Iraq dismisses talk of border pullback as Saudi troops reportedly move in.

[another_liberal]

Source: Al Jazeera America

Iraqi military officials have dismissed claims that their troops have been pulled back from the border with Saudi Arabia, despite reports that tens of thousands of Saudi soldiers have been sent to the area as a security measure. Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya television said 30,000 members of the country’s military had been deployed into the border region after Iraqi government forces abandoned positions, leaving the Saudi frontier unprotected. But Baghdad described the report as “false news” aimed at sapping the morale of government fighters.

Saudi Arabia aims to guard its 500-mile border with Iraq, where Islamic State fighters and other Sunni Muslim rebel groups seized towns and cities in a lightning advance last month. Saudi King Abdullah has ordered all necessary measures to protect the kingdom against potential "terrorist threats," state news agency SPA reported on Thursday.

The satellite channel said it had obtained a video showing about 2,500 Iraqi soldiers in the desert area east of the Iraqi city of Karbala after pulling back from the border. An officer in the video aired by Al-Arabiya said the soldiers had been ordered to quit their posts without justification.

The authenticity of the recording could not immediately be verified, and the Iraqi government denied the reports. Lt. Gen. Qassim Atta, an Iraqi army spokesman, said, "This is false news aimed at affecting the morale of our people and the morale of our heroic fighters."

Read more: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/3/saudi-troops-deployedtoiraqborder.html

---

I think we can begin to call this a "regional" conflict now.

[donco]

1. I wonder who

armed both sides?

[another_liberal]

3. The Dow Jones just closed above 17000 for the first time . . .

I wonder how much of that jump was from defense industry futures?

[AngryDem001]

12. Rule of acquisition no. 34

War is good for business.

[Kennah]

43. Rule 35: Peace is good for business

[Igel]

36. Pretty much everybody.

Except that the arms ISIL's bought are mostly black market. That means some older US tech and more recent stolen stuff, but probably some Chinese tech (via Afghanistan, Iran) and quite a bit of Russian/Soviet stuff. If there's a good side to the E. Ukraine "war" it's that the Donetchane bought a lot of weapons off the black market, which probably diverted them from the middle east for a few weeks.

Most of the arms captured in Syria from Syrian military bases would be Russian or Iranian, very much not US-made. They'd have a lot of US tech from Iraqi military basis (although older Iraqi stuff, if still serviceable, would have been Soviet).

The US is usually #1 for weapons sales in the world, but there was a year or two in which the Russians trumped us. Keep in mind that the US stuff is typically more expensive, so being #1 in sales doesn't necessarily mean #1 in volume. In years when the Russians trumped the US, the volume must have been truly impressive. The Iranian sales are almost all under the table, and the Chinese don't officially sell much to many, but their stuff turns up with anodyne frequency startling only to naifs.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

2. Anyone who denies this is a battle between the Saudis and Iran is lying or a fool....

And it has ZERO to do with the old Arab/Persian conflict and has EVERYTHING to do with a family that claims they are holy messengers that speak for God,....

....and who own a MAJOR chunk of Wall Street.

....and are supported by Republicans.

[another_liberal]

5. You forgot "The Caliphate."

They continue to amaze me. They are so brutal and so fundamentally archaic that they should have had no chance. One would think they'd be defeated before they got started, but here they sill are, stronger and clearly more dangerous.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. They are causing a refugee crisis as people flee their rule....

I got into it with someone who's a right winger once about "Game Of Thrones". They were asking why anyone would want to live in Dreadford and I told them they had no choice. All those born there are automatically subjects of the crown and either accepted their fate or die. I told them that was the way the world worked until us "Question Authority" "All Men Are Created Equal" LIBERALS came along.

Conservatives are the types to sell us out for 30 pieces of silver.

[another_liberal]

19. What do they offer, even to committed followers?

Are the intoxication of religious fanaticism and power-high of holding life-and-death authority that fulfilling? Other than minimal food and shelter, most of them must have little else to keep them loyal. It has to be a very hard, bleak way of life.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. The ONLY reason this is going on is because we seem to ALWAYS back the wrong side.

