Because "I told you so" is as useless as it seems.

Funny how when people were cheering about the new found freedom in Libya, I was deemed a pessimist when I maintained a 'wait and see' attitude. They don't seem to want to talk to me now.
This ongoing cyclical crap in the middle east and europe should be more than enough evidence to show the need for a NA energy supply to ensure our prosperity and growth into the un-foreseeable future.
Let these barbaric people and their elitist puppermasters sink in the cesspool they are creating. We in NA have managed to avoid wars on our own lands for over a century and the progress created by NOT BOMBING OUR NIEGHBOURS has been positive. Imagine how much better it could be if we concentrated on working on energy supplies that were not coming from these backwards thinking areas of the world.

Things were so much simpler during The Failed Policies of the Past Eight Years, when one could simply scream Bush! and Haliburton! between gulps of organic goat yogurt and preen over haloed campaign photos of Teh One, our glorious soon-to-be Tide Receder, and *know* it would all be better soon, and that the Real Terrorists would all be locked up soon.

Imagine how much better it could be if we concentrated on working on energy supplies that were not coming from these backwards thinking areas of the world.

The globalists say that would lead to our impoverishment.

So the Dhimmi said, anyway...

"if Amnesty International knows what it's talking about" is a pretty big if in my books.

Blood for French oil, or for Italian oil. AliBama's for anything but America. Is that too obvious to be worth saying any more? America's enemies are in its White House. How much time will have to elapse before one can say that in "polite company"? (No offense meant, SDA-ers.)

Told ya.

"In Russia, the belief that the West cynically uses internal instability as an excuse to replace unfriendly regimes with compliant puppets (often no more “democratic” or “humane” than the previous thugs) has become dogma, and this western propensity is now seen as a national security threat to Russia and the friendly regimes on its frontiers."

The writer recognizes that we're back to the same situation as in the good old days of the Cold War,with the delightful addition of a new major league team,China.

I have NO confidence that the current administration in Washington is capable of more than bush-league Chicago style politics.

While the West had President Eisenhower in charge back in the 1950's when I was a kid,and we felt safe and secure, we now have an Affirmative Action President,whom I wouldn't trust to run a small town in Illinois.

It's enough to make a fella nervous.

The globalists say that would lead to our impoverishment.

So the Dhimmi said, anyway...

This is the opposite of what is true.

Same old and some expected the birth of a liberal democracy.

Autarky (self sufficiency) is the route to relative impoverishment. Remember this when you hear talk about "energy self-sufficiency".

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at January 27, 2012 8:13 PM

nick wrote: "Blood for French oil, or for Italian oil." To be fair, insofar as the Iraqi war was about "Oil", it was also about French and Italian oil, as they were bigger players in Iraq than the USA.

One of my disappointments about the Iraqi adventure was that the US gave so much and reaped so little.

Losing the Peace in France's War for Oil?

I don't think one could make the argument that "Peace" was reigning in Libya in any case, with or without Ghaddafi...

Cf Pam Am flight 103

I'd rather put out the proposition that the fires of war were formerly on a containment basis, allowed to bloom to full flourish. Further, trying to sell oil not denominated in US dollars...was as they say 'more fuel on the fire'.

The farcical release of the Pam Am 103 bomber for drilling rights only served to encourage the former regime...

Thus the choice is the 'devil you know' and the 'devil you don't'. This is approximately the choice of whether you would want to be on the near or far side of hell. In either case it will be toasty...

As for the author's headline, "Thank God For Humanitarian Bombs?", you may want to keep your slit trench handy....

Cheers

Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

"The globalists say that would lead to our impoverishment."

And we're right.

But you have to add in ALL the costs, which includes a large US military presence. In a sense, part of the US military budget can be considered a subsidy for that part of the world's oil supply which comes from the Middle East.

dmorris, from Russia's perspective, they are probably correct to think that way. So-called humanitarian missions have an interesting way of turning into regime change. But given the US inability to manage the transition, it's not clear that the policy has any real successes to its record. What it seems to be doing is simply replacing military dictators with theocracies. And stirrig up a lot of religious and ethnic hatreds which the former dictators had kept suppressed.

As to Obama's incomprehension and inability to manage any of this, no question about it.

