"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
nk.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message

Your right, what you say don't make it right. However what really
happened
was the UN, by RESOLUTION created the state of Israel. It was carved
out
of Palestine which was being vacated by the British. This was about
1947.

Understood. But what right did the United Nations have to create
a new "state" when the people who were already living on that land,
and had for centuries, were not party to that act? That would be like
my state's legislature re-zoning YOUR neighborhood!

The right of being the United Nations. No other. Apparantly most of the
then member nations agreed. I didn't say it was right.


Of course the fine ragheads were trying to kill all the Jews before that
happened.

And vice-versa. It's a love-hate relationship...Both sides
"love" hating the other side. Made for some sandskrit stories then
and CNN footage now. =)

Remember our fine friends over there now...the Jordanians? They were
marching on the Jews as the Brits left. And if the truth be known the
reason Jordan had the butt is they wanted to be in charge of the Jews,
i.e.
part of the Kingdom of Jordan. And really didn't want the palestinians
anyway. Just like today. Except they don't want to be in charge, they
just hope the Jews don't get the arse and come over and kick theirs.
Ah
how times have changed.

Interesting bit of history.

Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

I never claimed the Isralies were sheep or Mr. Nice Guy. You fight fire
with fire, period. It must work....Israel is still here and stronger
than
ever.

But this is my point...where do the Israeli's get off making scuh
a big ta-doo about Palestinian "terrorists" when they are/have been
just as quick to do a bit of artful manipulation of fear themselves?

And they are still around because Uncle Sam has made it his
business to keep Carrier Battle Groups in the Med!

Rest of stuff we agreed on snipped.

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Good theory.....but the Israelis don't need OUR weapons. They have
their
own.

True...and danged good ones too...However they what they DO need
is the threat of any one of the aforementioned Carrier Battle Groups
showing up to back up Isael's play...

Yes, the Israeli's have one of the finest Armed Forces in the
world, an intellegence agency that is second to none, and some
seriously big cajones to use them all...But if we weren't propping
them up, I doubt that they'd make it a year.


No arguement here ... however I feel we must continue to support Israel. If
for no other (better) reason then for religious issues. I am not a real hot
to trot bible thumper, btw. This country has a lot in common with the
Isralies. As for their right to call the Palestinians terrorists...why not?
Their leader...Arafat is the founder of the terrorist movement. He is the
one that unleashed it upon the world. So the Israelies and the REST OF THE
WORLD have the right to call them terrorists...because that is exactly what
they are.

Dan/W4NTI

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message
...

The problem with Russian vs. Arab oil is that the Arabian oil is a whole
lot easier to get at. You poke a hole in the sand, stick a pipe in it,
and out it comes. Moreover, the oil fields are located close to accessible
sea ports, meaning relatively short and inexpensive transport of the oil
to the ships that will carry it away to the customers. I'm not at all
certain, but I'm pretty sure you'd find that Russian oil is not only a
whole lot further away from sea ports, but also a lot harder to drill
for. A hot, arid climate, while not particularly comfortable, is still a
whole lot easier to deal with than a frigid one when it comes to
crude oil production. If Russia's oil were, in fact, economically feasible
to produce, I have no doubt that those resources would be being
exploited to the greatest extent possible.

All too true...but then too, the geography lends itself to long
pipelines, and once they were laid in, that existing infrastructure
alone would drop the price of oil.

Maybe.

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
Alun wrote in message
.. .

Everything Steve said is true. That alone probably disqualifies him from
being a politician.

Thank-you, Sir!

Steve, K4YZ

Don't get all head inflated boys....Twit is ignored by most of us. Except
possibly Howard McGovern....whoops.....Dean.

Dan/W4NTI

N2EY wrote:


But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

Here is one that gets me into some trouble. I'm a firm believer that we
should:

1. develop as much alternative energy as possible. Although we will
never run out of oil, there are some real limits to it's inexpensive
production.

2. In the interim, use as *much* imported oil as possible.

3. Our own oil resources should be husbanded very carefully, so we will
still have oil in emergencies. We should use only as much as it takes to
operate the wells and search for new sources.


It is one of those reasons why I don't believe that we should open that
range in Alaska at this time. There may come a time that that oil is
needed desparately.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Hey, our competition is spending money there!!!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002205.asp?0cl=c3

I say either take them *all* out, or bring our young warriors home to their
families and ignore the whole damned cesspool or use it as a test range.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Alun
writes:

The USA's open-door policies are one reason terror groups were able
at come here and operate the way they did on Sept 11.

Actually, US immigration is amongst the toughest in the world. I can't
help but smile to see it called 'open door'.

