 23 and 31 miles at it's narrowest, depending on whether you count little rock islands as territory, which most nations actually do. Since international waters is at 12 miles from land, there is room to navigate in Oman's waters and ignore Iran's, but this simply isn't done. Iran would be sticking its dick out and waving it if they tried to close the Straits, with all the oil that comes and goes...even China and Russia would stomp their feet.

[okie52]

When was the last time you voted for a dem? If so, what is your ratio of repub votes to dem?

W had flaws? hhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa, flaws that's rich. Talk about regurgitating the party line. Incompetent, stupid, lazy, arrogant, a lair and a drunk are not flaws.


Green energy is working pretty dang well....we have a huge plant making wind turbines in Kansas.


Explain this to me....




The New Age Of America’s Energy Abundance: The No. 1 U.S. Export This Year Will Be Petroleum

By Mark Perry on December 30, 2011 | More Posts By Mark Perry | Author's Website
Top 15 U.S. Exports, January-November 2011



Rank Export Category

Jan.-Nov. 2011 (millions)

1 Petroleum products $87,543

2 Pharmaceutical preparations $37,547

3 Industrial machines, other $37,456

4 Semiconductors $36,898

5 Chemicals-organic $32,514

6 Plastic materials $30,219

7 Telecommunications equipment $29,885

8 Electric apparatus $29,147

9 Nonmonetary gold $27,821

10 Civilian aircraft $27,179

11 Medicinal equipment $26,591

12 Computer accessories $26,520

13 Chemicals-other $24,150

14 Industrial engines $23,246

15 Engines-civilian aircraft $21,648

Source: BEA

NEW YORK (AP) — “For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world’s biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel.


Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990 (see table above of the top 15 categories for U.S. exports through November of this year). It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels. The last time the U.S. was a net exporter of fuels was 1949, when Harry Truman was president.

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasn’t even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, America’s top export was aircraft.


The trend is significant because for decades the U.S. has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.


Fuel exports, worth an estimated $88 billion in 2011, have surged for two reasons:


1. Crude oil, the raw material from which gasoline and other refined products are made, is a lot more expensive. Oil prices averaged $95 a barrel in 2011, while gasoline averaged $3.52 a gallon — a record. A decade ago oil averaged $26 a barrel, while gasoline averaged $1.44 a gallon.


2. The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier.”

God you're understanding of oil and gas is right up there with pelosis. You are showing refined products not production. Try to understand the difference. We lose our crude imports and we not only won't export refined products we won't even have enough to power half of our vehicles.

And you can throw in all of your wind turbines, solar, and ethanol it won't hardly make a difference.

If you had a president that was pragmatic about energy independence he would have already been assisting the conversions to ng for domestic transportation as well as encouraging factory made ng vehicles. Now Obama did punish ng under cap and trade while rewarding ethanol. He has also shut down our coasts while every other country in the world develops their energy resources.

Again, over 1/2 of our trade deficit is due to imported oil. High paying jobs will be created by opening our resources for exploration. The government gets royalties and tax revenues for its depleted treasury. We move towards energy independence and less necessity to be in the ME. Only one thing is holding us back.....guess who?

[okie52]

I forgot to add as your article noted is that the reason for a large part of the exports is due to a weak economy and less US demand.....that's not a positive thing.

[okie52]

Well put.

The Strait is between 23 and 31 miles at it's narrowest, depending on whether you count little rock islands as territory, which most nations actually do. Since international waters is at 12 miles from land, there is room to navigate in Oman's waters and ignore Iran's, but this simply isn't done. Iran would be sticking its dick out and waving it if they tried to close the Straits, with all the oil that comes and goes...even China and Russia would stomp their feet.

Well I know china and Japan would be screaming.....didn't know that the russkies would care though since they don't need oil and, in fact, would probably benefit from higher oil prices since they are an exporter.

[okie52]

Any nation can terminate anything it wants at any time, but it has to be prepared to suffer the consequences. It is perfectly within Iran's right to shut off any sea lanes that are within its territorial waters, international agreement or not. But of course Iran isn't immune from the consequences of such action.

