jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (52 posts)

If Iraq breaks into three countries along sectarian lines - what?

  1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    The Iraq we know is not the Iraq the factions have ever recognized.  If the Middle East consumes itself for the coming years with fighting each other over creating new states along sectarian lines, how is that a bad thing for the US?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The world loses a large supply of oil, which will affect the US negatively. 

      Pollution is likely to be massive (remember Kuwait?) and quite possibly radioactive as well.  Not a good thing for anyone.

      Muslims in the US and elsewhere are likely to join in, whether by simple financial assistance or physical terrorism to force other countries to take sides.

      The US will inevitably be drawn in to protect Israel, with our young men and women again dying in the middle east.

    2. profile image61
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It will only remain separated until Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Al Qaeda and its many affiliates can compel those discrete entities to capitulate. There is a much wider and deeper conflict brewing and it will engulf the entire Muslim world and ensnare the rest of the world. The conflict is between modernity and Islam.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The only thing not addressed in your post is the oil greed that Exxon/Mobil is trying to sell out. Recently Exxon/Mobil sold off part of its' holdings in Iraq to Petro China and is looking to sell out completely if it can. The exit from Iraq by American Big Oil will sign the US support off for good. The US will not have control of the oil so the military will be free to leave for good. No oil = no interest.

      1. profile image61
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Obama went to war with Libya for OIL needed by Europeans, why the sudden belief that OIL for China won't be as important.  While stifling American energy production, Obama is all about foreign energy production. Grants to Brazil, ceding the Gulf to Cuban and Chinese exploration while denying American companies, hoping the BP oil disaster would be more catastrophic if ignored long enough, blocking the Keystone pipeline despite Canada's (the best neighbor a country could ask for) patience and desires?

        If Obama is anything he is consistent, consistent in his Anti-American decisions. What makes you thinik Iraq will be any different.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think you have to look at the possibility that Obama is pushing the US towards alternate energy sources. Other reasoning is the regulations tightening up on coal energy and the pollutants it provides.If this is anti American I don't know. With the failed attempts at solar and battery technology because of unrealistic short term success the GOP and some Dems are kicking at his shins. Recently there were reports that the Navy is developing energy from sea water that uses carbon stored in the ocean. It has been said many times that when the US gas prices hit those similar to Europe the US will begin looking for alternative energy sources.The ocean is quickly becoming the recipient of more pollution than the air. I have a lot of problems with Obama on foreign policy and social programs but he has been consistent with clean energy as much as congress will let him.

          1. profile image61
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Obama is pushing America toward poverty, there is no such thing as an alternative to OIL. Sunshine and a cool breeze will not replace the massive energy supplied to the entire world economy by oil. Even the production of solar panels and wind turbines depends on OIL.

            Since when do we bow to the whims of a King? Americans rejected rule by MAN in favor of rule by LAW over 200 years ago. Obama has no right to force America to do anything. That is tyranny!!

            Oil supplanted coal, for the most part, coal - wood and whale oil and it didn't require a dictator to do it. Oil will be supplanted when a superior energy source is available. The warm feelings lefties get from Obama is insufficient to run the United States, unless Obama succeeds in pushing America back to the Middle Ages when sunshine, babbling brooks and cool breezes were the energy sources of the day.

            Obama's energy strategy will leave Americans freezing and hungry in the dark.

            As for the Europeans, their alternative energy source is Russian natural gas. When Putin is finished with his Summer War, Europe will kowtow or freeze.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So predictable. You think the President has no agenda when he assumes the office? Alternative energy is the future whether you want to face up to it or not. When the price becomes unprofitable for oil the other shall have met the competition. Of course climate change is out of the question as what does that matter when our children's children are choked to death by our ignorance. Oil is the most popular energy source there is but we are using it faster than time will replenish it and when the time comes that it will be gone or too expensive what will replace it. Lets ignore that scenario as well. I love the lefty/righty spin you put on the argument because your retorts are oh so predictable and flawed.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Climate change? So you think that Unicorn Juice and Rainbows will fix everything?  What alternative energy is there that can replace OIL. If you say sunshine and a cool breeze then you are being foolish.  The next energy hasn't even come out of the experimental stage yet.

                Bogus centrally directed pressures to switch energy sources will result only in increased suffering. It will solve nothing. Oil is not running out anytime soon.  There is a trillion barrels of oil in the United States alone.  That represents 300 years of oil.  We are more efficient in its use now than we have ever been and that revolution continues, apace.

                You see doom unless Obama rides his sun and wind powered rainbow unicorn to the rescue. Just like global warming, alternative energies that produce the same benefits as OIL are't real. It is a decade or more before there is a fuel cell inexpensive enough to produce efficiently and fuel cells are the most promising alternative.

                It is a left-right thing. Lefties believe that they are superior to the market and therefore think that alternatives only require a powerful central government to force Americans to use Unicorn juice and all will be paradise. Conservatives understand that a centrally directed economic decision is ALWAYS a disaster.

                Prepare to freeze hungry in the dark because that is the current alternative to OIL.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Read this.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 … 13822.html

                  and this

                  http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternat … t-fuel.htm

                  and this

                  http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen … -seawater/

                  I guess this is a lefty/righty conspiracy theory as well.