[Igel]

37. It works pretty much the same today as it ever did.

You move from lower to greater prosperity. Lots of immigrants to Greece, lots to Rome. The Goths didn't pick Rome by accident, nor did the hundreds of thousands of other immigrants. The Underground Railroad may be famous, but it doesn't hold a candle to the Great Migration for African-American population shifts in the US. One was for freedom, and nothing more (the story goes); the other was quite openly about jobs.

You also move from war and famine to areas of non-war and non-famine. Large parts of Russia were taken over by Russians from the Balts and Finns that were there because of war that swept through the southern (and later central) portions of Russia. The Magyar moved because it suited them, not because Pannonia was ruled by more liberal despots in the 800s. The Byzantines weren't a great democratic civilization, but they were better off than the tribes to the north and so the northern tribes moved south. The Irish came to this country not to be free of British domination and totalitarianism but to escape famine. The Central Europeans came "because the streets were paved with gold," not because "the streets are lined with those questioning authority."

Even now if you ask most people why they move to the US, it's not "for freedom of religion" or "because gays are oppressed in my homeland" but "to get a better paying job." It's the same reason that a lot of Caucasians and Central Asians move to Russia, North Koreans move to China or Russia. Filipinos don't move to Saudi Arabia because it's a cool place to question authority.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. The Right likes to believe everyone in the world wants what we have....

That plays well with people who think they're livin' large because they have an icemaker in the fridge.

[happyslug]

11. If it is a Caliphate who is the Caliph? Prior to June 20, 2014 no one.

It appears the reason I did not read about who was named as the Caliph was ISIS decided to wait till the first day of Ramadan (the Islamic Holy month) to declared the Caliphate and to declared its leader the Caliph. The First day of Ramadan was June 29, 2014, thus that was the day the Caliphate was officially proclaimed and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was declared the Caliph.

Caliph roughly translates into English as Lieutenant or representative (In many translations there are no exact words to be translated between, Caliph is not only the Lieutenant of God, God's Representative on earth but also God's agent on earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph#Word_usage_.2F_etymology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

[another_liberal]

15. I meant ISIL, now know as the "Islamic State."

I understand the Caliphate is, technically, a different thing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. Pat Robertson wishes he could do the same here.

[JDPriestly]

20. How right you are!!!!!

[Personal Damon]

4. -600

Don't get involved, America!

[another_liberal]

6. Pardon me, sir . . .

It's farthest from my mind.

[Personal Damon]

7. I didn't think you were suggesting such

Just expressing my view that your country shouldn't do any more harm to itself. Wars are good for arms manufacturers, as you suggested above, but not for America.

[another_liberal]

17. Thank you.

Welcome to Democratic Underground, Personal Damon.

[Personal Damon]

32. And thank YOU

My first name is Damon, but I love puns, hence my username

[bemildred]

8. That's a lot of troops.

Either the King is worried or he is up to something.

[happyslug]

27. That is enough troops to "Save" Baghdad and Barsa from Iran,

Yes, the present Iraqi Government holds both cities, but it is also allied with Iran. ISIS is a creation of the House of Saud, so not really a threat to Saudi Arabia (Through may invade Arabia as part of the on going in fighting within the House of Saud on who will succeed the present king).

We have to remember, Iran is a pseudo-democracy, thus the in fighting between the various cliques ruling Iran tends to be in the open for the people of Iran do have a say in how much each clique has. This openness also forces the various cliques to work together when it comes to outside forces i.e. no one in Iran wants to be even accused of being a "Running dog" (using a Vietnam era phase) of the USA. Thus you have open protests and open debate within Iran but also rule by consensus.

Saudi Arabia is a classic dictatorship. Yes, its chief Dictator is called a King, but among the ruling clique he is the first among equals not someone everyone else has to listen to and obey (Hitler and Stalin were NOT dictators in this sense, they had the power to kill anyone in their country including the people in the ruling elite thus called "Absolute Dictators" for they could do as they pleased to anyone. Most Dictators do NOT have that power, the Clique ruling the country as a dictatorship has that power, but no one person in that Clique has that power. Thus anyone outside the Clique can be killed for any or no reason, but if you are in the Clique, the Clique has a whole as to agree to you being killed.

The upside of such an arrangement is that you have "peace" within the ruling Clique, no debate no dissent, and also no real consensus except to stay in power. If the Dictatorship is allied with a Stronger Country, relationship to that Country is paramount for the Clique and is a tool of the membership of the Clique in the internal struggle for power within the ruling Clique.

