TCS Daily


With Enemies Like These...

By Pejman Yousefzadeh - October 26, 2006 12:00 AM

When it came to the subject of enemies, Voltaire had the best take on the matter: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

Someone in the United States must have prayed for God to make Hugo Chavez a ridiculous anti-American enemy since the prayer has been granted.

Chavez is well known for his desire to make Latin America a bulwark against what he perceives to be American imperialism. But as the New York Times reported earlier this year, his efforts have fallen short:

As Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, insinuates himself deeper in the politics of his region, something of a backlash is building among his neighbors.

Mr. Chávez — stridently anti-American, leftist and never short on words — has cast himself as spokesman for a united Latin America free of Washington's influence. He has backed Bolivia's recent gas nationalization, set up his own Socialist trade bloc and jumped into the middle of disputes between his neighbors, even when no one has asked.

Some nations are beginning to take umbrage. The mere association with Mr. Chávez has helped reverse the leads of presidential candidates in Mexico and Peru. Officials from Mexico to Nicaragua, Peru and Brazil have expressed rising impatience at what they see as Mr. Chávez's meddling and grandstanding, often at their expense.

Diplomatic sparring has broken into the open. Last month, after very public sniping between Mr. Chávez and Peru's president, Alejandro Toledo, the country withdrew its ambassador from Caracas, citing "flagrant interference" in its affairs.

The Economist noted Chavez's ability to repel support overseas in its coverage of his interference in Peru's election:

According to the pollsters most Peruvians dislike Mr Chávez and his meddling. One poll, by Apoyo, found that only 17% had a positive view of him, and 75% disapproved of his comments. Only 23% approved of Mr Morales, and 61% objected to his calling Peru's outgoing president, Alejandro Toledo, a "traitor" for signing a free-trade agreement with the United States.

Chavez's support of Ecuadoran presidential candidate Rafael Correa influenced Correa's to fall to a second place finish in the recent first round of voting. This has prompted Correa to distance himself from Chavez in the hopes that he might be able to save his floundering campaign.

Indeed, it appears that an anti-Chavez coalition is being created throughout the Americas, and while Chavez is not without his supporters, his dream of creating an anti-American Bolivarian coalition appears to have run aground.

The backlash moved Dan Drezner, a professor of international relations and political science, to say, "As a citizen of the United States, I, for one, would like to thank Mr. Chavez for his antics -- keep it up, Hugo!!"

Chavez's diplomatic failures have continued unabated this year. He sought to get OPEC to reduce its oil production. OPEC rejected his call. He went to the United Nations and called George W. Bush "the devil." Democrats rushed to the President's defense.

And Chavez's attacks on the President may have served to alienate the United Nations; in its attempt to win a seat on the U.N. Security Council, Venezuela has been unsuccessful and its efforts have antagonized neighbors like Guatemala.

None of this diplomatic buffoonery makes Hugo Chavez less potentially destabilizing. Chavez is determined to use petrodollars to win friends and to use arms sales—and, potentially, military adventurism—to intimidate foes. The danger he poses ought not to be taken lightly. As things currently stand, however, it seems that Chavez's foes have a lot to be thankful for. If they could not have a friend in the president of Venezuela, they at least got the next best thing; a thoroughly ridiculous enemy.

Pejman Yousefzadeh is a TCS Daily contributing writer.

Categories:

53 Comments

Wow.
I didn't realize how thoroughly ridiculous Chaves is. Well, I knew he was weird because of the sulfur remarks.

Suddenly, ol' Pat doesn't look so insane for wanting to assassinate him.

Where's Jesse
At least Jesse Jackson is still his buddy!

Spraying match, skunk
The author is laughing at Chavez, but the Bush administration is not, and the more Bush and Bolton rhetoric going out calling him a threat to the Americas, the more prestige he gains. And the more we go around the planet namecalling people instead of talking to them, the sillier and more impotent we look.

Quit looking in a mirror while you type
You are the only one looking silly and impotent.

What prestige?
I can't see any evidence that Chavez has any prestige outside the lunatic fringe lefties. Such as yourself.

Under Chavez, Venezuela is slowly circling the toilet. Standards of living are collapsing. The ranks of the poor grow daily. But in the US and the rest of the world, the champions of the poor don't care. Because Chavez can be counted on to say nasty things about Bush, and the US. And that after all, is all that has ever mattered to them.