Yeah I know but I just wanted to know where we cross the line by taking action against Iran.

[Lott's Bandana]

Well I know china and Japan would be screaming.....didn't know that the russkies would care though since they don't need oil and, in fact, would probably benefit from higher oil prices since they are an exporter.


Russia doesn't want Tehran or anywhere in Iran nuked. They are downwind.

[ictsooner7]

God you're understanding of oil and gas is right up there with pelosis. You are showing refined products not production. Try to understand the difference. We lose our crude imports and we not only won't export refined products we won't even have enough to power half of our vehicles.

And you can throw in all of your wind turbines, solar, and ethanol it won't hardly make a difference.

If you had a president that was pragmatic about energy independence he would have already been assisting the conversions to ng for domestic transportation as well as encouraging factory made ng vehicles. Now Obama did punish ng under cap and trade while rewarding ethanol. He has also shut down our coasts while every other country in the world develops their energy resources.

Again, over 1/2 of our trade deficit is due to imported oil. High paying jobs will be created by opening our resources for exploration. The government gets royalties and tax revenues for its depleted treasury. We move towards energy independence and less necessity to be in the ME. Only one thing is holding us back.....guess who?

Once again..........you're are blaming Obama when the idiot W had SIX YEARS of total control of the government, why didn't he do it? BUT....after three short years you're blaming Obama. TYPICAL. I do understand about oil and gas as does big oil.....try to follow, I'll use small words and talk slowly. Oil companies want to get the cheapest oil they can so......................they can refine it and now export more then we consume. As for opening up leases....again....there are economies that are dependent on tourisam and fishing that an oil spill like BP will kill off. SO....it is not Obama keeping oil companies from drilling for the cheapest oil off shore, he is acting according to the wishes of states like FLORIDA. It is cheaper for oil companies to buy oil from the middle east, Canada, South America and Africa instead of drilling right here in the good ol' USA. You are listening to too much Bachman lies, google things first then argue with me. The facts do not back up your statments.


Michele Bachmann claims there has been just one new oil drilling permit issued since Obama took office


By most accounts, Rep. Michele Bachmann's slide show of numbers critical of the Obama administration got the most audience feedback among potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates addressing the Conservative Principles PAC Conference in Iowa on March 26, 2011.

Bachmann was particularly critical of Obama's energy policy, including his decision to put a temporary moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill. During the moratorium, the administration enacted new safety and environmental requirements, including regulations for spill response and containment capability.

"Let's look at the number one. Number one," Bachmann said. "That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office.

"Gee, maybe that has something to do with this next figure. Let's take a look, $1.83. That is the price that gasoline was the day before Barack Obama took office as president of the United States.

"Is it time for a change?"

Audience: "Yes!"

"It is time for a change," Bachmann said. "Absolutely, it's time for a change."

"You cannot create jobs when you have a president that is unwilling to use American energy resources to solve our problems here in the United States," she said moments later.

Just one oil drilling permit approved during the entire Obama presidency? We recalled that in a March 11, 2011, press conference, Obama said, "we’ve approved more than 35 new offshore drilling permits that meet these new safety and environmental standards." And he was talking only about permits issued after the Gulf of Mexico moratorium.

So somebody's got to be wrong.

We went first to the Department of the Interior press office, which sent us a link to a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, report on the "Status of Well Permits and Plans Subject to Enhanced Safety and Environmental Requirements."

According to the report, 39 shallow-water permits for new wells have been issued since June 8, 2010, when new rules and information requirements were put into effect. Shallow water drilling operations were not affected by the deepwater drilling moratorium following the gulf oil spill. And there were lots more shallow-water well permits issued by the Obama administration prior to June 8, 2010. Remember, Bachmann's statement referred to permits issued "under the Obama administration since they came into office."

In addition, there have been six deepwater well permits issued since Oct. 12, 2010, when the gulf moratorium was lifted. Five of those were for projects that were under way prior to the moratorium. The operators were required to come back and meet the new, modified standards.

