Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Syria: The case for inaction

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default Germany...

    Germany Joins US in Blaming Assad for Attack
    http://goo.gl/pRgXZh

    Not a surprise that Germany was the only European G-20 member not to sign the joint statement at the time... they needed time to seek permission fro their boss in the Kremlin.

    German Energy Dependence on Russia
    http://goo.gl/Tw70Hy

    With Germany rapidly becoming a vassal state of Russia it surely poses a real threat to NATO and sovereignty of the EU.

    So with Germany fingering Assad for the attack it surely signals a move in position of Russia on the matter?

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    JMA,

    your second article is really nice propaganda. It confirms again my opinion that the nuclear industry could learn a lot from NG producers.

    1) A pipeline ties a producer to certain consumers, the disadvantages in a time with large amount of LNG on the spot market should be clear and were predicted around 2005. BTW Russia has only energy resources as export products, therefore, the dependencies are more complex. The new pipeline takes pressure from Russia, as Belorussia or Poland can not threaten the supply to central Europe any longer. Russia does not have the ability to change their customers on short notice, as her LNG prodcution capacity is very low and construction of alternative pipelines takes long.

    2) The electricity production in Germany used 2012 14% less NG than 2011. NG can at the current price level easily be substituted with hard coal or lignite. Hard coal is available from the USA were shale gas substituted for coal. People often confuse power and energy. A high level of NG power capacity in a reneable scenario does not mean high full load hours of the power plants. :-)

    3) The assumptions in respect to the energiewende are not convincing. In the field of electricity production it runs better than expected. I would read the publications of the German lignite producers (Braunkohleverband), they draw a different picture: NG and hard coal will come under severe pressure after 2022 when the decommission of NPPs does not longer compensate for increased production from RE. The trend of NG consumption for heating is also downwards.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    JMA,

    your second article is really nice propaganda. It confirms again my opinion that the nuclear industry could learn a lot from NG producers.

    1) A pipeline ties a producer to certain consumers, the disadvantages in a time with large amount of LNG on the spot market should be clear and were predicted around 2005. BTW Russia has only energy resources as export products, therefore, the dependencies are more complex. The new pipeline takes pressure from Russia, as Belorussia or Poland can not threaten the supply to central Europe any longer. Russia does not have the ability to change their customers on short notice, as her LNG prodcution capacity is very low and construction of alternative pipelines takes long.

    2) The electricity production in Germany used 2012 14% less NG than 2011. NG can at the current price level easily be substituted with hard coal or lignite. Hard coal is available from the USA were shale gas substituted for coal. People often confuse power and energy. A high level of NG power capacity in a reneable scenario does not mean high full load hours of the power plants. :-)

    3) The assumptions in respect to the energiewende are not convincing. In the field of electricity production it runs better than expected. I would read the publications of the German lignite producers (Braunkohleverband), they draw a different picture: NG and hard coal will come under severe pressure after 2022 when the decommission of NPPs does not longer compensate for increased production from RE. The trend of NG consumption for heating is also downwards.

  4. #24
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Hilariously, I wrote almost the same back in 2008 already.

    It's astonishing how long wrong ideas persist if only they are being liked by a large group of people: As if people believe what they like, not what's well-founded in facts.

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Listen son, the rule is if you want to take a cheap shot at least get your facts straight.
    Had I been your son I wouldn't have been for long.


    Debunking Obama’s Chemical Weapons Case Against the Syrian Government

    Syrians from the town of Ghouta – the site of the chemical attack – tell a very different story from the one being told by the US government. Residents provide very credible testimony that “certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.” What makes such testimony even more compelling is that it comes from anti-Assad Syrians, many of whom have seen their children die fighting Assad’s forces. One of the Ghouta residents described his conversations with his son, a fighter tasked with carrying the chemical weapons for the Nusra Front jihadi group, who spoke of Saudi-supplied weapons being unloaded and transported. His son later was killed, along with 12 other rebels, inside a tunnel used to store weapons.

  6. #26
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    I don't find this story particularly credible, for a whole raft of reasons. Official accounts certainly deserve skepticism, but the multiplicity of unofficial accounts deserve at least equal skepticism.

    I also don't find the legal arguments to be terribly persuasive. Maybe I'm just an American neanderthal, but we all know the UNSC is inutile and "international law" is unenforceable and thus too abstract to be of any real utility. I'd have no issues at all with action without UN authorization IF there was a truly compelling US interest at stake, if the goal was clear, practical, and achievable, if there was a clear plan in place for controlling escalation when the other side calls the bluff, and if the risk/reward and cost/benefit equations justified action.