Talking only works when the guy on the other side is interested in talking, and is sane. Absent one or the other, talking is a waste of time.

Something smells, alright....!
Gee, Lemuel, what would you have the Bush administration say to your hero, Hugo? Please don't say such nasty things about me? Or, if you would just be nice to us, America will divest all our interests in South America and then you can trample your nation's constitution, economy middle class, and neighbors to your heart's delight. And Lemuel, should Bush get down on one or two knees when he addresses Hugo? Just what is the prescribed Leftist protocol, when kow-towing to a tin-horn dictator? Won't you please enlighten us?

Sure: tell it to the U.N.
Where we can't get our preferred country (Guatemala) into a seat. Or look at poll numbers throughout Latin America and see who gets higher marks, Bush or Chavez.
I know, all those Latin Americans are just irresponsible mañana monkeys.
But it's not just there. Bush keeps drawing red lines for N. Korea and Iraq: they simply ignore him and them. War's going really well in Iraq, too, isn't it?

Source, please
The fact is, the wells are pumping, we're buying the oil, and more of the money is getting down to the grass roots than did before Chavez took over.

Here's what the state department says.

Real GDP increased by 9.3% in 2005. The economy recovered strongly in 2004 (17.9%), after two consecutive years of deep economic recession (in 2003, Venezuelan GDP contracted 7.7%, after contracting 8.9% in 2002). The 2004 and 2005 economic recovery was driven by a large increase in government expenditures, based on higher than expected oil prices, which in turn generated higher consumption levels.
...
U.S.-Venezuelan commercial ties are close. The United States is Venezuela's most important trading partner, representing about a third of imports and more than half of exports. In turn, Venezuela is the United States’ third-largest export market in Latin America, purchasing U.S. machinery, transportation equipment, agricultural commodities, and auto parts. Venezuela's opening of its petroleum sector to foreign investment in 1996 created extensive trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies. As a result, Venezuela is one of the top four suppliers of foreign oil to the United States. The Department of State is committed to promoting the interests of U.S. companies in overseas markets. For contact information and a list of government publications, please go to the end of this document.

How about, "we won't buy your oil?"
I mean, if we think Chavez is such an evil man, why keep writing his government huge checks?

> And Lemuel, should Bush get down on one or two knees when he addresses Hugo? Just what is the prescribed Leftist protocol, when kow-towing to a tin-horn dictator? Won't you please enlighten us?

Why not just say, "we have differences, let's sit down & talk about them?" Or are we so far about the level of Chavez that we can't? But if we are, why keep buying his oil?

You are nothing but a hatemonger
Any excuse to spill your vile anti-Bush rhetoric. Hey, I'm no great fan of Dubbya, but you and your type make me want to back everything he does simply because you hate him so.

Crawl back under your rock you slug.

Economics 101, please?
Hey, (jump off the cliff like a bunch of liberals) Lemming, do you even understand economics? If the U.S. refuses to buy oil from Chavez, it just goes to some other nation. There is one world oil market, after all, and it really doesn't matter who buys from who. The only issue is transportaion costs. Thus, refusing to buy oil from Chaves would have minimal impact on his ability to sell oil.

The only thing that would work would be an oil embargo, which would prevent him from selling to ANYBODY. And that would just raise the price of world oil.

Instead, we can let him hang himself with his own foolishnes. Much like the liberals do on this site on a regular basis with their leftie comments.

-Bob

Excuse me???
I stated a factual case. Maybe you think it isn't true that the Bush adminstration is drawing redlines for Iran and N. Korea that they are ignoring. This isn't "hate" - it's not an insult or an epithet, it's just a statement of fact. Calling me a hatemonger for posting it says much more about you than it does about me. Is there some reason you can't just stick to the issues, instead of personalizing this?

So we're hooked
And we go to another pusher. But we make the point that we disapprove, and are willing to back it up.

>The only thing that would work would be an oil embargo, which would prevent him from selling to ANYBODY. And that would just raise the price of world oil.

That's an act of war. Sure, let's start another war to show how non-liberal we are. Or how about a coup?? Wait -we tried that, but blew it as badly as we're blowing Iraq.

>Instead, we can let him hang himself with his own foolishnes.

That would be much more effective than what we're doing, which is to build up his importance by over-responding to his baiting.

Oil, talking and evil...
Lemuel, we keep buying oil from Chavez because we need it to keep our economy from tanking. We also need their natural gas, thanks to the American Left, because it is rare low-sulphur gas which is the only kind we can legally burn in power plants here in California. You make it sound like our checks (written by private corporations, not the government, by the way) are gifts. And if we don't like the guy, why are we giving him gifts? (What government checks are we giving him, anyway?) Private enterprise, not the federal governement, is buying a needed product, that's all.

As far as just "sitting down and talking about our differences" and every one will play nice to each other, my bet is that would have been the same advice you would have given British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1939 just before his talks with German Chancilor Adolph Hitler. Look where such advice got Britain.

Perhaps it's time to wake up and smell the napalm, Lemuel. You can't reason with evil. You can't talk it out of something it really wants. You can either fight it or appease it. If you appease it, you buy but a short time before it demands more. Don't take my word for it, ask Neville Chamberlain and several hundred thousand dead British soldiers, airmen and sailors.

So we can financially support Chavez by buying his oil, but talking to him is appeasement?
This really hard for anyone not a true believer to swallow.

>Lemuel, we keep buying oil from Chavez because we need it to keep our economy from tanking.

This is really smart. We have someone we've identified as a national enemy we can't talk to who has the power to make our economy tank if he stops selling us oil, as he easily could.

> We also need their natural gas, thanks to the American Left, because it is rare low-sulphur gas which is the only kind we can legally burn in power plants here in California.

Would you really rather have children choking with asthma, as they were, in huge numbers pre-antismog regulation? Or maybe you think air pollution is a fiction invented by the American left who went out and made those children sick as a political plot.

>You make it sound like our checks (written by private corporations, not the government, by the way) are gifts.

They aren't gifts, any more than cash handed over to a crack dealer is a gift. The issue is, if you don't trust someone and you don't like them, why are you putting your future in his hands.

>s far as just "sitting down and talking about our differences" and every one will play nice to each other, my bet is that would have been the same advice you would have given British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1939 just before his talks with German Chancilor Adolph Hitler. Look where such advice got Britain.

And this is actively silly. Chamberlain (a conservative, by the way) made a really bad deal. This doesn't mean that all negotiation is a bad idea, or that negotiation can't lead to good deals. Ronald Reagan was not an appeaser. That didn't keep him from sitting down with the Soviet leaders. But I guess Chavez is much more evil than they were -- and as much of a threat as Hitler, judging by your well-worn analogy.

>Perhaps it's time to wake up and smell the napalm, Lemuel. You can't reason with evil. You can't talk it out of something it really wants.

This is pure bosh. You aren't selling out to Satan, you're negotiating with a human leader you disagree with, one who has certain interest and certain vulnerabilities. Where your interests coincide, deals can be made. This is nothing about trust; it's just the plainest common sense and diplomacy 101. Standing apart and spewing insults solves no problems. And liberal-haters bringing up Neville Chamberlain every time the topic of negotiation comes is just a frank declaration of no argument but wave-the-scarecrow.

The people who live there
The amount of oil being pumped is steadily decreasing as Chavez's cronies slowly destroy the industry.

Much of that money is being spent on weapons to help overthrow the democratic regimes in the region. Much of the rest is spent trying to prop up Castro. May he rest in pieces.

Source please
you keep coming up with spew. you never source any of it. Either say where you got it, or stop wasting time and bandwidth.

Because you do it so much
Everything is a cause for you to go into Bush Bashing mode. It is completely rediculous, and often really not a part of the topic at hand.

If you stick to the issues, others might try it too. Until then, you have no room to talk.

He's the President. The buck stops at his desk. Criticizing what he does is not "hate"
His administration is an anthology of screw-ups, from Iraq to Katrina and everything in between. Pointing this out is no "hatred," it's part of the political process. As the man who had the sign on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here" noted, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Hugo Chavez
In Mr. Yousefzadeh well articulated written article there is plenty of absolute ignorance, in as much as it is dealing with plain symptons and not what is at the foundation of most world problems the USA and the world faces today.

If America had stayed the course from day one, as laid down by the Founding Fathers we most certainly would have now a very prosperous and peaceful world. The horrendous and most inhumane Civil War is the best prove that soon after, America begun to loose its way, while most Americans of today know little or nothing about that issue. A bellicose mindset begun to dominate, etc. etc., etc., absolutely contrary to the hopes and dreams of the Founding Fathers with all the bagage that goes with it.

Yes, George Washington, the father of the Founding Fathers so to speak, in these words he summarizes what America's course should be forevermore: "Overgrown military establishments under and form of government are inauspicious to liberty and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". These words as part of his farewell.

One does not need to be rocket scientist to realize that the USA today, conforms to all the trimmings to that of an evil world Empire. Yet, as all Empires did, blaming all its own homegrown problems on others while eager to dominate more and more of the world. America has not learned much from the evil British Empire, etc., etc., etc., to put it blantly.

Specifically to Hugo Chavez and his forerunner Fidel Castro! In reality there for so long and why not? Yes, Fidel for almost his whole despotic reign he has been financed by America with its floating dollar. Yes, in reality by the corrupted dollar and not the one that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton created for America, and for America only to keep her safe and honorable for evermore.

Yes, the USA floating dollar is the greatest creator of all times, of the great problems America faces. Her ever more horrendous war machinery only adds insult to injury. Yes, military stationed the world over and yet 9/11 happened and in essence had to happen, because, lawlessness had taken over as to the borders and immigration laws. Yes, this 9/11 disaster one might coin like this: Made in America by Americans for America.

Yes, Chavez now the child of Fidel, no question, is there at the behest of America, so to speak. Yes, eager for oil America goes to bed with hoodlums. If that was not the case with Saddam, what was? Now Condolezza Rice shakes hands with another despot, that of Equatorial Guinea, a small nation saturated with oil. She calls him a friend! In essence, more of the same, as in the case of Rumsfeld pictured shaking hands with Saddam.

As a Staunch Conservative Christian Republican, it is my firm conviction that America is traveling the dangerous road as all previous Empires did. The "charter" under which this nation was founded is gone, it being the true reason that America can and will not succeed in the long run.

These are my personal opinions and hope and pray that America will repent as the Nation of Israel of Biblical times did, and when it did, it truly prospered. By the way, the most ever despicable materialism now has a shokehold on Americans! Creator God replaced by it? I wish to hear from Mr. Yousefzadeh, if he feels he is up to the taks? Peaceful and honest dialogue is Biblical!



Good excuse
But he has little to do with most of the issues discussed here. Yet there you are, dragging the President into the conversation.

Hatred is not displayed by critizism, but by the fact you dislike him so much you are obesessed. You bring bush into ever one of your rants at some point.

You are a hatemonger, especially as it relates to Bush.

You're the one who's obsessed
It's not me who's changing the subject. Bush has everything to do with the subject of Chavez. Among other things, Chavez does dislike him, possibly because his admninstration cheerled the coup that almost cost his him his job -- and possibly his life. Bolton regularly bashes Chavez. In short, it's completely relevant.

That said, I haven't talked about Bush's personality. I've just talked about the actions of his administration, which seems to me utterly incompetent. This is not hatemongering, it's citizenship. You don't like my politics? Fine. But you're the only one talking about hate.

And, surprise, hatemongering isn't the topic here: it was Chavez. It seems to be that you're talking about it because you don't have a case on the issues. You can't defend what Bush is doing coherently so instead you change the subject to the accusation that anyone who points out the incompetence is a hatemonger. I don't hate you, but I think you're way out of line personalizing this discussion in the way you do.

Yeah, that is so obvious
One - Chavez dislikes America, that isn't likely to change no matter who the president is. See Castro and Cuba.

Two-Chavez is a communist/socialist who is spreading his brand of garbage to his neighbors. No, the U.S. does not like that. They wouldn't have liked it under Clinton, Kennedy or Johnson either. Thus, Bolton's rhetoric has little to do with who the president is. (Check out the rhetoric of the Dems after Chavez's little visit to the U.N.)

Three-There is no evidence I've seen that the U.S. planned the coup attempt. They cheered it when it was probably a situation where the administration should have kept quiet. But it wasn't only the administration and Republicans cheering.

Again, what does Bush have to do with this?

You try and blame everything on Bush. You hate him so much you would cheer an assassination. That is hate mongering and it is repugnant.

Bush in President
>One - Chavez dislikes America, that isn't likely to change no matter who the president is. See Castro and Cuba.

So what? We dislike him. The question is, are we winning or losing the battle for the hearts and minds of other latin americans. By most accounts, we're losing.


>Two-Chavez is a communist/socialist who is spreading his brand of garbage to his neighbors. No, the U.S. does not like that.