And last week, BOEMRE approved an "exploration plan" submitted by Shell Offshore Inc., for deepwater oil and gas exploration. It was the first new deepwater exploration plan approved since the gulf oil spill. According to a BOEMRE press release, "An exploration plan describes all exploration activities planned by the operator for a specific lease or leases, including the timing of these activities, information concerning drilling vessels, the location of each planned well and other relevant information that needs to meet important safety standards. Once a plan is approved, additional new applications for permits to drill can be issued." In other words, it's not a permit. Permits come down the road.

In all, BOEMRE has received 45 deepwater drilling permit applications that are subject to the new regulations. These include applications to drill new wells, bypasses, and sidetracks. Twenty-four of these permits have been returned to the operator with requests for additional information (most regarding subsea containment). BOEMRE has approved seven of these permits (for six unique wells), with 12 applications pending.

Again, these are deepwater permits issued after the moratorium. The Obama administration issued lots of deepwater permits prior to that.

In addition, BOEMRE has received 31 deepwater drilling permit applications for activities such as drilling water injection wells and drilling from a fixed rig with a surface blowout preventer that were allowed under the moratorium. BOEMRE has approved 28 of these permits.

According to Andy Radford, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute, permit approvals have dropped 65 percent, post gulf oil spill. Prior to the gulf disaster, the Obama administration reported approving 217 new well permits (shallow and deepwater). "The devil's in the details on these things," Radford said, noting that permits include a lot of different drilling activities.

But the pace of permitting is picking up, he said. "We'll get to the new normal eventually."

Lee Hunt, executive director of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, said there has been a "molasses effect" with permitting by the Obama administration. Even the 39 permits for new shallow water wells is dramatically lower than previous levels. And even with six deepwater permits issued in the last month, as well as the ones projected to be approved this year, permits for deepwater wells are likely to be a third of what was projected prior to the gulf oil spill. The permitting process has undeniably slowed, Hunt said, but as the numbers above show, Bachmann's statement -- at least the way she worded it -- is wrong.

"We are encouraging offshore exploration and production," Obama said in his March 11 press conference. "We're just doing it responsibly."

Bachmann's press office did not return our call, so we are relegated to playing the "perhaps she meant" game to test whether there is a sense in which she might be accurate.

Perhaps she meant permits since the moratorium, not since Obama administration came into office, as she said. (There were hundreds issued pre-gulf oil spill).

Perhaps she meant just deepwater drilling, not shallow water drilling. There have been 39 shallow-water permits for new wells since June 2010. And many more before that.

Perhaps she meant to exclude permits issued for projects that were under way prior to the oil spill (and which had to come back and meet the new, modified standards). Five of the six new well permits were underway prior to the moratorium.

Perhaps she meant not permits, but exploration plans. The first exploration plan since the oil spill was approved last week.

Perhaps.

But that's not what she said.

She said: "One. That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office." It's not even close, and the claim is ridiculously false. Pants-On-Fire.

[sappstuf]

It was a protest against a rigged election not a upraising trying to over throw the government.

Iran's post-election political unrest claimed its first confirmed fatality yesterday when shots were fired at supporters of the defeated presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had defied an official ban on a mass rally in central Tehran.

Basij militiamen loyal to the hardline incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were said to be responsible for the shooting, which took place as hundreds of thousands of pro-Mousavi demonstrators marched through the city centre to Azadi (Freedom) Square demanding the result of last Friday's election be annulled.

Photographs taken at the scene appeared to show one man dead and several others with bullet wounds.
Precise figures were not available, but some estimates suggested that more than 500,000 people were involved in the protest against the election "theft". Such large-scale protest has not seen in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"Mousavi we support you! We will die but regain our votes," shouted supporters, many wearing the green of the moderate's election campaign and carrying signs with the message "Where is my vote?"

Several vehicles were set alight in Tehran's streets and there were reports that protesters had taken to city rooftops at nightfall, shouting "Death to the dictator". Last night protesters promised they would be back on the streets again today.

