What's new

US plans for Iran strike ready

War makes for strange bedfellows. if iran starts operating openly in Iraq look for limited raproachment betwen the Sunni's and Americans. They know full well if Iran jumps in there won't be a Sunni left alive in 6 months if the US pulls out.

so true iraqi shias helping sunnies what about that.then what.i doubt there is any muslim in the world that trust americans other then off course American installed puppets.
putins recent trip to middle east shows signs of arabs trust towards Americans.
 
so true iraqi shias helping sunnies what about that.then what.i doubt there is any muslim in the world that trust americans other then off course American installed puppets.
putins recent trip to middle east shows signs of arabs trust towards Americans.

The Sunnis know that if the Americans leave that if Iran is actively involved they are dead. There will be no alliance betwen shia and sunni groups in an American Irainian showdown. The stakes are two high for the Sunni's.


Oil Sands (Bitumen)

Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves, Alberta's oil sands deposits were described by Time Magazine as "Canada's greatest buried energy treasure," and "could satisfy the world's demand for petroleum for the next century".

Oil Sands are deposits of bitumen, a molasses-like viscous oil that will not flow unless heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. They are contained in three major areas beneath 140,200* square kilometres of north-eastern Alberta - an area larger than the state of Florida, an area twice the size of New Brunswick, more than four and half times the size of Vancouver Island, and 26 times larger than Prince Edward Island. However, only about two per cent of the initial established resource has been produced to date.

Alberta Energy encourages the responsible development of these extensive deposits through planning and liaison with government, industry and communities to ensure a competitive royalty regime that is attractive to investors, appropriate regulations and environmental protection and the management of Crown rights to oil sands while taking into account some of the barriers - higher technological risk and higher capital costs - faced by oil sands developers.

Alberta's oil sands industry is the result of multi-billion-dollar investments in infrastructure and technology required to develop the non-conventional resource. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), in 2005 industry investment in Alberta’s oil sands totalled approximately $10 billion.

In 2005 Alberta's oil sands were the source of about 58 per cent of the province's total crude oil and equivalent production and about 39 per cent of all crude oil and equivalent produced in Canada. Over the last three fiscal years, from 2003/2004 to 2005/2006, oil sands development returned $1.865 billion to Albertans in the form of royalties paid to the provincial government.

Annual oil sands production is growing steadily as the industry matures. Output of marketable oil sands production increased to 966,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2005. With anticipated growth, this level of production could reach 3 million barrels per day by 2020 and possibly even 5 million barrels per day by 2030. This degree of activity would support the development of other key industries and see Alberta become a Global Energy Leader.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

Oil Shale (Kerogen)

Oil shales ranging from Cambrian to Tertiary in age occur in many parts of the world. Deposits range from small occurrences of little or no economic value to those of enormous size that occupy thousands of square miles and contain many billions of barrels of potentially extractable shale oil. Total world resources of oil shale are conservatively estimated at 2.6 trillion barrels. However, petroleum-based crude oil is cheaper to produce today than shale oil because of the additional costs of mining and extracting the energy from oil shale. Because of these higher costs, only a few deposits of oil shale are currently being exploited in China, Brazil, and Estonia. However, with the continuing decline of petroleum supplies, accompanied by increasing costs of petroleum-based products, oil shale presents opportunities for supplying some of the fossil energy needs of the world in the years ahead.
Definition of oil shale

Most oil shales are fine-grained sedimentary rocks containing relatively large amounts of organic matter from which significant amounts of shale oil and combustible gas can be extracted by destructive distillation. Included in most definitions of "oil shale", either stated or implied, is the potential for the profitable extraction of shale oil and combustible gas or for burning as a fuel. Oil shale differs from coal whereby the organic matter in coal has a lower atomic H:C ratio and the OM:MM ratio of coal is usually greater than 4.75:5.
Origin of oil shale

Oil shales were deposited in a wide variety of environments including freshwater to saline ponds and lakes, epicontinental marine basins and related subtidal shelves. They were also deposited in shallow ponds or lakes associated with coal-forming peat in limnic and coastal swamp depositional environments. It is not surprising, therefore, that oil shales exhibit a wide range in organic and mineral composition. Most oil shales contain organic matter derived from varied types of marine and lacustrine algae, with some debris of land plants, depending upon the depositional environment and sediment sources.

http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm

American reserves of Kerogen

It is generally agreed that worldwide petroleum supply will eventually reach its productive limit, peak, and begin a long term decline. What should the United States do to prepare for this event? An objective look at the alternatives points to the Nation's untapped oil shale as a strategically located, long-term source of reliable, affordable, and secure oil.