                  You waste a lot of time with an argument that is not there. The lefty/righty crap is so played yet you mire yourself in it losing the information in the process. Put away the anger and come up with a solution different then rehashing old arguments that have been fruitless.

                  1. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Obviously the fueling stations for Unicorn Juice are going up all over America, as we speak. Experimental is exactly that, it is not full blown, tried and true, economically efficient production. It you can run combat operations against the Chinese Navy with Unicorn Juice, I will believe you have won the argument, until then it is OIL.

                    As for the conservative/lefty argument, one is correct and the other is lefty. A centrally directed authority is the dream of the lefties, it is a nightmare in reality. Join reality and the clarity of understanding that lefties want control or to be controlled and conservatives want the elevation of the individual. Which has produced more prosperity for more people, Unicorn Juice or OIL?

          2. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            According to Webster Tarpley Obama is a man of the Chicago school of economics. When I refer to his policy, he definitively follows Bush's steps.

  2. grand old lady profile image90
    grand old ladyposted 2 years ago

    Maybe now more than ever we need to find alternatives to oil to minimize the effects of instability of the Middle East on the rest of the world. China is doing a lot of work with regard to alternative energy sources, the same should be done by every country in the world.

    If the country divides itself along sectarian lines, that may help the people to live together better but it doesn't mean they won't still fight each other. You might have something like Pakistan and India. They coexist peacefully, ore or less. But Pakistan is more radical. A division of Iraq along sectarian lines will help to identify the more extremist Muslim sects in the country and isolate it from the other two. It would be an interesting development.

    If the world is less dependent on oil, there will be no need to worry about Iraq. I personally hope however that these people can find peaceful ways to coexist, whether together or along sectarian lines with borders. Everybody deserves to have peace.

  3. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    In what way is it a bad thing since WE originated it? Check Brzezinski's "The grand chessboard" and you'll find our involvement! Since our invasion Iraq is exsanguine. Isn't division to reign our motto? Why are the djihadists always present before any intervention? We decided to attack Syria, they are there. Iraq now they are there? Why aren't they in Miami? New Orleans? France? Jordan? Because they are OURS. They are our JANISSARIES.
    It is EASIER to export them in instable (instability that we orchestrated) lands. We create the instability like in Maiden Ukraine or Syria, then we let go our dogs to terrorize the population. Then either they call us like Iraq (desperate), either they fight them with the Russian blessing.
    Your question would be more relevant if you had asked us, to whom does the crime pay? The obvious would be us. Since our assassination of Ghaddafi, Hussein we shared the natural resources, our cartels are in first positions, we are regulating prices and production. What else do we need? Now, we want PEACE. Why? Because our affairs have to thrive. But we need the consent of the locals that don't agree with us.

  4. GA Anderson profile image84
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    Oh my! Call the police! There has been a hijacking!

    Hey guys, the topic was Iraq.... remember?

    So, back to the point... my opinion is that if Iraq is partitioned, (which looks likely), the Northern Kurds partition is the only one likely to survive.

    The Shiite and Sunni partitions will continue to fight each other until the strongest terrorist  affiliate wins.

    We have created our very own Frankenstein, and the Iraqi people will suffer more than they ever did under Sadam.

    GA

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Firstly
      I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, Twenty years ago I spoke to a scientist friend of mine about extracting hydrogen from sea water, he looked at me as if he should be calling the men in white coats to take me to the loony bin.
      Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe so isn't this where we should be putting our research money?

      Secondly
      Iraq is the gate way to Europe for many extremists, once it has been taken over by ISIS it will spread its particular kind of extremism as far as it can.
      The fighting now taking place in Iraq has nothing to do with the control of oil wealth it has to do with a religious extremism of which the world has never seen. The fact that it is done in the name of Islam is of no consequence as it could easily have been done in the name of communism or national socialism or great uncle Fred. The brainwashing that results in extremism is the enemy.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why would we want to hydrolyze sea water into Hydrogen and Oxygen?  While there are trace amounts of free hydrogen in the water, it is neither feasible nor reasonable to extract that - hydrolysis yields the only usable amounts of hydrogen and it takes as much energy to extract it as it does to re-combine it (plus a little more, of course, as nothing is 100% efficient).

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I know and that is why I said research into it.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ...I don't see 1,000 years of research finding a way to get more out of chemical reaction that goes into reversing that reaction.  It is, as far as we know and understand the universe, how every reaction works.  Chemical, nuclear or anything else, it does not produce more energy than is in it.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I am by no means an expert, I also know that everything in the universe hasn't been discovered yet. So my question would be, if hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used as a source of energy should we disregard it because we consider it to difficult to find a way of doing it?

              Maybe the process the US navy is working on is the thermochemical cycle. Maybe its the S-I cycle which generates hydrogen from water with an efficiency of about 50%.

              I was just wondering, after working for a major motor manufacturer for some years in the late 90's early 20's why would they put so much time and effort into developing hydrogen powered vehicles if they thought it wouldn't be the next great power supply. BMW are not a company that wastes money on a whim.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                None of that explains getting energy from nothing, which is what you're proposing.

                Seawater is chock full of hydrogen - each pair of H atoms combined with an Oxygen atom.  The bonds can be split, and hydrogen then burned at a later time to produce energy.  The amount of energy produced will be exactly (exactly) what was used to split the bond, less an amount of inefficiency.

                Hydrogen is common, yes.  3/4's of the earth is covered in it, plus there is about .000055% of the atmosphere available as free H2.  More, of course as hydrogen combined with oxygen, sulfur or other elements.

                The problem still remains - "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".  We can't get more out of burning Hydrogen than we put in to free it from the other atoms it is combined with.  We can even crack petroleum (oil) to get hydrogen, but that is no better than burning the oil in the first place.  Cleaner, but no more energy.

                As to BMW deciding that the US will go to H2 in the future - I highly disagree.  The infrastructure just isn't there, while electricity is.  We will eventually see lots of electric cars, but very few hydrogen.  Europe, with it's high population density, may find it economic to put hydrogen tanks/pipelines everywhere; the US won't.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So there you go then, a complex answer to a simple question. There will be no Hydrogen use in the future.

                  Not that it will matter to me as I think oil will be around long after I or my children have popped of the earth.
                  All these oil companies don't seem concerned that their businesses will be defunct in a few years so I suppose they wont.
                  We (UK) could always go back to coal, a new reports suggests there is at least 100 years supply under the sea around our coastline.

                2. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The truth of the matter is that there are several patents that are on file that do precisely what you say cannot happen. A few of the inventors have been proven nutcases and some have died under mysterious circumstances. There is research that is promising in this where a little energy is multiplied through amplification to produce the splitting of the hydrogen molecule from the two oxygen molecules to harvest the hydrogen gas. Understand that Releasing chemical energy from water, in excess or in equal proportion to the energy required to facilitate such production, would therefore violate the first or second law of thermodynamics is not what these latest revelations claim. An amplification process and facilitated by a chemical reaction is the basis of their claims. Granted this is still in the infancy of development it is a promising direction.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I know - perpetual motion, energy from nowhere - these things always attract the "nutcases" you mention. 

                    Seen the hydrogen producer for cars?  Use the alternator to hydrolyze hydrogen, use it again to compress it and store it.  Then feed it into the cylinder and burn it, getting back less energy that was used to produce it in the first place, and that's supposed to increase fuel mileage.  The concept of "a little energy is multiplied through amplification to produce the splitting of the hydrogen molecule from the two oxygen molecules to harvest the hydrogen gas" is the same thing; the "amplification" mentioned takes energy and doesn't come from nowhere.  Pretty it up with big words (like "amplification") and sell it to a gullible public, but a public too stupid to realize it costs, not produces, energy.  TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).


                    They're all the same - either a scam for money or some misguided soul that thinks they can re-invent physics because Big Oil is hiding secrets.  And yes, I understand the claims are that there is free energy out there, but that doesn't make it so.  Again, perpetual motion machines have been around forever, just like this one.  Keep your wallet closed.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      My apologies but the topic swung that way as denial was not a river in Egypt and I had to clarify.

      Yes the monster is out and about in Iraq and it was always going this way. We cannot control others. Did anyone not learn this growing up? It is a universal human fallacy and Iraq is no exception. Why do you think they still have these horrific penalties in the Middle East after all these years. It shows that the control of others is fraught with failure. What audacity it is that we think we can control them with the language and cultural barrier so ingrained. Let them work out their own problems. If we are worried about the terrorism spreading in Europe why don't we try to get some of those people to cooperate and catch the bad guys? Because we can't control them either.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "My apologies but the topic swung that way as denial was not a river in Egypt and I had to clarify."
        But  Who’d A Thought It is a place in Alabama!


        I know I will get lambasted for this next comment but I will say it anyway. If you wish to limit the influence of extremism in you country you will have to limit immigration. Letting in people with different ideas about politics, religion, rights and freedom only breads extremism.

    3. profile image61
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The Kurdish region was the first to recover after the fall of Saddam. I agree it is likely to remain, much to the aggravation of of Turkey and Iran who also "own" a slice of "Kurdistan." It is also likely that the Middle East and the World, for that matter, is likely to erupt into even more chaos as Pax Americana comes to a close, not because the United States has collapsed, but because one political group in America despises its super power status.

      There are diametrically opposed and deep seeded political aims in this country that have been highlighted through the election of a political radical to the Presidency. One can complain all they wish about conversations continually degenerating into left and right but these two concepts have dominated our entire history and will continue to do so because at their root is a disagreement as ancient as humanity.

      Pax Americana is coming to an end not because of the natural course of fading power, like the decline of Roman, but as a specific aim of a specific political party. When the world is without America it will descend into privation and chaos.

  5. Silverspeeder profile image61
    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago

    Not sure about this but wouldn't these naval vessels that are powered by nuclear reactors have enough energy to spare for hydrogen production?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I was told once that a carrier could provide power for the city of Seattle if needed.  Yeah, they can make all the H2 they want.

 
working