The presence of huge crowds on the streets – and reports of other fatalities – appeared to dash earlier predictions that the unrest of the past three days would fade away. There was also a fresh twist when it was announced that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had ordered the powerful guardian council to investigate claims of election fraud.

Diplomatic sources said this was not a major shift, suggesting that Khamenei had merely warned Mousavi that he should proceed with his fraud complaints carefully, using only "legal" means available to him. Khamenei, who stands at the apex of Iran's complex political system, endorsed the election result on Saturday, dashing opposition hopes that he might be persuaded to order a recount or even annul the result.

The guardian council, comprised of 12 senior clerics, said it would rule within 10 days on two official complaints it had received from Mousavi and Mohsen Rezaie, another election candidate. The council vets candidates and must formally approve results for the outcome to stand.

The interior ministry, which announced the election result on Saturday, and the president have rejected charges of fraud. Ahmadinejad compared protesters to football fans angry that their team had lost.

Questions were asked though how 40 million Iranian votes had been counted and the results announced so soon after the polls closed.

Observers were stunned by the size of the Tehran rally, in defiance of a ban. And there was no sign of the anger diminishing: "Many of my friends are in prison," said Saman Imani, a student beaten by police. "Iran is becoming a dictatorship. Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust because he's as brutal as Hitler was."

Ebrahim Yazdi, leader of the banned opposition Freedom Movement and a veteran of the revolution, warned that Ahmadinejad's attacks on his opponents had opened a "Pandora's box" which had led to a deep crisis within the regime.

"The result of such a crisis now is that the rift among the ... personalities of the revolution is getting deeper," he said. "It is also between people and their government ... a rift between state and the nation. It is the biggest crisis since the revolution."

Further reports tonight spoke of people in Isfahan, Ahwaz, Zahedan, Yazd and Mashhad shouting "Allahu Akbar [God is great]" in support of the Tehran demonstrations. Mohammad Khatami, the reformist ex-president and a backer of Mousavi, attacked the government for banning the rally.

Ahmadinejad delayed a visit to Russia but was due to arrive tomorrow.
Concerned governments around the globe were watching the situation closely. "The implications are not yet clear," said David Miliband, the foreign secretary.

The US president, Barack Obama, said he was "deeply troubled" by the post-election violence. "It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," he said, adding that Washington wanted to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran.

It wasn't an uprising? Can you please share with the board the title of the article that you posted.

[okie52]

Obama was ordered by the courts,TWICE, to reopen the gulf. He was kicking and screaming all of the way. And that is just the gulf. He has closed both coasts again to drilling for 7 years...nothing responsible in that whatsoever. It does serve his agenda though and he will pursue it regardless of the consequences to this country.

W couldn't get the votes even in the repub congress so I'm not excusing them up until 2006 for not opening the coasts. I will say, however, that until 2005 oil was still at sub $60 a barrel so the economics werent in place and new drilling techniques were just being established to make many areas commercially viable As I've stated to you before and your selective memory has forgotten is that both a congressional ban (expired) and the executive ban (removed by W) were gone when obama took office. He alone has reimposed it.

Over 1/2 of the gulf coast economy is from oil and gas....try to digest that if is is possible for you. That means all of the tourism and fishing combined don't have the impact of oil and gas. The same could be true for our east and west coasts.

And this nonsense about oil companies/refineries buying cheaper oil from other countries is just so much bunk. Who feeds you this drivel? oil companies will explore where they can make a profit and certainly they, like any business, will go for the highest profits. They seem to think our coasts (as do most geologists) have enormous reserves...none of which have ever been explored by our new seismic, drilling or fracking techniques. Now if these coastal serves we're not economically viable they won't be drilled...end of story. But we both know that is not the case as does Obama. So he has shut them down. Show me another country with oil reserves that has done that?

And I haven't listened to Bachman near as much as you have. I don't credit Obama or hold him accountable for gasoline prices dropping to $1.89 in 2009. That was the result of a global economic meltdown. But he ignored the rise of the prices and future energy needs with his cap and trade (and really all logic) . He just didn't ignore ng, he sought to punish it.

Once again 60% of our oil is imported. We have the means to reduce that substantially in the next decade. He is an energy idiot. Why hasn't he been moving our transportation to ng? We have it abundantly here in the US and it's cleaner than oil or coal or ethanol. Try to get past your dogma and actually assess the situation pragmatically.

[okie52]

Russia doesn't want Tehran or anywhere in Iran nuked. They are downwind.
Lol. well I'm sure we could promise them that.

[sappstuf]

Any nation can terminate anything it wants at any time, but it has to be prepared to suffer the consequences. It is perfectly within Iran's right to shut off any sea lanes that are within its territorial waters, international agreement or not. But of course Iran isn't immune from the consequences of such action.

The consequences would be that we would destroy their ability to export oil and their government would collapse in short order.

[sappstuf]

Thanks.

I am still unclear though if Iran would be within its rights to terminate the treaty and/or claim its territorial waters and thereby prevent shipping thru the SOH. Is it wide enough for shipping to use the SOH and not be in Iranian waters?

Okie,

the world wouldn't stand for it. The straits around the world, plus the Suez and Panama canal are treated like gifts to humanity that allows us to freely move goods easily and cheaply from country to country. This freedom of movement has greatly increased the quality of life of just about everyone on the planet.

One of the missions of the Navy is to maintain the freedom of the seas. It is a very important mission. If that freedom was lost, the world economy would collapse overnight.

So when you see those Navy commercials that say, "Global force for good", that is what they are talking about. If we let every two-bit dictator and pirates control such straits the world would be a much different, volatile and dangerous place.

And the Navy knows how to treat pirates..

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f2/311928d1319348720-lies-regarding-gaddafi-2298-dead-easter-navy-sniper-sunday-us-weapons.jpg

[ictsooner7]

Obama was ordered by the courts,TWICE, to reopen the gulf. He was kicking and screaming all of the way. And that is just the gulf. He has closed both coasts again to drilling for 7 years...nothing responsible in that whatsoever. It does serve his agenda though and he will pursue it regardless of the consequences to this country.

W couldn't get the votes even in the repub congress so I'm not excusing them up until 2006 for not opening the coasts. I will say, however, that until 2005 oil was still at sub $60 a barrel so the economics werent in place and new drilling techniques were just being established to make many areas commercially viable As I've stated to you before and your selective memory has forgotten is that both a congressional ban (expired) and the executive ban (removed by W) were gone when obama took office. He alone has reimposed it.

Over 1/2 of the gulf coast economy is from oil and gas....try to digest that if is is possible for you. That means all of the tourism and fishing combined don't have the impact of oil and gas. The same could be true for our east and west coasts.

And this nonsense about oil companies/refineries buying cheaper oil from other countries is just so much bunk. Who feeds you this drivel? oil companies will explore where they can make a profit and certainly they, like any business, will go for the highest profits. They seem to think our coasts (as do most geologists) have enormous reserves...none of which have ever been explored by our new seismic, drilling or fracking techniques. Now if these coastal serves we're not economically viable they won't be drilled...end of story. But we both know that is not the case as does Obama. So he has shut them down. Show me another country with oil reserves that has done that?

And I haven't listened to Bachman near as much as you have. I don't credit Obama or hold him accountable for gasoline prices dropping to $1.89 in 2009. That was the result of a global economic meltdown. But he ignored the rise of the prices and future energy needs with his cap and trade (and really all logic) . He just didn't ignore ng, he sought to punish it.

Once again 60% of our oil is imported. We have the means to reduce that substantially in the next decade. He is an energy idiot. Why hasn't he been moving our transportation to ng? We have it abundantly here in the US and it's cleaner than oil or coal or ethanol. Try to get past your dogma and actually assess the situation pragmatically.

Are permints for drilling being issued or not? The answer is YES and it's still not good enough, this is what I am talking about.