    My problem with the whole proposal is that I don't see any of these criteria being met.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Hilariously, I wrote almost the same back in 2008 already.

    It's astonishing how long wrong ideas persist if only they are being liked by a large group of people: As if people believe what they like, not what's well-founded in facts.
    Nothing has improved for Germany since 2008 in terms of growing energy dependency on Russia. No doubt you will keep us informed on German progress in this regard.

    So in the meantime you can continue to delude yourself on the issue.

    I have noticed since my return your shrill, vocal and rabid anti-American views. I must go back and search for your posts railing about Russia's breaches of Chechnya and Georgian sovereignty. Maybe you can direct me if you did?

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default German Energy Supply

    JMA,

    the situation was worse when there was no ability to buy large amounts of LNG., i.e. before 2005.

    That Russian deliveries are convenient -as some German companies had invested in the pipelines- is not disputed, however, the alternatives in form of LNG, alternatives that German companies, especially the ones without pipelines, can buy on a global market, did actually reduce the pressure. BTW did absolute traded volume change? Or is the German demand lower with constant Russian deliveries (-> higher percentage of Russian gas)?

    Or from a Russain point of view. Many huge NG contracts between German companies and Russian suppliers do not longer include the condition that NG price is pegged to the crude price, a feature that would be favourable for the Russian suppliers. In addition, some huge contracts were re-negotiated in the last years with better conditions for the German customers. Does this really support your picture?

    Russia has the principle advantage that her production does not decline as fast as the Norwegian or British fields in the North Sea, therefore, Russia may even use the pipelines to Germany, which IIRC are underused, to supply UK with Russian NG in future, i.e. Russia has more constructive alternatives in future, but not necessarily more power which would rely on destructive actions.

  9. #29
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I have noticed since my return your shrill, vocal and rabid anti-American views. I must go back and search for your posts railing about Russia's breaches of Chechnya and Georgian sovereignty. Maybe you can direct me if you did?
    There are two reasons for why you won't find much of it:

    (1) Higher standards apply to allies of my country. Russia does not violate the North Atlantic Treaty and prove itself an unreliable ally by doing so, ever. It cannot, for it is no member.

    (2) I don't participate in echo chambers. I'm fine with letting others write stuff; I myself focus on what others do not write. This way others don't learn about the many times I'm in agreement and I make my opinions/ideas look more unusual on average than they are.
    Enough people mention that Russia violates Georgia's sovereignty. The Russians do indeed the same NATO did to Yugoslavia in Kosovo. Except that they didn't seal it as NATO/EU did.


    I'm not anti-American. I dislike many American policies a lot, though.
    The United States are a horrible ally, and I am fully justified to say so because I can back it up any time. Keep in mind how my country got into WWI: An overly aggressive allied great power went too far with its bullying of a small power based on fabricated allegations. Now which countries do such things nowadays? A German has to oppose certain American policies if he has learnt anything from WWI.
    The Americans get what they deserve from me. Too many Americans don't understand the causality between their bad policies and the troubles they're generally in, though.
    ____________________________________

    Back to topic:
    It is always irritating to me how little regard especially the news organisations have for anything than the primary schoolyard-level emotions in the lead-up to wars.
    Do those talking heads truly believe that it's legitimate to kill hundreds of people in order to not make a politician or his office look weak?
    If true, I would rate them more morally bankrupt than medical doctors who kill human patients for experiments in order to cure something later.

    The whole concept of war being the exception to the rule which requires really good justification seems to be largely lost in the news media. Even here in SWC, we don't argue from a principled default position of "no war", but begun to compare the costs and benefits to the potential aggressor only. The costs in Syria are being neglected. Air strikes could easily kill hundreds of humans (combatants or not - killing requires a good justification). I don't see equal heavyweights among the "pro" arguments.

  10. #30
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Nothing has improved for Germany since 2008 in terms of growing energy dependency on Russia. No doubt you will keep us informed on German progress in this regard.
    Life must be easy if one free-floats, disregarding facts and instead believing what one wants to believe.

