The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus.
#4
Biggest problem with AEP's analysis is his failure to take into account the fact that half of America's political class is actively trying to wreck the country and its economy.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/24/2011 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...while the 'leadership' in other countries are also bent on destroying their own too in the last grasps of power. Remember, you don't have to be faster than the bear, just someone else in the same party.
#6
I see us at a turning point. Yes its possible we don't turn the corner but more likely we see a final smashing of Socialist ideology in the next election combined with offshore oil exploration and tar sand exploration that helps us survive the collapse of the Chinese economy.
When the dust settles I do think the power will swing back to America in a big way. If we turn the corner and get rid of the folks currently in power.
#7
I don't know what numbers Ambrose is looking at. All I can figure is he is trying to displace Pollyanna as a best-selling feel-good children's book.
Pollyanna is a best-selling 1913 novel by Eleanor H. Porter that is now considered a classic of children's literature, with the title character's name becoming a popular term for someone with the same optimistic outlook
#9
Boy, the rest of the world must be a hot damn mess for this to be.
It is.
AEP spends a lot of time figuring out the strength of limbs. But he's not far off on the potential, if we throw off the debilitating effects of the current elite. Admittedly a big if.
#11
Some of what he said is true. With this current administration, no way jose. Anything can happen now till elections. They'll "Walk like an Egyptian" or "Moonwalk" if they have to. I'm surprised Obama and Biden haven't started dancing and singing "Happy days are he again". Straw hats and canes and all. Gotta love those smiles. Then the reruns.
#12
Lots of whistling past graveyards, no worries, Uncle Sugar will be there when we need him...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2011 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Then there's VDH, as posted elsewhere on todays 'Burg: we are left with an energy-poor country sitting on energy riches, a moribund economy with millions in the private sector piling up cash rather than investing or hiring, and cohorts of young, flat-broke, indebted, and politically prepped but poorly schooled students wondering where is the good life and why a Wall Street fixer, or computer nerd, or company man civil engineer makes so much more than they, the anointed, do.
#15
I promise, we are drilling as fast as we can. At best a rig averages one well a month up here. The area I'm at this one company is expecting 50+ MORE wells here for this rig. We're trying, just keep the frigging EPA away from us and we'll get it done.
Posted by: Silentbrick - Halliburton Lost Drill Bit Division ||
10/24/2011 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Thank you to you and your colleagues, Silentbrick. Y'all are a major front in the war against the jihadis.
#18
I just finished prepping one unit to go to ND, and have to go up there shortly to check out another; I'm swamped with work with about 2/3 of my units all going to one town of 15,000 people.
#21
Probably another way to say 28% of US oil consumption is from non North or South Americas sources vs, I remember, 80% of the EU's oil consumption is imported. Half from Russia. Even more so for natural gas.
Say, did you hear about the big election yesterday? Well, if youre like the majority of the country, you probably werent even aware anyone was voting on Saturday. But for the politically addicted, you might have known that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was up for another term. So how did that work out for him? Not too shabby.
US SECRETARY of State, Hillary Clinton, ... sometimes described as the Smartest Woman in the World and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Hamilton Fish ... was in Islamabad recently. It is yet unclear if her mission was conciliation or further coercion.
The recent public allegations of the just retired US military chief, Adm Mullen, accusing the Pakistain Army and the ISI of encouraging the Haqqani 'network' to attack US targets in Kabul, allowing Taliban 'safe havens', and much else, have added insult to the injury of the US incursion in Abbottabad, continuing US drone strikes, the Raymond Davis incident and withheld military repayments. Further unilateral military intervention within Pakistain was also threatened but has since been retracted. The Democratic administration's unofficial mouthpiece, the New York Times, ...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... went so far as to call for sanctions against the ISI and its personnel.
The sense of outrage in Pakistain is understandable. The Americans know full well that that their military and political difficulties in Afghanistan are mainly internal, not external; that Pakistain has never supported bully boy attacks against the US; that Pakistain has paid a terribly heavy price for its support to the US and cannot be expected to pay more; that the only solution is a negotiated peace and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Thus, to those in Islamabad who were prepared to persist in cooperating with Washington even after the US violations of Pakistain's illusory sovereignty, the ratcheted-up anti-Pakistain rhetoric has come as a rude surprise. Until earlier this year, Pakistain-US objectives in Afghanistan, if not tactics, seemed to be converging.
When former US defence secretary Gates visited the region last year, he noted that the Taliban were part of the political fabric of Afghanistan and would have to be accommodated in any settlement. Last October, Pakistain's army chief conveyed some concrete suggestions to Washington. He advocated that the military strategy in Afghanistan should be subservient to the political strategy and that the grinding of the peace processor should start with a mutual de-escalation and halt in hostilities, enabling the dialogue with the insurgency to commence.
