In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:51:10 -0800: Hi, [snip] > >On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:51 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: > >> Howdy Vorts, >> >> With all the energy info rhetoric emanating out of D.C. and news >> sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the >> energy industry? > >It is a case of much too little much too late.
Agreed, but that's a direct consequence of the average intelligence of humanity. We always do too little too late. >> What is your predicted time line for the first really serious >> "bump" in the road ? > >It appears to me we probably don't have long to wait. If the surge >doesn't work then trouble is imminent. Basically, it has already failed. >Congress will force a pull >out, maybe even sooner. Some obvious possible follow-on scenarios, >in random order, include (a) destruction of oil infrastructure by >civil war, Probable. >(b) Iran running rampant in Iraq and elsewhere Improbable IMO. However indirect support for the Shia population in Iraq is probable. >(c) preemptive >strikes against Iran nuclear facilities by Israel followed by who >knows what, They might want to, but Iran has learned from the bombing of the Iraqi reactor. Most Iranian sites are very well buried, which means that ordinary air strikes are unlikely to have much effect. Furthermore, Israel can't really use nukes, because of the likelihood of suffering from the fallout themselves. That ensures that their nukes are a last ditch defensive measure, not a tactical tool. >(d) general embargo of oil to the US out of general >hatred of our culture and spite for our policies, Very likely. >(e) Iran gets the >bomb, or one is used, followed by nuclear warfare, I doubt that Iran would be that stupid. First they know as well as anyone else roughly what Israel has (not to mention that the US is just itching for an opportunity to test it's latest designs in the field). Even if Iran had a few bombs, that would never constitute a successful first strike capability. At best all they could hope for is that it would serve as a deterrent. Despite the fact that the Western media makes a meal of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, I seriously doubt that he is a fool. Not to mention that Iran would suffer exactly the same problem that Israel would, i.e. fallout from their own bombs. >(f) a successful >terrorist attack followed by rounds of retribution, and the election >of a sudden dark horse demagogic war mongering president, You missed the possibility of cancelled elections and a president that stays on forever as a dictator. > a draft, >etc., (g) disintegration, chaos, and genocide in Lebanon and the West >Bank, Given that this is already happening, and the only side to benefit from it is Israel, it wouldn't surprise me in the least of it were Mossad lighting the matches. >followed by intervention by who knows and then by who knows and >then by who knows..., (h) a general all out conventional Naval and >Air strike on Iranian military and infrastructure in an effort to >prevent or minimize any or all of the above for a while. The air strike may well eventuate, and doubtless the reason you give is the excuse that would be used, however it wouldn't be the real reason. The real reason would be that the Siamese twins - the US and Israel (joined at the hip pocket) want complete control over all middle-eastern oils supplies, and elimination of any potential threat to Israel. >It is just a matter of months, no more than 18. Then that's about how long we have to make CF commercial. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