    The actual statistics
    http://www.bafa.de/bafa/de/energie/e...n/egashist.pdf
    natural gas imports from Russia
    2008: 1.527.566 TJ of total 4.040.640 TJ = 37.8%
    2012: 1.413.482 TJ of total 4.029.702 TJ = 35.1%
    (percentages without the storage net total, preliminary figures)


    primary energy consumption of Germany in 2012. Erdgas = natural gas ('earth gas')

    report on the topic http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie...id=292324.html

    You're badly mistaken if you think Germany could not absorb the loss of 35.1% of 21.6% of its primary energy consumption (= 7.6%). Natural gas is mostly a primary energy for the peak electricity generation. Electricity can also be imported from neighbours during peak times. Germany is actually a net electricity exporting country.


    The difficulties caused by a loss of Russian natural gas imports would be dispersed and thus diluted in Central and West Europe.

    Die Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) kommt in einer Analyse zum dem Ergebnis, dass auch die Produktion der Gaskraftwerke in Deutschland im Halbjahresvergleich um ein Viertel eingebrochen ist (...)
    The DUH comes in an analysis to the conclusion that the production of the (natural) gas powerplants in Germany shrank by a quarter in a half-year comparison (...)"
    25% less electricity from natural gas and we didn't even notice.


    There are plenty people believing in the fragility of European countries - "Muslim invasion!" "low fertility" "dependence on Russian gas". The reality is non-spectacular, even boring.
    They want to believe in a fragile, weak and lost Europe, though.
    __________________________

    Back to topic:
    Germany is less dependent on Russia than Russia is dependent on Germany.
    We can bear a loss of Russian energy exports much easier than they bear the loss of energy export revenues. It's the only big thing which runs well in their economy.

  11. #31
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    ____________________________________
    Even here in SWC, we don't argue from a principled default position of "no war", but begun to compare the costs and benefits to the potential aggressor only.
    That is because war is a natural state of human affairs. It is the default position. No war is the aberration that requires effort to maintain.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  12. #32
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default correct!

    Carmudgeon, you are correct. there is not a day in the history of the human race that has been without war in some part of the world.

    Fuchs, WWI's causes are much more complex than any short answer. However, Austria-Hungary went to war against Serbia because a subject of the Emperor who happened to be a Serb and a nationalist assassinated the heir to the throne giving A-H the excuse to stomp on Serbia. The Kaiser stupidly gave A-H his blank check while Russia had an alliance with Serbia but also with France who had an understanding with England. Then there were the mobilization schedules. Finally, Germany invaded France through neutral Belgium. Oh, and Italy deserted its alliance with Germany and A-H to later join the allies. so, who was at fault? All of them to some degree. But the Kaiser and his ministers suffered from a real failure to examine the consequences of their actions before taking them.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  13. #33
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    there is not a day in the history of the human race that has been without war in some part of the world.
    Certainly true, but even if the existence of war in some place is the default condition of the human race, that's no reason for any given nation to select war as the default mechanism for dealing with problems, especially other people's problems. For the US at this time, I'd suggest that the default approach to other people's fights is to not get involved. Certainly that default could be overridden in sufficiently compelling circumstances, but it doesn't need justification. There's no need to present a case for non-involvement in other people's wars. The burden of justification is on those who want to get involved.

    A nation that selected military involvement as the default response to every mess on the planet would find that position unsustainable, and would have to desist or collapse. Nobody has the resources for that.

    No war anywhere would certainly be an aberration, but we don't need that. We just need no war involving us, a quite different thing. Arguably that's an aberration as well, but that's no less reason to try to get there.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 09-10-2013 at 01:04 PM.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  14. #34
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    No, it's not true.
    It's said that immediately after VJ-day (1945) there were 26 days of 100% world peace until some conflict flared up in SE Asia.

    That's beside the point anyway. Switzerland has been at peace for hundreds of years; a conflict in Rwanda for example doesn't mean that war is normal, peace is not normal.

    War is destructive, not productive and this coupled with mankind's survival proves that war cannot be normal. It's the deviation from normal.


    JTF; point being, one better not give a blank check or other kind of support to an aggressive ally. In fact, an aggressive neighbour who insists on bullying small powers may very well be a problem, not the solution to one's security challenges.

Similar Threads

  1. Today's Wild Geese: Foreign Fighters in the GWOT
    By SWJED in forum Adversary / Threat
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 02-09-2018, 02:06 PM
  2. Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror
    By davidbfpo in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 600
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
  3. Syria: the case for action
    By davidbfpo in forum Middle East
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 06:30 AM
  4. Replies: 534
    Last Post: 09-20-2010, 01:18 PM
  5. "Hot Pursuit" Doctrine
    By MattC86 in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 06:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •