The US now produces about 2/3 of US needs and it may go somewhat higher before reversing back to trend, which is down.
So you’re saying that all finite natural resources, if used, will eventually be depleted. I really truly love how you always state the obvious but I think that’s just the inherent Fleabagger trait coming to the fore.
My wisecrack reply to jesse was meant to be funny, not to be taken seriously.
My reply was in the same manner ... didn’t you also laugh at it?
If you were offended, I apologize that you misunderstood me ... my standard Fleabagger inspired apology.
What you guys need is a national enema. The stinky stuff is everywhere.
I thought that was taken care of when your anti-American a^^ was flushed to Canada.
President Obama went shopping for Plain Truth's Christmas present... The Joy of Hate.
Did you see that thieving a-hole sign the credit card receipt and then put that copy in his shopping bag. The store clerk was obvious too embarrassed to call him on it. I bet that scumbag pulls that all the time to beat small businesspersons out of their “profit” which as a socialist a^^hat he enjoys.
the US produces more oil than it uses.
That does not mean we do not import oil, though, to the tune of about 35% of demand. Lot of reasons for that but not worth going into here.
An excellent read of the article on your part.
The subheading of your linked article:
”The United States still imports 35% of the petroleum it uses”
This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities.
Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.”
This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.
In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs.
First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.
Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.
Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.
By George Will:
The "New York Times" who deepened its story this morning, quotes Robert Einhorn who recently left the State Department and until he left, he was in charge of the enforcement of the sanctions. He says the following in defense of this deal. He says, "I think the sanctions won't erode as fast as some fear." He seems to be conceding the fact that they will, indeed, erode.
I think four things are now clear.
First, there will be no U.S. attack on our negotiating partner, the Iranians. That's off of the table. Probably, a good thing, but now formally off the table.
Second, the president said he is not going to contain a nuclear Iran. I think that will be our policies, containing them, because I think they are going to get the bomb.
The third, the big question is what would Israel, abetted by Saudi Arabia, which is terrified of Iran do at this point.
Fourth, will the final reaction be the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East if the Saudis sit their own arsenal.
By Wesley Pruden
Barack Obama, resolute enough when he’s designing health care schemes, shows only irresolution abroad. Weakness and irresolution is the face he turns to the rest of the world, in hopes that if he hires a good speechwriter and bows deeply enough to whatever kings and potentates cross his path, that’s good enough.
Mr. Obama is challenged now at every turn by friend and foe of the United States who need to see on what meat the man feeds, and of what stuff his promises and assurances are made. The mullahs in Tehran, who can’t believe how easy it was to roll the president and his counterparts in Geneva, had no sooner signed the agreement to preserve the Iranian pursuit of the bomb at a bargain price than the mullahs began dreaming up new demands. If the mullahs could roll him once, they could roll him twice.
China has drawn an unusual “air-defense zone” in the East China Sea meant to test the resolve of Japan, South Korea and above all the United States, to see who if anyone will try to do anything about it. The first Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, was dispatched to the area on a training mission, innocent enough but intended to show that Beijing is big enough to back up a threat. The Chinese have no doubt noticed that Mr. Obama’s red lines eventually fade to green. The Chinese in Beijing read the newspapers.
President Hamid Karzai is negotiating the terms of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Mr. Karzai desperately wants to forge such an agreement, but only on his terms, which change frequently. Susan E. Rice, the White House negotiator, told Mr. Karzai that if there’s no agreement soon, the United States would withdraw all its troops and trainers in 2014. Mr. Karzai was so intimidated that he added the new conditions, including a demand that all prisoners at Guantanamo be freed.
Neither was he impressed by colleagues in the Afghan government. One of them told The New York Times that Mr. Karzai was only contemptuous of the American threat, and joked about the lack of American resolve. He asked Mr. Karzai what he wanted as the final outcome of the negotiations. “It is favorable if they surrender to us,” he replied. “The United States has come, and it will not go, brother. It does not go. Therefore, ask your demands, and don’t worry.”
As Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports, groups of technicians from the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG), a unit in charge of building Iran's liquid-fueled missiles, have made repeated trips to North Korea during the past several months, including as recently as late October, to work on a new 80-ton rocket booster being developed by the North Koreans.
The booster was described by one official as a thruster for a "super ICBM" or a heavy-lift space launcher. "It is completely new from what they have done so far," he added.
The blog 38 North, part of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, disclosed last month that satellite photos showed an expansion at a North Korean launch site for a larger rocket.
"The fact of the matter is that Kerry and crew left both ballistic missiles and the nuclear warhead trigger experimentation at Parchin (military site) off the table" during talks in Geneva, (former Pentagon adviser Michael Rubin) said.
By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil
Iran is currently enjoying a “window” of time before the six-month deal signed in Geneva early Sunday goes into effect, during which it is not bound to take any credible steps toward disabling its ability to produce a nuclear weapon, the State Department acknowledged Tuesday.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the six-month interim period, during which Iran would take steps to rein in its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, has not yet begun. Furthermore, there are still a number of details to be worked out, she said, without specifying what points had yet to be finalized.
Her comments created confusion as to whether the much-touted interim deal, supposedly reached by P5+1 powers and Iran in Geneva in the early hours of Sunday morning, had actually been completed as claimed.
Iran on Tuesday accused the US of publishing an inaccurate account of what had been agreed. And its Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an address to the Iranian parliament Wednesday that Iran would continue construction on the Arak heavy water plant, in an apparent breach of the ostensibly agreed terms.
Psaki’s statements largely confirmed speculations by former State Department official and ambassador Elliott Abrams, who argued in his Council for Foreign Relations blog earlier Tuesday that the language used by the White House to discuss the Iran interim deal was largely “aspirational,” suggesting that much of the touted P5+1 deal with Iran had yet to be hammered out.
So there really wasn’t a deal reached ??