Dogma? Keep watching Fox and listening to Bachman and stop blaming Obama for something W didn't do either. He has opened it back up and you claim it's the courts that ordered him. This is what I'm talking about, you are following the party line talking points to a tee, not giving him any credit for anything.

Of course big oil is going to buy the cheapest oil out there, it's called a free market system, you just don't get it. You are saying if the profits from refining oil purchased are higher than the profits from oil found they are going to go with the found oil. Does not make sense at all. Your party loves the free market, too bad you don't understand it.

[okie52]

Are permints for drilling being issued or not? The answer is YES and it's still not good enough, this is what I am talking about.

Dogma? Keep watching Fox and listening to Bachman and stop blaming Obama for something W didn't do either. He has opened it back up and you claim it's the courts that ordered him. This is what I'm talking about, you are following the party line talking points to a tee, not giving him any credit for anything.

Of course big oil is going to buy the cheapest oil out there, it's called a free market system, you just don't get it. You are saying if the profits from refining oil purchased are higher than the profits from oil found they are going to go with the found oil. Does not make sense at all. Your party loves the free market, too bad you don't understand it.


Drilling permits in the GULF, not the Atlantic or Pacific.

To refresh your blinded memory:



Another Court Orders Obama to Drill or Get Off the Pot

posted at 12:30 pm on February 18, 2011 by Jazz Shaw


The Obama administration already found itself in hot water once this year over its drilling permitorium when a federal judge effectively found them in contempt of court on the issue. Now, only a few weeks later, the judicial branch is back in action, demanding that Obama’s EPA get back to the business of approving drilling permits or demonstrate why they can not.


http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/18/another-court-orders-obama-to-drill-or-get-off-the-pot/


In deference to you, some pictures seem to be in order:

New Obama Drilling Plan Has Americans Seeing Red
Maps Detail Job-Killing Proposal to Lock-Up More of the OCS







WASHINGTON, D.C., December 1, 2010 - Today, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar doubled down on the Obama Administration’s previous offshore drilling moratorium announced in March 2010, by placing EVEN MORE of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off limits to energy development.
As the maps below illustrate, the Obama Administration has moved our country backwards in terms of offshore land available for energy leasing. In 2008, there was bipartisan support to lift the Congressional drilling moratorium, now just two years later, the Administration has unilaterally re-imposed the ban.

Map of OCS when President Obama took Office - January 2009

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/opencoaststoObama.jpg

•In 2008, facing record gas prices, Congress and President Bush both announced an end to the decades-long ban on offshore drilling. This opened 500 million additional acres for new energy production that contain an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
•After the moratoria were lifted, the Bush Administration issued a 2010-2015 OCS leasing plan, and solicited comments on all aspects of the plan. The proposal included 31 OCS lease sales in all or some portion of the 12 of the 26 planning areas—4 areas off Alaska, 2 areas off the Pacific coast, 3 areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and 3 areas off the Atlantic coast.

Map of OCS after President Announced New Drilling Plan - April 2010

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Obamadrillingban-2012.jpg

•Under the plan announced by President Obama in April 2010, the majority of the areas open for drilling once the moratoria were lifted were once again closed. This included all of the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay in Alaska.
•In total, the Obama OCS plan puts 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under lock and key.
•The Administration only considered development of the Mid-Atlantic, Southern Atlantic, Chukchi and Beaufort Sea following Draft Environmental Study work to be conducted over the next year.
•The Administration would allow drilling in a portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico if Congress lifted the ban that is in place until 2022.

Map of OCS after Administration Announced Latest Drilling Plan - December 2010

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Obamadrillingban-2017.jpg
•President Obama’s latest and most restrictive OCS leasing plan now places the entire Pacific, the entire Atlantic and the Eastern Gulf off limits to future energy production – as it was under the Congressional moratorium.
•This puts some of the most promising shallow water resources in the world off-limits and pushes domestic oil development into a smaller fraction of the Gulf of Mexico and into deeper water.
•Previous lease sales off the coast of Virginia, scheduled to take place in 2011, are on hold until after 2017.
•In Alaska, there is only the potential for lease sales in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Cook Inlet planning areas before 2017.
•The American Petroleum Institute estimates today’s announcement will cost: 75,000 jobs; $91 billion in cumulative government revenues (royalties, severance taxes, property taxes, income taxes, lease bonuses); 900,000 bbls oil/day; and 2.9 tcf natural gas/day.

Your refinery vs exploration analogy is hilarious. Oil companies make money on refined products whether they export or sell them domestically. Exploration is a totally different function. If drilling isn't profitable they won't drill, if it is they will. And they want to drill off of our coasts. They are drilling all over the world. Foreign countries are devoloping their resources. Obama is restricting ours.Try to comprehend that fact.

Once again for your incredibly slow processing ability, Obama was handed open coasts as president for exploration. He has banned most of it. He has drug his feet in many other areas onshore. He has done nothing to advance transportation to NG. He continues to promote corn ethanol. He had the house pass cap and trade which punished NG and rewarded corn ethanol. This is the logic of Obama and demonstrates his abyssmal agenda as president. And you eat it up. LOL

[okie52]

Okie,

the world wouldn't stand for it. The straits around the world, plus the Suez and Panama canal are treated like gifts to humanity that allows us to freely move goods easily and cheaply from country to country. This freedom of movement has greatly increased the quality of life of just about everyone on the planet.

One of the missions of the Navy is to maintain the freedom of the seas. It is a very important mission. If that freedom was lost, the world economy would collapse overnight.

So when you see those Navy commercials that say, "Global force for good", that is what they are talking about. If we let every two-bit dictator and pirates control such straits the world would be a much different, volatile and dangerous place.

And the Navy knows how to treat pirates..

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f2/311928d1319348720-lies-regarding-gaddafi-2298-dead-easter-navy-sniper-sunday-us-weapons.jpg

Kudos to you and the Navy Sapp.

[Dale Ellis]

The US could cripple Iran in a week, and set it back 50 years. But also it would ensure the Islamic rule for another 1000 years.

Islamic rule will be there regardless, so nuke em now.

[ouwasp]

The Iranians have been giving The great satan the finger since 1979, yet we've always heard of the "moderate faction" that wishes for warmer relations with the US. Must be a completely impotent bunch.

In the meantime, US policy towards Iran has been:
Sit on Hands
Now wring hands
Repeat

Now that the US has pulled out of Iraq, perhaps Israel will finally take action against the sponsor of the long-time proxy war aganist them. I shall enjoy it vicariously.

[AlboSooner]

Islamic rule will be there regardless, so nuke em now.

Many think it is a fad. You could be right though.

[Jacie]

In the 70's, prior to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Iranians made up the largest contingent of foreign students enrolled at Oklahoma, something like 1,700 if my memory serves (most of em majoring in Petroleum Engineering). As a student and later employee of the U, I had plenty of interactions with various people who originally hailed from Iran. I never had a problem with any Iranian national, was friends with some, no ayatollah smack, no great satan b.s., just people being people getting by like the rest of us. Thus, they were as surprised as the rest of us in 1979 when the evening news showed footage of "students" taking over the U.S. embassy in Tehran. I know this, they all didn't start hating on the U.S. just because their government went off the deep end.

As bad as that was, U.S./Iran relations have steadily gone downhill since, including U.S. covert support provided to (of all people) Saddam Hussein after he ordered an Iraqi invasion of Iran, the shooting down of an airliner full of Iranians by a U.S. cruiser in 1988, and now an Iran with nuclear and cruise missile technology being ruled by that smarmy little man who admires Adolf Hitler and cozies up that Venezuelan dictator, Chavez.

Considering the potential for major world fubar, I don't support the idea of nuking anyone, not even the Iranians (especially since except for their leaders, I think we could find common ground with them). I do support the sanctions and hope our government has the stomach to keep the pressure on them to stop fomenting unrest through hate speech, state-sponsored terrorism and persecution of non-Islamists in and out of that country.

[OULenexaman]

that smarmy little man and that Venezuelan dictator, Chavez are having a little meeting today......coincedence?