And if we don't, we should probably find more effective ways of opposing him. What we're doing doesn't seem to be working very well.

>Three-There is no evidence I've seen that the U.S. planned the coup attempt.

I don't know that anyone says the US planned it. What is clear is that the US had advance knowledge it was going on - embassy officials were meeting with the coup principals continuously before the coup - and that the U.S. was the only country in the hemisphere that didn't condemn the coup when it occured.

> They cheered it when it was probably a situation where the administration should have kept quiet. But it wasn't only the administration and Republicans cheering.

Oh really? Who else beside Cuban exiles? Please document this.

>Again, what does Bush have to do with this?

What does Chavez have to do with this? Bush is the head of the US government. The government is responding in what seems to me an inept manner to the challenge of Chavez's demogoguery. This being the case, he's part of the discussion.

>You try and blame everything on Bush. You hate him so much you would cheer an assassination. That is hate mongering and it is repugnant.

I'm talking about the administration of which he is president, whose policies I disagree with. This is not 'hatemongering," it is political discussion.I don't know the man, and would not under any circumstances cheer an assassination - you saying this is offensive. And as far as real hatemongering goes - do you happen to remember when someone named Clinton was President?






More garbage
1. So what is right. No administration has ever won this battle totally. There have been times U.S. actions were cheered by some; but seldom. We aren't going to win this battle in South and Central America; Clinton never did, Reagan never did, Carter never did.

2. Refer to 1.

3. And????!!

As to the rest, pure hate speech. Chavez (and perhaps what to do about him) is the question. Bush is not.

Yes, he is the President; so what? Democratic leaders often speak out in spite of what the President says. They only thing about Chavez is that he upsets both Liberals and Conservatives alike. No one is willing to get this guy into some kind of two-party talks and give him any consessions. With that in mind, why are you bashing Bush?

As for Clinton, he never received half the public scorn and hate Bush has since day one. Yes, I disagreed with, and spoke out against those who unduly bashed Clinton. But Bush hasn't been caught diddling an intern in the oval office (yet) and has done little to deserve the anger and hate people like you spew.

Imaginations
Where does this come from?

>We aren't going to win this battle in South and Central America; Clinton never did, Reagan never did, Carter never did.

What fights did Clinton pick? Clinton wasn't unpopular in Latin America.

> No one is willing to get this guy into some kind of two-party talks...

who says so? Yes, democrats criticised his U.N. speech. Who has ruled out talking to him.

>and give him any consessions.

Excuse me, but engaging in two-party talks doesn't imply giving concessions

> With that in mind, why are you bashing Bush?

I am not "bashing Bush," I am criticizing the Bush administration policies. Is this hard to do.

>But Bush hasn't been caught diddling an intern in the oval office (yet) and has done little to deserve the anger and hate people like you spew.

She wasn't an intern and she was a consenting adult and nobody died because they had consensual sex. Lots of people have died because of Bush adminstration mistakes.

and as far as the anti-Clinton rhetoric went - what planet are you from? Someplace where you couldn't pick up (say) Rush Limbaugh's thoughts?

regarding the coup attempt:
I noted

I don't know that anyone says the US planned it. What is clear is that the US had advance knowledge it was going on - embassy officials were meeting with the coup principals continuously before the coup - and that the U.S. was the only country in the hemisphere that didn't condemn the coup when it occured.

you say: AND?

And why is the U.S. government first encouraging and then not condemning a military attempt to unseat an elected leader? Do you really think this improved the U.S. moral position and authority vis-a-vis Latin America? Do you think it made Bush more popular? And didn't it in fact give Chavez a propaganda goldmine? And your response is "AND???"

If you want to critize his policies do so,
I might even join you. But you don't critize, you blast the man.

Excuse me? "She wasn't an intern"

Better check your facts; she was an intern, not a page.

No I don't get Rush on any radio station and wouldn't listen to him much if I did. But I never heard of him calling for the assassination of Clinton, even jokingly, like Bill Mahr and other Liberals have Bush.

Comparing the two isn't even close.

While I don't agree with the tactic
I do bemoan the results. Chavez is a wack job and, if he wasn't an oil supplier, I would be all for removing our embassy and stopping all imports, exports and travel to that country.

I was wrong
she was an intern at the time of the affair - she later went to work at the Pentagon.

As far calling for Bush's assassination - Maher's not remotely in the same league as Ann Coulter:

Ann Coulter, Conservative Assassin

When evangelist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, the world took notice. Robertson quickly retracted his remarks.

When polemicist Ann Coulter issues death threats against liberals, people yawn and merely note that “there she goes again.” Coulter has a seemingly inexhaustible supply of victims and a limitless list of methods for their disposal.

Most recently, Coulter suggested the Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) should be assassinated because he is not conservative enough (“They Shot the Wrong Lincoln”). Coulter’s luckless lackey, Lisa De Pasquale, again defends Coulter by claiming she was “just joking.” But Coulter’s death wishes are no joke.

On Hannity & Colmes, Coulter was asked about her own death wishes towards President Clinton in her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Ignored were Coulter’s comments at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006 when Coulter expressed her one regret in life: “One time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.’”

Coulter is well known for her assassination rhetoric. My own video (“Not Fit to Live”) offers highlights of her extremist enmity in action. Coulter’s intended victims include individuals and organizations, such as Elizabeth Dole (assault weapons), John Walker Lindh (execution, burned alive), Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (assassination), the New York Times building (truck bomb), John Kerry (carpet-bombing), Vice President Al Gore (friendly fire), California Governor Gray Davis (friendly fire), Senator John Edwards (strangling), Senator John Kerry (carpet bombing), American journalists in Iraq (assassination), Supreme Court Justice Stevens (poisoning), all the liberal Supreme Court justices (terrorist attack), President Bill Clinton (assassination), and Rep. John Murtha (fragging).

Chavez hasn't murdered thousands or hundreds of thousands of his citizens
As has been done in Columbia, Peru, Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Cuba etc. He's a demagogue and a blowhard. He's not a threat. If we dislike him so much, let's stop buying his oil and supporting his economy.

Boycott!!
Lemuel -- Seven Eleven cancelled its contract with Citgo. Will you join me in a boycott of Citgo and do no business with them? Alaska has oil reserves comparable to Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico has even more. Will you support development of our domestic resources?

Chavez and Kennedy
Don't forget Chaves donated home heating oil to MA through RFK Jr. What a guy!

Choices
"One does not need to be rocket scientist to realize that the USA today, conforms to all the trimmings to that of an evil world Empire. Yet, as all Empires did, blaming all its own homegrown problems on others while eager to dominate more and more of the world. America has not learned much from the evil British Empire, etc., etc., etc., to put it blantly."

1. If you have noticed, most nations subjected the evils of the British Empire are relatively prosperous and free today. I wonder why that is?

2. As for the empire of the USA, since the development of nuclear weapons, who do you want to dominate the world, or at least try to have the most influence on the world? China? Russia? Iran? DPRK?

The world is not a friendly place, but the USA and its allies, mostly decendents of the evil British Empire, have increased liberty around the world.

The USA Empire
Shall we let time do its thing? However, I will stick to what I said previously! Just one point as to China. The USA in stupidity is building its greatest military threat!

Alaska does not have comparable reserves
And frankly, I'd boycott Saudi Arabia and Nigeria before I'd boycott Venezuela.

And those poor people deserved to freeze!
How dare Chavez give them oil!! The nerve!!

Wow!
You seem to know everything, Lemuel. Please compare Venezualan and Alaskan oil resources. Also, Neither Saudi Arabia nor Nigeria market refine products in the U.S. and so your boycott would be meaningless. So, will you join me in a boycott of Citgo?

Time
I believe time has shown the British Empire to be very successful at spreading liberty and prosperity.

Oh, but
... HDS is a "staunch,christian conservative republican".

Wow indeed!
Proven oil reserves isn't a hard thing to look up. Here's the list:

1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4

The US figure includes Alaska.
Not hard to find out who is buying oil from the Saudis (Chevron) or Nigerians (Shell). Let's boycott them all.

Time
Yes, you seem to know how long time is? So long!

Commonwealth of Nations
"Today's Commonwealth is an association of 53 countries. Its nearly 2 billion citizens, about 30 per cent of the world's population, are drawn from the broadest range of faiths, races, cultures and traditions."

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/

That British Empire was so evil that ONLY 53 nations voluntarily keep close ties to their former masters.

Indeed
I think you've made the case for opening ANWR and other closed U.S. regions to oil & gas development. The Naval Petroleum Reserve has just been opened for exploration (w/resources comparable to Prudhoe) and it was just reported that the Chukchi Sea proposed lease area could contain 40B bbls of crude. Looks like you'll be doing a lot of walking in the future.