I don't mean immigration policies. I mean the the way the USA allows
people in on visas, and doesn't control those who stay illegally.

The main strategy to control this is the I-9 form that everyone fills in
to get a job, even US citizens. The easiest way around that is probably to
work "off the books" for cash. I'm not sure how this could ever be
stopped.

One way to reduce it is high penalties for employers found to be doing such
things, and high rewards and protection for whistle-blowers.

In the case of student visas, as were used in the 911 attacks, it does
seem that immigration ought to check with colleges to see if the students
are still there.

Exactly! That's what I mean by "open-door" - they let lots of folks in and then
don;t check to see what they're really doing.

How did the 9/11 terrorists get into the USA?

On student visas

See above.

This also illustrates one of the conflicts in the way the US economy operates.
Colleges and universities *love* student visas, because foreigners studying in
the USA usually pay cash and help with the institution's need for "diversity".
Such students also help the trade deficit - and considering what a US degree
costs, we're talking serious hard currency per student. So there's pressure to
admit as many cash-paying foreign students as possible.

And the vast majority of them are hard-working, intelligent students whose
purpose in the USA is exactly what they say it is: to get an education.

How much trouble was it
for them to get past INS and set up shop here?

Not much, as it happens. Doing it legally is much more difficult.

There's the problem. It should be easy to do legally and tough to do illegally.

As for tough immigration, check out what is required to immigrate to
New Zealand.

Two words: "Bring money"

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

As for tough immigration, check out what is required to immigrate to
New Zealand.

Two words: "Bring money"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Ditto Canada. They admit lots of wealthy Chinese, but few Somalis.

(N2EY) wrote in message ...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

And the Arabs do?

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.
The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

I'd agree with that, but getting the rest of America to is a
problem. We've had the technology to exploit many non-petroleum or
hybrid petroleum alternatives for decades. And even where there are
other US-controlled petro reserves, we ahve our own people fighting
our attempts to recover them.

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.

But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.

And you might want to look up just how much oil the USA imports from
the Middle East. It's not as much as many people think.

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

And the Arabs do?

More so than you might imagine ;-)

Point is, Russian oil isn't a quick, cheap and easy fix.

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.

I always thought that the biggest danger was that a war would start by
mistake rather than intent.

That doesn't mean the Soviets never wanted to take over, just that
they never wanted to take over a burnt out radioactive cinder of a
world.

The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

Or somebody who didn't really care if they or their society survived
or not.

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

I'd agree with that, but getting the rest of America to is a
problem.

Exactly!

The solutions are always on the supply side, as if demand is sacred.
Heaven forbid anyone say that putting 25,000 miles per year on a
vehicle that gets 15 MPG isn't an inalienable right.

We've had the technology to exploit many non-petroleum or
hybrid petroleum alternatives for decades.

In 1980 I bought a car that got over 40 mpg in the city and over 50
mpg on the road. And it weighed 2200+ pounds, met all the pollution
and safety requirements and was fun to drive. No ignition noise,
either. Of course it was small, but it was big enough for
six-foot-three-inch me and lots of stuff besides.

But cars like that aren't what Americans are told to want, so most of
them don't. They're not "babe magnets".

And if someone suggests that there may be better ways to travel than
4000 pound 250+ HP private cars, and jet airplanes, they're called
"socialists" and "tree huggers"....

And even where there are
other US-controlled petro reserves, we ahve our own people fighting
our attempts to recover them.

Think about why. Does the name Exxon Valdez ring a bell? "What do we
do with a drunken sailor......"

Also check put how much oil those reserves would actually supply if
fully developed. And how much it costs...

And remember that one point of the philosophy is to preserve *our*
reserves...

Also recall what event sparked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It
was FDR's decision to effectively stop the sales of oil, steel and
other strategic materials to Japan in response to their war of
aggression in China. Most important of these to Japan was the the
supply of oil, because without it their war machine would not be able
to function for long. So they decided to attack and hopefully win a
quick war that would secure for them a secure source of oil in
Southeast Asia and the surrounding areas. Yet they missed a key target
in their attack planning: they never attacked the tank farm above
Pearl Harbor. And in the end they found themselves short of oil
because American submarines and aircraft were sinking their tankers
faster than they could be replaced.

Then there's Ploesti.....

In the end, I say we need to focus on being self-sufficient for basic
necessities - and *all* of the changes needed to bring that about.
Energy supply is a basic necessity for an industrial society.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Brian wrote:

Yep, national security is hard to do with alternatives. For example,
it would be difficult for the DoD to build stealth fighters that run
on nicads, charged by the sun.

But the rest of us could get along fine with alternatives.

Bingo!

- Mike KB3EIA -