On Feb 18 this year, in a policy statement at the Asia Society, Secretary Clinton announced "an intensified diplomatic push to bring the Afghan conflict to an end". She expressed US readiness to "reconcile with an adversary" and to support "an Afghan-led grinding of the peace processor supported by intense regional diplomacy".
Most significantly, Clinton clarified that the US demands for the Taliban to "renounce violence, abandon the alliance with the Al Qaeda, and abide by the [Afghan] constitution" were no longer preconditions but the "necessary outcomes of any negotiation". She added that "for reconciliation to succeed, Pakistain will have to be part of the process".
On June 22, President B.O. announced a new strategy for Afghanistan, which 1) envisaged an end to the US military role in Afghanistan by 2014 and 2) focused on counterterrorism against "Al Qaeda, its affiliates and adherents". Pakistain conveyed its readiness to support both the US and President Karzai to achieve the objectives of a negotiated peace in Afghanistan. It deliberately (and perhaps wrongly) refrained from launching its own peace initiative.
Initial opposition to negotiations from the Taliban was anticipated. But the obstacles that have been raised in the way of the grinding of the peace processor by the US are surprising. First, although the Afghan peace council was available, and Pakistain's offer of assistance on the table, the US attempted to use other channels for talks with the Taliban, both direct and through the 'good offices' of Germany and Qatar. These attempts failed; one of them, involving a Taliban impostor, quite embarrassingly. Thus, the prospects of dialogue have been complicated, if not impeded, by the US, not Pakistain, as American officials have asserted.
Second, despite President B.O. and Secretary Clinton's policy statements, US generals in Afghanistan have continued to adhere to what Gen Petraeus described as a strategy, of 'swatting' the Taliban 'to the negotiating table'. From the outset, Pakistain made no secret of its reservations about this 'fight and talk' tactic.
It did not work for the Soviets; it is unlikely to work for the US (and NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A cautionary tale of cost-benefit analysis.... ). It is incomprehensible that the US should want to attack and kill the very bully boy leaders with whom it wishes to negotiate peace. Attacking the Afghan cut-throats will also push them closer to Al Qaeda, making it more difficult to isolate and 'defeat' the latter, supposedly the principal aim of the new Obama strategy.
Third, US officials added a codicil to the Obama strategy which was absent from his June 22 statement, that, even after 2014, the US would want to maintain a 'limited' military presence in Afghanistan.
In the famous words of the American baseball player, Yogi Berra: "This is déjà-vu all over again"! The Soviets too at one time wanted to leave behind a support force in Afghanistan. As it was for the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s, this desire for a permanent foreign military presence in Afghanistan will be a deal-breaker for the Taliban. Even if Karzai agrees to a new 'strategic cooperation agreement', allowing the stationing of US troops, Kabul will be obliged to retract this if and when a genuine Afghan peace is negotiated with the Afghan insurgency. But it is quite possible that the objective of those pressing for this permanent US military presence is precisely to scuttle the option of talking peace with the Taliban.
This prospect of a permanent military presence in Afghanistan also raises serious strategic concerns for Pakistain and other regional states. Such presence will provide the US with the capability not only for counter-insurgency operations within Afghanistan (and to prop up whoever it wants to hold power in Kabul) but also for intimidation and intervention against all of Afghanistan's neighbours, including Pakistain.
In the aftermath of the Osama operation, and given Pakistain's legitimate concerns about US intentions to 'grab and snatch' or destroy its nuclear capabilities, such a permanent US military presence in Afghanistan will no doubt evoke strong opposition from Islamabad (and, for similar reasons, from Tehran).
The recent Karzai lurch to New Delhi fits into the strategic mosaic that Islamabad fears is being put in place for this region.
Yet, it may be best for Pakistain to ignore this latest petulance. Afghanistan's symbiotic links with Pakistain are dictated by geography, history, ethnicity, faith and economics. These cannot be changed. India's potential for 'encircling' Pakistain through a western 'pincer' will be extremely limited without a US military 'godfather' in Afghanistan. If the US fears Pak 'capabilities' in Afghanistan, one can imagine how exposed Indian security forces would feel if their government committed the folly of deploying them in any capacity in Afghanistan.
Resetting Pakistain-US relations will require a mutual retreat from the rhetoric and recriminations of recent months. However, corruption finds a dozen alibis for its evil deeds... the major precondition for putting the Pakistain-US relationship back on track is a clear reconfirmation of the strategy announced by President B.O. on June 22, 2011. It is up to the White House to bring all the elements of the administration -- civilian and military -- into line with the president's declared policy.
However, there is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened... if this policy has changed, or if it contains undeclared caveats that significantly change its content and portent, Pakistain must prepare itself for a period of tough tensions with its oldest, largest and most difficult 'ally'. Islamabad should not itself escalate tensions but be prepared to defend its 'red lines' and respond to further provocations.
Although the correlation of forces, as the Soviets used to say, may be weighted against Pakistain, it has legitimacy and history on its side. Sooner rather than later, the US, like other foreign 'visitors', will realise that the cost of staying on in Afghanistan outweighs any present or future advantage.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
It is yet unclear if her mission was conciliation or further coercion
Hillary can visit someplace without aggravating the locals?
In sum, there is panic. Obamacare, near-zero interest rates, more environmental and fiscal regulations, government takeovers, bailouts, and stimulus, nearly $5 trillion in debt, $1.6 trillion in annual deficits, vast increases in food stamps and unemployment insurance, and hectoring the private sector all that and more did not restore prosperity. More likely we ruined a natural recovery if 9.1% unemployment, anemic GDP growth, ruinous debt, precipitous declines in the standard of living, and the return of the old record misery index are any indication. All Obama in 2012 is left with is the old trifecta of Bush did it, they will cut your Social Security, and a subtle racism fuels all opposition.
There is a deer-in-the-headlights paralysis in all those who believed that you could get a government subsidized $100,000 loan, receive easy As in environmental studies or sociology, buy a prestigious BA certificate, and then enter the lucrative world of the government bureaucracy teaching, administering, suing, and regulating.
Not Enough Smelts or Pipelines to Go Around
But it did not work that way (there is not room enough for all of us to champion the delta smelt, find insidious racism in the Detroit schools, shut down an oil pipeline, or sue Arizona). Instead, we are left with an energy-poor country sitting on energy riches, a moribund economy with millions in the private sector piling up cash rather than investing or hiring, and cohorts of young, flat-broke, indebted, and politically prepped but poorly schooled students wondering where is the good life and why a Wall Street fixer, or computer nerd, or company man civil engineer makes so much more than they, the anointed, do.
#1
Well, when you make 'worship of self' the main religion of an entire sector of an culture, what do you expect. Ego-centrism extruding a false sense of moral superiority even at the very top isn't pretty is it? /rhet question
#2
This human excrement Barry and his dumb as hell asshat sidekick is turning this country into a banana republic. These two "leaders" are the worst thing to happen ever in all of American history.
I AM so disappointed in my countrymen. Elect them again and I will curse this Nation.
We may fall before they get ejected out of office. That's how bad it is.
#3
Outrageous things about Congress and Federal employees: Congress and Federal Employees Living High. Why aren't the OWS people also camping out in front of the White House and Congress? There are more millionaires there than WS. Why don't they camp out in front of wherever Soros lives? Protest at the universities that shorted them on an education. Protest in front of the lame stream media headquarters--those who sold them a bill of goods. That's a start to get at the current stewards of the progressive nightmare.
#5
It's the pensions. Those who stay in the military for 20 years blow away even civil service pensions.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
#7
Just the last week Harry Reid tried to rewrite this narrative so that it was just the opposite of what has been said here. He said the private sector is doing fine, it is the public sector that needs attention according to him. What a dipwad.
#8
Those who stay in the military for 20 years blow away even civil service pensions.
Back in the late 80s, Senator Nunn (D-Ga) got a change package in for military retirement. Changed the comp from 2.5 to 2 percent per year. Amazingly, somewhere around 8 to 12 years of service lots of trained and qualified people started to opt out at far faster rates than before. Seems that somewhere around that time is about the best last time to transition to civilian jobs without having the compete against a younger crowd. Wait till you're hitting forty and job prospects and taking care of the family take a big hit. Found out that they had to go back to the original formula to keep the middle grades filled. So, yeah, go relearn history.
Yup, you sit there during a QMP watching your best NCO's and Officers get thrown out - losing all of your salt. Then you think that with no experienced leadership helping you, you are endangering your Soldiers.
The tookis keepers sit in the high office then, not the man what will drag you across a flight line.
Like Rummy said, "You go to war with the Army you have..." I saw it coming.
If you are aggressive in pursuing your career in the military, which you must be to earn that career, you tear your body up quickly.
Also, if you are the one that deploys every time to make unit strength to keep a company solid, you sometimes lack the educational requirements to continue a career. That is if Family is still standing and you are sane enough to engage them.
Some warriors are not out for rank. They are out to take care of their Brothers. Those are whom you should keep.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus.
Hillary Clinton,