The most successful Cliques are hereditary. The reason for this is the first generation takes charge, often with the rule of an Absolute Dictator. At his death, he is succeeded by his sons, who work together and against each other. They jockey for position within the ruling clique, but rarely drawn out the daggers for their grew up together in the same family. The problem is in the Grandkids of the Founder. They grew up in different families and generally the first to go for the dagger in the internal fighting to rule the Country.

We last saw this in the Soviet Union. Stalin was an absolute Dictator and ruled as such, killing people left and right. When he died, they was some infighting among his successors (which included his own only son to survive WWII. Stalin's son was Never in a position to take over, something Stalin arranged for son for Stalin did not believe his son should get special privileges because he was the son of Stalin).

Side note: Stalin had another son, who was captured by the Germans during WWII. The Germans offered to exchange him for one of their generals, Stalin refused saying his son was no better then any son of any other Russian. That Son died in a German POW Camp.

Now, Stalin died in 1952, his successors where much like his "Sons" in that they were in position do to being put their by Stalin. They had also saw their comrades lead off under Stalin's orders to be killed. Thus they acted like family members who have survived a disaster, they saw each other as themselves. Yes, they was infighting (Brezhnev replacing Khrushchev for example, but Khrushchev was NOT killed just retired) but no killing (I have to exclude the first years after Stalin's death for the new Ruling Elite had to get its house in order and one of them was to get rid of Stalin's two pets, Beria, Stalin's last chief of his Secret Police, and Blokin, Stalin's chief executioner).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin

This brought into powers people who first entered politics in the late 1930s during Stalin's purges. They ruled from Stalin's death till Gorbachev became the first and only ruler of the Soviet Union never to have meet Stalin. This brought Stability to the Soviet Union without the mass killings of Stalin. People were still imprison, but the execution rate of such prisoners fell and you rarely heard of someone in the inner clique losing power except for just cause (spying for the US was the main cause, followed by incompetency).

Now come the 1970s, these first post Stalin Generation were getting old. They had mostly been born prior to the Revolution or in the 1920s, thus by the 1970s they were in their 50s and 60s, while most of the people in position of leadership were in their 60s and 70s. They were just about to start to die out and the next generation, a generation that had NOT know Stalin was filling in spots that became open. By 1980, this generation had many people in their 70s and 80s and if you lived under Reagan every couple of years another Soviet Leader would die of old age and other 70 something person would succeed him and then die himself shortly afterward. After several of this type of succession, Gorbachev was finally selected and the first Leader of the Soviet Union who had NOT known Stalin.

Prior to Gorbachev's selection, many people of his generation was fighting for position to succeed various people of that last Stalin Generation. One way was to show how much a better communist you were then others. Communism perfectionism became the way to get promoted in the 1970s. Another way was to show you could expand Communism, thus Afghanistan, long a Satellite of the Soviet Union, but independent. Even Stalin had decided the lack of any concept of a united country made Afghanistan more a geographical expression then a Nation-State and Stalin left Afghanistan be a kingdom where Soviet Influence was overwhelming. On the other hand Afghanistan was NOT a communist state and making no effort to become one. This made Afghanistan an object for these post Stalin Communist to show how good a Communist they were. Reforms were introduced and when rejected by the Natives, the Soviets removed the king and installed a Republic. When that failed, the Soviet Union invaded and installed another Government. You can see the ideology leading to further efforts in a futile effort to expand that ideology.

Thus Afghanistan became part of the fight between members of the post Stalin Generation over who was the better Communists to succeed the Generation that survived Stalin. This infighting continued even after Gorbachev was in power for it quickly became evident that other reforms were needed for starting with Khrushchev but accelerating under Brezhnev, the Soviet Union started to spend more and more of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on the Military. By the time of Gorbachev it was up to 40%, and that was NOT sustainable without harm to your economy. 10% is considered the upper limit of such spending without hurting your economy. This excess spending had to stop and Gorbachev started to make efforts to do so when the Coup to overthrow him occurred. That coup Failed, but it killed off the Soviet Union and lead to the Yeltsin years where Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe left the Stalin years way behind.