You really know nothing about oil and gas, do you??
the Naval Petroleum reserve has been open since 1976, and is just about empty. You should talk to George Bush's brother about starting production off Florida: Jeb is against it. Prudhoe bay has about 6 months of oil - that is, a tiny, tiny fraction of Venezuela.

Brazil has almost no oil but is energy independent. They don't walk. But good luck with your Citgo boycott.

Punk'd
Leases have been recently let within NPRA, but there has been little exploration and no development allowed, because it is a "Naval Petroleum Reserve", set aside by Congress for use by the Navy during wartime. Maybe that fact escaped you. Prudhoe has been pumping for 29 years, providing 10% to 20% of the nation's total consumption and will continue to produce for many more years, especially if other reserves are brought on-line. This "six-months of oil" meme is only meaningful in the stupidly, narrowest of constraints. Only the foolish would throw it out as an argument. Somebody punk'd you.
Whether or not oil is developed off of Florida is not up to Jeb Bush. Congress makes that decision.
Brazil is pumping 2M bbls/day of "almost no oil". Your statement that "They don't walk," is equally non-sensical. Of course Brazilians walk. See IBD's editorial on Sunday:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=246842180355425

Okay, I know that your game is to get a poster in a childish argumentative loop amounting to "I know you are, but what am I?" but, that is a waste of time. Since you've functionally answered my challenge to you regarding a boycott of Citgo, my query on this is over. Your cards are on the table and I see you.

Hey, go for it. but wait - wow!! Punk'd! that's heavy.
In fact the NPR has been developed in 1976.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/index.html
Sure, it's huge.

>Prudhoe has been pumping for 29 years, providing 10% to 20% of the nation's total consumption and will continue to produce for many more years, especially if other reserves are brought on-line.

that's great. Who's objecting.Yes, people are objecting to drilling in a wildlie refuge to recover a very small amount of oil.

>This "six-months of oil" meme is only meaningful in the stupidly, narrowest of constraints. Only the foolish would throw it out as an argument.

Then let's say it's seven months, or 10. It's still not Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or even Prudhoe.

>Whether or not oil is developed off of Florida is not up to Jeb Bush. Congress makes that decision.

Sure. Except they haven't because the President doesn't 1. want to embarass his brother, and 2. lose Florida to democrats.
>Brazil is pumping 2M bbls/day of "almost no oil". Your statement that "They don't walk," is equally non-sensical.

They don't need to import, and they aren't at the mercy of a gang of autocrat clowns. But again, go for your boycott.

>Since you've functionally answered my challenge to you regarding a boycott of Citgo,

I take it this means you're not willing to boycott Chevron and Shell as well.

Lassitude?
"In fact the NPR has been developed in 1976." Wrong. No development yet, only leases let.

"that's great. Who's objecting.Yes, people are objecting to drilling in a wildlie refuge to recover a very small amount of oil." Okay, if you think that 10B bbls of crude is small amount of oil. Combined with the other potential and known undeveloped resources on the North Slope, it is a very respectable amount of oil.

"Then let's say it's seven months, or 10. It's still not Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or even Prudhoe." You originally claimed that Prudhoe only has 6 months of oil. I think you're confused and meant to repeat the green fedayeen line that ANWR has "only 6 months of oil". At full capacity of TAPs (Trans-Alaska Pipeline), ANWR alone would provide product for at least 14 years. Add in NPR-A and other satellite fields and TAPs will be producing well beyond 2050.

"They don't need to import, and they aren't at the mercy of a gang of autocrat clowns. But again, go for your boycott." You originally stated that Brazil has almost no oil.

Your inability to associate your current statements and reasoning with your previous statements worries me. Drugs? Genetics? Lassitude?

Maybe you should get in touch with the DOE
Here's what their impression of the NPR history is:

For much of the 20th century, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves served as a contingency source of fuel for the Nation's military. All that changed in 1998 when Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, known as Elk Hills, was privatized, the first of a series of major organizational changes that leave only one of the original six Federal properties in the program.

Set aside in a series of Executive Orders in the early 1900s, the government-owned petroleum and oil shale properties were originally envisioned as a way to provide a reserve supply of crude oil to fuel U.S. naval vessels in times of short supply or emergencies. The Reserves remained mostly undeveloped until the 1970s, when the Nation began looking for ways to maximize its domestic oil supplies. In 1976, Congress passed the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act authorizing full commercial development of the Reserves. The crude oil, natural gas, and liquid products produced from the Reserves were sold by DOE at market rates. Revenues were deposited to the U.S. Treasury.

One of the largest of the Federal properties, the Elk Hills field in California, opened for production in 1976 and became the largest (in terms of production) oil and natural gas field in the lower 48 states at one point in its history. In September 1992, the field produced its one billionth barrel of oil, becoming only the thirteenth field in the Nation's history to reach that milestone. While managed by DOE, Elk Hills generated over $17 billion in profits for the U.S. Treasury.

>Okay, if you think that 10B bbls of crude is small amount of oil. Combined with the other potential and known undeveloped resources on the North Slope, it is a very respectable amount of oil.

Compared with our oil needs, or international reserves, it's small. Against this benefit is the threat to a wildlife are. Spare me the tree-hugger rhetoric: I'm not the only one who doesn't think it's not worth it.

>You originally claimed that Prudhoe only has 6 months of oil. I think you're confused and meant to repeat the green fedayeen line that ANWR has "only 6 months of oil".

I was in fact speaking about the ANWR - I mean, Prudhoe bay is in production, so why would I say it wasn't producing?? -- and the question is not how long the ANWR would "provide product," but how much product it would provide. the bottom line remains the same. The bottom line for wildlife is much worrse over the long timeline.

>You originally stated that Brazil has almost no oil.

Fine. I should have said it has little oil relative to its demands. My point about the success of its initiative toward energy independence remainn.

>Your inability to associate your current statements and reasoning with your previous statements worries me.

Where I've been wrong, I've stood corrected. You haven't acknowledged your inconsistency and confusion.

> Drugs? Genetics? Lassitude?

With you perhaps a combination of all three complicated by a huge chip on the shoulder and an unwillingness to engage honestly in debate.

Yup, there it is....
NPR-A is located west of Prudhoe Bay and is undeveloped. This is a fact. I live a couple of hundred miles south of the place. There have been no permits given as of today. Your source is limited to locations in the southwest and west coast. Hmmm, speaking of Elk Hills and Occidental Petroluem and Al Gore... topic for another time.

10B bbls of oil is not small by industry standards, it's quite large. Your understanding of this is naive.

"I was in fact speaking about the ANWR - I mean, Prudhoe bay is in production, so why would I say it wasn't producing??" --- yeah, good question, go back and read your previous post admonishing my alleged lack of knowledge about oil and gas. I copied and pasted your statement.

"The bottom line for wildlife is much worrse over the long timeline." -- again, you are grossly misinformed by your sources. All caribou herds on the North Slope have increased in numbers many times over during development and production of Prudhoe. Since you really don't know what it is that your talking about, let me correct you before you try to respond. The "endagered specie" du-jour amongst the green fedayeen is the Porcupine Caribou Herd, which migrates back and forth across the U.S./Canada border. The Athabascan Indian villages to the south of the Brooks Range hunt this herd for part of their subsistence. There is also deep cultural resentment and jealousy between the interior Indians and coastal Eskimoes. The coastal Eskimoes stand to benefit quite nicely from oil development, whereas the interior Indians only get a small share, trickled down in the form of corporate dividends. What you see being played out is the ancient rivalry and east coast corporate activists rubbing this friction raw. Try as they might, the environmental industry has yet to produce any evidence that there is any long-term impact to the wildlife. Using pure science, it can be demonstrated that, over the long term, oil development on the North Slope has been good for wildlife populations. The current bag limit in northern and western Alaska for residents is 5 caribou (either sex) per day per person 11 months out of the year. Even bird populations have increased over the last thirty years. Musk-ox now live where they haven't been seen since hunted to extinction 100 years ago when rifles were introduced to the Native population.

"Fine. I should have said it has little oil relative to its demands. My point about the success of its initiative toward energy independence remainn." --- Ramping up production by aggressively drilling offshore and onshore targets, Brazil is now producing almost 90% of its oil requirements, filling the deficit with ethanol. Your statement is plainly wrong.

"You haven't acknowledged your inconsistency and confusion." -- you have yet to demonstrate this, whereas I've debunked you on every point.


"With you perhaps a combination of all three complicated by a huge chip on the shoulder and an unwillingness to engage honestly in debate." --- Yup, there it is. The "I know you are, but what am I?" argument.

TCS Daily Archives