Nobama simply magnified the failure of previous regeam's failed foreign policies, with his own failures. Had Bush went into Afgan with tactical nukes anyone the americans "eyed" would shiite their pants and be very compliant. Had Bush marched onto Damacus and Tehran after the fall of Bagdad, then there would have been far less need to thump these other fools, as they would have been more isolated. Had any admin. bombed the UN to smirteens, most of the fools that use it as a lever to advance their agenda would have been nutered. Politicians play politics, end of story!!!!

But you have to add in ALL the costs, which includes a large US military presence. In a sense, part of the US military budget can be considered a subsidy for that part of the world's oil supply which comes from the Middle East.

To do a true financial comparison one would have to add the cost of military to defend the homeland, the % of cost of roads to transport the product, the opportunity cost of the physical space the infrastructure occupies. And on and on...

Who's going to do all of that? Central planners?

See how your argument descends into idiocy?

cgh >

“What it seems to be doing is simply replacing military dictators with theocracies. And stirrig up a lot of religious and ethnic hatreds which the former dictators had kept suppressed.”

Funny that.

On a positive note, some “globalists” seem to be catching on to what “anti globalists” have been saying all along.

Hopefully with only a few more trillion in humanitarian bombing the rest might catch on as well.

And when the roads fall apart, the hospitals become critically understaffed, the sewers back up, the water becomes contaminated, the cities become uninhabitable, then theocrats can will the masses it's the fault of the great satan.

Military spending?

Why is it that the anti-military always quotes the entire cost waretime operations but ignores the peacetime costs.

Salaries/pay represent a sizable proportion of the US military budget but is a triffling expense in the budget of the the PA of the PCR or the former USSR.

Cut to the chase, what the OWS recommends is to diband the military.....Confusious say..."Barefoot boy gets toes stepped on."

Warfare obviously involves the expenditure of consumables...fuel, ammo and destroyed equipment.

In peace time, the difference between idling men and equipment is minor...a bit of fuel....perhaps more maintainence....

Basically ya gotta pay and fed the grunts in peace or in war....

Deploying Naval forces to, for example, the Persian Gulf is not terribly more costly than normal training exercises.....

What has arose is the situation that the US Army has encountered with it's armoured Vehicles, is that battle-damage, wear and tear, and increased operating time (mileage) has over-taxed it's civilian contractors ability to overhaul.

In a sense, part of the US military budget can be considered a subsidy for that part of the world's oil supply which comes from the Middle East.

A few years ago the amount of oil the US military used to 'secure' the Mid East oil supply was approximately equal to the amount of oil the US imported from the Mid East. Some people have expensive hobbies.

Why should we be concerned if Muslims in the Mid East kill each other?

Overheard in Assad's Cabinet chambers.

Minister of Torture, "What should we do?"

President Assad, "I know. Let's let the compliant leftists in the compliant West, lead by the compliant Barry Obama's compliant U.S. to let the compliant Western Media be used to our advantage."

All the Cabinet (smiling, in unison), "Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket."

Just another day...

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/28/egypt-mob-of-3000-muslims-led-by-salafists-attack-christian-homes-and-shops/

I can't say I'm fazed by the islamist behavior since their spring. Who to support in this fight? when all I see over there, is everything I oppose.

marc in calgary >

“Who to support in this fight?”

None, is an option. We can also sanction goods, and stop immigration from these places. I’m not sure when the lefty crowd is going to tire of putting out other peoples fires on our dime, or the two headed globalists snakes that think that “Corporatocracy” will somehow enrich them and our economies on one hand and turn the little brown people into democratic westerners on the other.

Take Obamba’s proudly increased predator drone attacks knocking out city blocks in Pakistan, all the while they cram millions of Pakistanis into western countries to live. It’s a good thing these newly arrived American’s have no beef about their dead families and countrymen back home. Poof, they are all instant Americans overnight, just looking for a better life and an SUV.

Deploying Naval forces to, for example, the Persian Gulf is not terribly more costly than normal training exercises.....

Yeti economics? It's foolish to assume that training exercises in the Persian Gulf are "not terribly more costly" than training exercises in the Gulf of Mexico.

The overblown US military will always make justifying it's existence as the highest priority. The US spends more on 'defense' than the total of all the other military expenditures in the world. Paranoia propaganda ensures that the money keeps flowing.

I'm waiting for the plea for massive humanitarian aid to fix the mess that we created. Would that be a double "told you so"?

The 2003 Iraq war was caused in no small part by France's promises to Saddam to veto the war and prevent it in return for privileged access to his reserves.

Keeping the "French Exception" going takes a lot of colonial exploitation.

"Who's going to do all of that? Central planners?"

And yet everything around you is dependent upon some form of central planning.

See how quickly your entire existence reduces your argument to idiocy?

"And yet everything around you is dependent upon some form of central planning" - cgh

Central Planning is a singe thing, it cannot be distributed by definition. Taking that into account, how do you claim that "everything is dependent on some form of central planning"?

Planning and "Central Planning" are two different things.

Never mind, I am done arguing with idiots for today.

North of 60 @ 4.26 pm:
USA military expenditure, about $700 billion
Remainder of the world, about $1,600 billion

and although an aside to this.. China's expenditures of "only" about $120 billion, are based on chinese labor market costs, which are fairly low.

tim in vermont :

You aren't done YET..

There is Planning, and Central Planning, sure.

And then there's....Execution. That's the rub.
You can go now :)

USA military expenditure, about $700 billion
Remainder of the world, about $1,600 billion

Not quite true, see:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending

Correction:

The US spends more on 'defense' than the total of the 17 other largest military expenditures in the world.

The point raised remains the same.

Ha ha
Funny thing

France, Italy, Russia and China.

All with pretty much governmental owned operated oil companies all operating in their own national interests, all intricately involved in all the international conflicts of the last two decades.

Of course its as nothing compared to the VRWC(™SDA)

Military expenditure 2010

US.................687 billion
rest of world..876 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

My error North of 60, still, far from "The US spends more on 'defense' than the total of..."

I corrected the error.

Understand that the point of the overblown US military is still valid, when the US spends more on 'defense' than the total of the 17 other largest military expenditures in the world, and over 3/4ths of the total military expenditure in the world.

Did you mean "and over 3/4ths of the total military expenditure in the world." or did you mean 43%, like in your link?

and note, the chinese expenditure is spent, by employing people earning a few dollars a day, the same as their $12 toasters.

I think the US should commit to spending a minimum of 5% of GDP, and give ample notice to those countries in the world (Germany, Japan, South Korea for example) that have kept their military expenditures low by keeping the US military bases in those countries, that they are going to vacate those bases and they're going to have to start securing their own borders in the near future. I'd imagine those wiki numbers would be shaken up by this.

We're seriously off topic.

and I very much agree with your comment @ 3.45 pm.

The US military expenditure of 687 B$ is 78.5% of the world total of 876 B$.

Yes, the US should vacate all overseas Army/AirForce bases and only keep the Naval bases. The Constitution provides for a Navy and a standing Army for defense only. The Founding Fathers specifically didn't want the USofA to become a militaristic imperial power like Britain.

This is right on topic. The USofA has neither the right or the responsibility to be the world's 'policeman'. Particularly when they have to borrow money to do it.

Guys, "blood for oil" is only acceptable when the Europeans do it!

Whatever the cost of US (proxy for western Europe, Canada, and all the "polite" nations) defence, the important number is the amount of that budget that goes to protect the oil supplies of the ME. Since most of the oil in the ME is destined for Europe or China, perhaps we had better just leave the sandbox for them to play in.

Were the US to embrace Canada's oil and gas reserves, in combination with domestic supplies extracted with deep well or fraccing technologies, North American
energy independence would allow the Europeans to take the responsibility for their own lifestyles -
something the Euopeans haven't had to deal with since the Marshall Plan post-WWII.

North of 60
But other, non western countries, have military (armies) who owns chain-stores, factories, universities or mines. And the revenue from these businesses may not count in the accounting books if it is later used by military.
In contrast to NATO/US which is closely scrutinized by parliaments, governments, people and enemies, data on China or Iran` military are very much approximate. For example, Chinese may build large port-base in Pakistan, and it will be used by Chinese military. However the cost of building the port may not be counted as military expense as it may be used also by Pakistan for other purposes. Things like that.

As for "overblown US military" -- military bases are necessary if a country wants to to protect its business routes. If country can not protect business routes, ex. sea-lanes, than the country can not be sure of its trade. Why do you think Vietnam, S. Korea and other South-East Asian countries are talking with USA/Australia/NATO? And why Gulf countries are trying to buy as much armament as possible. It is because South-East Asian countries are afraid of Chinese military and Gulf States are afraid of Iran. And to keep bases in/near these countries is in US interest simply because otherwise US can not prevent Iran and China to block trade/sea-routes.