The vast extent of U.S. oil shale resources, amounting to more than 2 trillion barrels, has been known for a century. In 1912, the President, by Executive Order, established the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. This office has overseen the U.S. strategic interests in oil shale since that time. The huge resource base has stimulated several prior commercial attempts to produce oil from oil shale, but these attempts have failed primarily because of the historically modest cost of petroleum with which it competed. With the expected future decline in petroleum production, historic market forces are poised to change and this change will improve the economic viability of oil shale.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/NPR_Oil_Shale_Program.html
 
Cheetah,

Iraq is a conquered nation, 3000 dead Americans to how many Iraqi nationals. Lets not even compare the numbers. Americans are well and truely on top. Yes they cant police Iraq, but that doesnt make them any less dangerous of Iran. What is that Iran can do to the various stealth bombers, Cruise missiles, Ballistic missiles, Nuclear bombs, which practically America can deliever from its home in the atlantic. Iran is doing its rehtoric for the domestic audience while hoping America will back down because of Diplomatic Pressure from the rest of the world. I dont think America will enter Iran on the ground, there will be Aerial conflict and Naval blockade; Iran chances of success are zero. Iran's military is even more worse than Saddam's in 1991 Gulf War. The only interest Iran can hurt is Israel, which incidently has the only operational ABM system in the world, Arrow and Arrow-2. Israeli's prefer a War now with a conventional Iran rather than a nuclear Iran in the future
 
Cheetah,

Iraq is a conquered nation, 3000 dead Americans to how many Iraqi nationals. Lets not even compare the numbers. Americans are well and truely on top. Yes they cant police Iraq, but that doesnt make them any less dangerous of Iran. What is that Iran can do to the various stealth bombers, Cruise missiles, Ballistic missiles, Nuclear bombs, which practically America can deliever from its home in the atlantic. Iran is doing its rehtoric for the domestic audience while hoping America will back down because of Diplomatic Pressure from the rest of the world. I dont think America will enter Iran on the ground, there will be Aerial conflict and Naval blockade; Iran chances of success are zero. Iran's military is even more worse than Saddam's in 1991 Gulf War. The only interest Iran can hurt is Israel, which incidently has the only operational ABM system in the world, Arrow and Arrow-2. Israeli's prefer a War now with a conventional Iran rather than a nuclear Iran in the future

yeah you are right only 1 problem so far its American against 20% of population.now bring in the other 70% into the equation.against common enemy.u see tony Blair cond- rice been trying there best to start this thing call bad Iranians good Israelis i doubt most Muslims with brains trust Americans other then American installed puppets.but time will tell.but its very clear to sunnies after Iran they are next ..(uncle Putin's visit to Saudi).these are all things to bring under consideration.u see Americans can probably strike Iran no doubt but the question is would they be able to stop the war.once its started.1991 Saddam's army was better then Iran .so what you are saying is Iranians have army like Bangladesh.in 1991 Iraqis had zilch Nada nothing Saddam was broke.if thats the case it will be a walk in the park for the Americans.just like it was in 1991.
About the missile defense they could have arrow 20 its a bullet against bullet.Americans or Israelis can dance back wards its never going to have success rate they want.unless Iran's are stupid enough and let them put homing beacons on them.
 
yeah you are right only 1 problem so far its American against 20% of population.now bring in the other 70% into the equation.against common enemy.u see tony Blair cond- rice been trying there best to start this thing call bad Iranians good Israelis i doubt most Muslims with brains trust Americans other then American installed puppets.but time will tell.but its very clear to sunnies after Iran they are next ..(uncle Putin's visit to Saudi).these are all things to bring under consideration.u see Americans can probably strike Iran no doubt but the question is would they be able to stop the war.once its started.1991 Saddam's army was better then Iran .so what you are saying is Iranians have army like Bangladesh.in 1991 Iraqis had zilch Nada nothing Saddam was broke.if thats the case it will be a walk in the park for the Americans.just like it was in 1991.
About the missile defense they could have arrow 20 its a bullet against bullet.Americans or Israelis can dance back wards its never going to have success rate they want.unless Iran's are stupid enough and let them put homing beacons on them.

It is alright to hate your enemy, but to underestimate it, is criminal.
I never meant Iranians had a army like bangladesh, but they are certainly worse of than lets say Pakistan.I dont agree with American Foriegn Policy at all, but that doesnt mean I have to be fool to underestimate their will power and capabilities.I am great fan of Putin, but for the next 10 years Russia cant influence International politics. Shahab-3 etc are quite old missiles and Arrow-2 is more than capable of stopping them,there would be only a handful left after the intial american/israeli aerial bombardment. Let me put it this way; If america had a leader as idiotic ahemdijinad(more idiotic than bush, how i dont know...lol) Iran would be wiped of the map!!!! Russian and American capabilities esp nuclear far beyond the reaches of most countries...even the UK and france.

And you should read up on Missile defence a tad bit more, its not as simple as bullet vs bullet, last time i checked a bullet doesnt have guidance, radar signature etc. Let me put it this way Saddam had a decent airforce, Mig-29A's with no good radar and some old F-14's whom the Americans can Jam at will cannot be called top of the line.
 
When you have so much to do at home, when you have such a wonderfull oppurtunity of high energy prices and high income for the govt, why do you want to think of war?

This a golden chance given to all oil rich countries to do their last bit before oil runs out.

And here we see Iran trying to take on Bush, the biggest war monger of our lifes.

Both are insane, but that doesnt change Irans destiny.

US will dessimate Irans infrastucture, their lives and sure will lose a few of there own.But then US can always go back to their sweet home, where will the Iranians go.

Thinking about all this, i guess Mushraff has to be given due credit for pulling pakistan out of Bush's radar.
 
When you have so much to do at home, when you have such a wonderfull oppurtunity of high energy prices and high income for the govt, why do you want to think of war?

This a golden chance given to all oil rich countries to do their last bit before oil runs out.

And here we see Iran trying to take on Bush, the biggest war monger of our lifes.

Both are insane, but that doesnt change Irans destiny.

US will dessimate Irans infrastucture, their lives and sure will lose a few of there own.But then US can always go back to their sweet home, where will the Iranians go.

Thinking about all this, i guess Mushraff has to be given due credit for pulling pakistan out of Bush's radar.

1- we didnt think of war, Saddam was a left over from the double mistakes of the divide and Conquer strategy that ended British colonialism and the Soviet attempts to gain control of the Middle East to choke off europe during the Cold War. He could have at any time come clean about disarming and stopped funding terrorism and thus ended the sanctions. He chose not too and 1.5 Million iraqies died under the blockade. After 12 years war was the only option to get rid of him. If not for the secterian violence we would be home by now and Irag would be rebuilding with billions in US aid. Yes we made a mistake and did not secure Iraq and provide stability, but our intentiosn for what they were worth were good not nefarious.

Bush isn't the biggest warmonger of our lives. He isn't even close. Bill Clinton attacked far more countries, Tony Blair has attacked the most, Putin has launched aggressive wars as well. Slobodon, Saddam, and Pol Pot were all genocidal nutjobs.

personally as an American I can't wait till the US is out of the Middle East and oil has bene replaced. Then that whole region that has caused the western world an unending stream of problems for nearly 3000 years can rot and be forgotten.
 
dude i feel for u but al the problems in the middle east were cauzed by the west
 
dude i feel for u but al the problems in the middle east were cauzed by the west

No all the problems in the Middle East were caused by grumpy old stupid Middle Eastern rulers who took their people for a ride
 
The problems in the ME can be traced to London and Moscow. America came out of WW2 with nearly unlimited power and a percieved duty to fight communism. If London had set up Arabia and Syria like they promised and later had Moscow not deicded to meddle with Europes energy supply the US would never have ended up in the region.
 
Zraver,

Ultimatly The rulers over there could have taken a proper judgement call, which they did not. Yes very other nation will try to exert their view point, It is the responsibility of the people of the middle east to take informed decisions on their Best interest.They still dont do it.
What I dont understand is Saudi nationals attacking the US, when their Rulers are US ally's. Shouldnt they be taking their actions against their own rulers. But they wont cuz their whole family will not be spared. If you aske me I still think US is soft on terror.
 
Bush isn't the biggest warmonger of our lives. He isn't even close. Bill Clinton attacked far more countries, Tony Blair has attacked the most, Putin has launched aggressive wars as well. Slobodon, Saddam, and Pol Pot were all genocidal nutjobs.

For me a Bush is a warmonger, not because of the number of wars he has initiated but the utter stupidity at which he initaites and plans one.
 
No all the problems in the Middle East were caused by grumpy old stupid Middle Eastern rulers who took their people for a ride

Adu, what you need to understand here is that, Arabs arnt like any other race they can only be rules and kept as one by a ruthless ruler.
 
Adu, what you need to understand here is that, Arabs arnt like any other race they can only be rules and kept as one by a ruthless ruler.

Exactly,
Thats why they should be calling names and attacking their own leaders for their inept, than others. Saudi King is allied to the US, nobody attacks him as much as the US. Wierd Logic. If india was allied to the POL POT i would direct all my rage against my leadership rather than going after Pol Pot...
 
May be Iran wants American attack. Makes them hero in the region, who challenge the superpower, but i think American wise enough to make hero in the region, In case of attack Iran will win the support not only from outside from inside too. It will be huge political win for Iran. But defence wise Iran can t even stand in front of US for a minute.
Many powers are waiting to see if american attack on Iran. To make some money from war torn country..
 

Back
Top Bottom