I bring up the collapse of the Soviet Union for it show what happens told the end of the Second Generation while the third generation is fighting over who will rule. Like Saudi Arabia the leadership of the Soviet Union was a closed group. In the Soviet Union you did not have to be a blood relative, but having survived Stalin appears to have been the biggest factor in promotion in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In Saudi Arabia, being the son and grandson of King Saud I is what makes you a member of the ruling Clique. King Saud I died in 1952 (the same year as Stalin), but given he was succeeded by his sons, not his appointees, you are talking about a group about 30 years younger then Stalin's successors.

Thus, in many ways, what is going on internally in Saudi Arabia is similar to what was going on in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. You are seeing a lot of infighting among family members of showing each other who is the most loyal to the Wahhabism branch of Islam AND at the same time members trying to show that they are the most competent to rule. A lot of infighting given King Abdullah's age (90 years old).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement

Wahhabism is a radical branch of Sunni Islam, it is the most intolerant of Shiites of all the branches of Sunni Islam. There have been unconfirmed reports that Al Queda main source of Revenue was from the oil fields of Arabia (i.e. from the House of Saud) and it appears that ISIS was created by the chief of Intelligence of Saudi Arabia, Prince Khalid bin Bandar. He had been the Ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005.

Bandar bin Sultan was supposedly replaced by Prince Khalid bin Bandar on July 1st. 2014

More on the post July 1st Chief of Intelligence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_bin_Bandar_Al_Saud

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/01/Prince-Khalid-bin-Bandar-appointed-as-head-of-Saudi-intelligence-.html


More on the old Chief of Intelligence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan


Side note: Arab names. bin can be roughly translated as "of" or "from" but its meaning is you are the son of the person named after the word "bin" thus Khalid is the son of Bandar of the house of Saud. "bint" is the female equilvant of "bin", meaning the "daughter of".

Bandar bin Sultan is Bandar son of Sultan

Khalid bin Bandar al Saud is the son of Bandar who was the son of King Saud I NOT Bandar bin Sultan, who is the son of another son of King Saud I, Sultan who died in 2011:

For more on Sultan bin Abdulaziz (Sultan son of Abdulaziz, also Sultan son of King Saud I)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_bin_Abdul_Aziz

Abdulaziz was the first name of the person generally referred to as "King Saud I" or Ibi Saud. Thus anyone who is called "bin Abdulaziz" is the son of King Saud I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia

The most important sons of King Saud I are the seven sons to one woman, These sons are called the Sudairi Seven: They are full brothers as opposed to being half brothers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudairi_Seven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassa_bint_Ahmed_Al_Sudairi

Please note, King Saud I mother was also a Sudairi, thus the Sudairi seven can claim a common Mother, but also can rely on other relatives from that clan.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4283169?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104248120777

Bandar bin Abdulaziz and Sultan bin Abdulaziz seem to be opposed to each other since the early 1980s. Sultan is dead, but Bandar is alive AND Bandar is now the eldest living son of King Saud I (through he is NOT a member of the Sudairi Seven). On the other hand Sultan had been Crown Prince till 2011 when he died (he was also a member of the Sudairi Seven).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Abdul_Aziz

Thus a son of one of the Sudairi Seven is relieved of command and replaced by a son who is NOT a Sudairi seven? The infighting is going on.

Reports since October 2013 indicates King Abdullah's health is in decline:

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920806001462

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/19/359233/saudi-king-may-die-in-6-months-report/

In his meeting with US President Barack Obama last month, King Abdullah was seen wearing a breathing tube.

On March 27, King Abdullah named his half-brother, Prince Muqrin, as the successor to the current Crown Prince Salman should he become king.

On April 15, the Saudi King also replaced spy chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who spearheaded the kingdom’s mission in the Syria crisis, with Youssef al-Idrisi.

Prince Muqrin was born in 1945, thus is only 69 years old, a youngest among King Saud I's sons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqrin_bin_Abdulaziz_Al_Saud

He is not only the son of King Saud I, but of a Yemani Woman, Baraka Al Amaniyah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_Al_Yamaniyah

This report is in conflict with the first report I cite, that said Bandar bin Sultan was in charge of Intelligence till July 1st, 2014. It is a conflict, but may NOT be in error, Bandar bin Sultan may have been relieved in April, but not replacement named till July. That the July Appointment was another Grandson of King Saud I appears to make that appointment what the family has agreed on, Youssef al-Idrisi was just an interim appointee till the actual head was selected.

Yes, trying to see how the Politburo was operating was a big thing during the Cold War. You ended up looking for little things to see who was out of favor and who had power. Stalin arrived in Moscow on day and every member of the Politburo meet him, he shook every one's hands except the then head of his secret police. That man was arrested within a week and later executed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov#Fall_from_power

That refusal to grab that man's hand became something to watch for within the Politburo, it was always cited as the best example of what to watch for, but other things were also important. The same with the present House of Saud. The in fighting is increasing, if it is true King Abdullah has less then six months to live, then the knives may be coming out.

While they are other sons of King Saud I still alive Abdullah has ruled Saudi Arabia since the early 1990s (King Fahd had a stroke and became incapacited and then Crown Price Abdullah took over his powers. King Fahd was NOT relieved of being king for he was one of the Sudairi Seven and Abdullah was NOT. When King Fahd finally did die, Abdullah just continued to do what he did, but appointed another of the Sudairi Seven as his successor as Crown Prince. That Crown Price died on him in 2011 and the Infighting increased.

King Abdullah does NOT have the power his Father had, but I think he sees the infighting. Abdullah has tried to come up with a solution to the growing lack of living sons of King Saud I, but it seems NOT to be working. The House of Saud is being kept together by the surviving sons of King Saud I, but how long can that last? It has been over 20 years since the last real transfer of power within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but then the Sudairi Seven were mostly still alive and willing to accept Abdullah as their first among Equals. When Abdullah dies will the grandsons of King Saud I, keep the kingdom together like their parent's did?

A quick military victory over Iran would be a good plus point for any grandson. On the other hand ending up with a Guerrilla War in Iraq would be a huge Negative (see Afghanistan, moving into Afghanistan was seen by the people who did it as a way to show their fitness to rule the Soviet Union, that inability to put down the Guerrillas shows they were NOT ready for it).

On top of this the House of Saud sees the Iranian influence in Iraq as unacceptable, but can they do anything about it? I suspect many old hands are saying stay out of it, but younger hands are saying go in and win one for Wahhabism. I suspect they also funded the revolt in Egypt in addition to the fighting in Syria. All of this is part of the infighting for who will rule in Arabia.

[bemildred]

31. I can think of a number of possible uses.

But mobilizing that many increases the liklihood they have something active in mind, which was mainly what I was thinking of. We already know the Iranians are neck deep in it. I suppose I am speculating that the Saudis may jump in, or be dragged in, to the unfolding civil war.

Nothing you say there that I don't agree with. I think the generational issues you mention and the aggressive attitude of some of the younger Saudi nobility (and I use the word loosely there) are very relevant to what is happening. I do think IS potentially poses a real threat to the current Saudi regime, since al Baghdadi apparently intends to subdue everybody on the planet.

[Aristus]

9. I can think of few ways in which this ends well.

Despite the Saudis having American military training and equipment, the fanaticism of the Iraqi ISIS troops might swing any fight in their favor.

I wasn't terribly impressed with the quality of Saudi enlisted personnel when I was in the Gulf in 1991. A lot of rich-kid corporals and sergeants cruising around in Cadillacs, and trying to avoid anything that might resemble training exercises.

I was impressed by the Saudi officer corps, if the one tank commander I met was a reliable example. But unless the troops they command have some oomph, the Saudis are fucked.

[another_liberal]

13. Fascinating!

There has been so little opportunity for them to exhibit their military prowess, your estimation carries a good deal of weight, even today.

Numbers are something, though, and good bad or indifferent, I doubt if thirty thousand Saudi troops will just shed uniforms and run for it like the Iraqis. They could well get beat, but after a real fight for "The Islamic State."

[Aristus]

18. You're right. Professionalism counts for a great deal.

I don't see the Saudis doing a weapon-dropping, panicked retreat. And there could be ISIS troops whose fanatical ferocity dries up in the face of determined opposition. Who knows?

I just don't foresee a good outcome of any kind.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. If someone deposed the Saudi Royal Family just how many people would shed a bitter tear?

[Aristus]

26. Not me, that's for sure...

n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Dubya would.

[Aristus]

29. Sure he would.

Where else but Saudi Arabia would he be able to hold hands with a guy, and kiss him, too, without being run out of Texas afterwards?

[happyslug]

34. I would every time I fill my gas tank.

Think about it. The price of fuel will go through the roof.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. That's a myth....

Do you HONESTLY believe whoever took their place wouldn't sell the oil on the open market?

[happyslug]

38. I am worry about the fight.

If King Abdullah dies and Saudi Arabia goes into Civil War, all bets are off as to the price of oil. Once the fighting ends then the price of oil will drop, but till then no. You can not sell oil that you can not pump do to fighting, the resulting shortage will drive the price of oil up.

I can see ISIS charging into Baghdad, being repulsed by the Shiite assisted by Iran, then Saudi Arabia intervening to "repulse" the "invasion of Iraq by Iran. This will force Iran to intervene and you have a general war on your hand, with the Saudi Army and the Saudi National Guard not only fighting Iran but each other.

The Saudi Arabian National Guard has been under the control of Abdullah and his family since the 1970s. The Sudairi Seven control the Army. About two or three years ago Abdullah ordered German Leopard II tanks for the National Guard. That purchased was strange for the Saudi Army were using M1 tanks. If you can avoid it you do NOT want more then one type of tank in you army. Restricting the number of different vehicles in your army helps keeps the supply lines simple. You only opt for a different tank (other then for something better and the Leopard II and M1 are about the same, no real improvement if one adopts one or the other).

I made the comment at that time someone tanks right then NOT a few years from then which would have been the case with more M1s.

The House Saud is heading for Civil War. All sides (and this will be Multiple sided war) are arming up and looking for allies. This include allies among other family members, other members of the ruling elite of Arabia, and other Arabs in addition to the US and even Iran.

The fighting in Syria and Iraq I suspect is part of that infighting among the House of Saud. The coup in Egypt was part of that fight.

Like the infighting among Soviet Elites in the 1970s and 1980s we have not seen most of this fighting, but it is occurring. Like Afganistan for the Soviet Union this fighting in Syria and Iraq is a product of that infighting as some participants in the infighting see this as a way to show others in the ruling Elite of Arabia to support them to succeed Abdullah.

Thus the fighting in Iraq is related to what is occurring in Saudi Arabia. They are all interconnected but the exact nature of the interconnection is unknown to any outsider.

The Western World was NOT dependent of Soviet Oil like it is dependent on Arabian Oil. Worse one of the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the oil glut of the mid to late 1980s. The Soviet Union ran out of money do to the dropping price of oil.

Saudi Arabia still has some of the lowest costs to pump oil. Thus the shale oil production is no concern to the House of Saud, They can still sell oil at a profit if the price of oil drops below the costs to produce shale oil in the US. Thus unlike the Soviet Union the House of Saud can survive a drop in the price of oil.

On the other hand Saudi Arabia is still the #1 oil exporter in the world, if the production goes there is nothing to replace it with.

Thus everyone knows whoever gets control of that oil will sell it, but you can not sell what no one controls. That what happens in a civil war. Production goes to hell in those areas being fought over and everyone will be fighting over that oil.

Unless Obama is willing to send in troops to secure the oil fields production will go to hell.

Remember the main Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Iranian oil fields are in that of the Persian Gulf cent centered around Kuwait. There are other oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran but there are all minor compared to those fields centered around Kuwait. This is also the area which is Shiite like Iran and that is the case even in regards to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

Just a comment that this slowly becoming a bigger mess as we do this discussion. This has all the possibility of a regional war, a Saudi Arabian Civil War, and American re-intervention with all sides shifting sides all the time. I.e. the US may go as an ally of Saudi Arabia and see that side break up with the US supporting the Saudi Army against the Saudi National Guard, then find itself fighting with Iran against ISIS and the Saudi Arabian Army with the Saudi Arabian National Guard standing neutral waiting to see who wins so they can pick up the pieces. Yes a mess but all driven by oil and the price it will demand.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. "Unless Obama is willing to send in troops to secure the oil fields production will go to hell."

Let it.

We need to stop using oil.

[happyslug]

41. I remember 1979 to 1985

I was in collage and no one would give the Iranian students protest permits so they had to stay on the sidewalks and walk with their protest signs. Those protests showed a lot of discipline and motivation. They stayed together. Crossed with the walk signs. Had their protests signs with them. All against the Shah.

That is also the time where oil reached its highest price do to the unrest in Iran everyone was concerned about oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.

I then graduated from collage and off to Texas I went. By the time I arrived in Texas Saddam had attacked Iran and both sides were selling all the oil they could to buy arms to kill each other with. The North Slope oil was going through the Alaska Pipeline. The North Sea oil fields were coming on line, as was the equally huge (these were called "Elephant" fields for they were so huge. Nothing close to them has been found since). In Texas the drop in price of oil was big news. It continue to drop as Thatcher tried to expand Britain's market share by dropping prices. After a couple of years Saudi Arabia put an end to this by dropping its price below the cost of production in the North Se. Thus was to scare Thatcher not to drop Britain's oil price below what Saudi Arabia was charging. Thatcher got the message, when Saudi Arabia raised the price of oil, so did Thatcher.

Thus we entered the high prices of the 1990s but the price was kept constant in real dollar terms (Reagan and Bush I had a steady 6 to 8 % inflation rate so in actual dollars it went up).

This was the oil glut of the mid 1980s till about 2001.

Now back to the early 1980s. That was a time of high prices do to war fears. Once those fears disappeared the price of oil dropped and by 1997 the glut was so bad that in 1950 dollars the price of gasoline fell to 25 cents a gallon (in 1997 dollars it was about a dollar a gallon, thus a return to low prices of the 1950s).

The concern I have is we are facing a return to war fears in the Persian Gulf that drove prices to record highs in the 1978 to 1981 period. Unlike the mid 1970s where oil prices were high but not to high, oil prices are already at their highest prices since the US Civil War. What would a war bring in terms of price and supply? No one knows but given how dependent we are on oil I can see $10 to $20 dollars a gallon. That what happened in 173 and 1979 the price of oil increased by 3 to 4 times it previous price. Did not last long at peak price each time but also did not fall back to the price it had been in the late 1960s till 1997 and then only briefly.

I foresee something like 1973 and 1979 again but any drop afterward will be small even compared to the drop after 1973 and 1979.

This will be disruptive. And I agree with you we need to cut back oil usage but our society is so oil dependent it be like an addict being told he has to go cold turkey, it will be rough for where we live, work, shop and do most things we do will have to change and a change people will oppose. Thus disruptive and to a degree violent. Hopefully most people will see the change as needed and accept it but that is the best we can hope for if Saudi Arabia goes into Civil War and takes the whole Middle East with it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. A benefit of those times was the idea of something called an "economy car"....

Right now Americans are being told the BEST you can expect is 35MPG which is what a Chevy Vega got in the 70s.

Meanwhile our automakers are selling cars in Europe that get 50+MPG and European cars are being refitted for the American market to get lower mileage. Say something about it and they either claim a gallon isn't a gallon or they will blame environmentalist insisting on having devices that lower the mileage and make the car run like shit. IOW: Make Liberals the hated scapegoat,....AGAIN.

That crap doesn't fly with Millennials. They KNOW the stuffed shirts are full of shit and know Europe is doing things better than we are.

The Internet has popped the bubble.

[happyslug]

44. Vega NEVER got 35 mpg

The Chevette did get 40 mpg on the EPA Highway tests, but the Monza (Vega successor in 1978, new body on Vega engine and chassis) was rated only 34 mpg HIGHWAY with a Manual Transmission. With an automatic it dropped to 31 highway and only 23 mpg City.

EPA Test File for its 1978 milage guide:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/78guide.txt

EPA Fuel Mileage Guides 1978 till today:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

No one gets near the EPA guidelines (They are useful as a guide to compare cars for the tests are rigid and thus valid for comparison purposes, but no one drives slowly up to 50 MPH then stays at that speed till the end of the test when you slow down gradually to Zero. These tests were do to the limitation of test equipment in the 1970s, rapid speed, rapid acceleration was just not testable for fuel usage with the test equipment of the 1970s. Today such equipment exists, but not in the 1970s when these tests were started).

Thus they was no way anyone got 35 mpg in a Vega in the 1970s.

Worse, in the 1970s GM made only a few sizes of Automatic Transmissions, most were geared to running V-8s, thus tend to be to heavy for Small Cars. Such Automatics were installed anyway because most Americans wanted Automatics, thus mileage went down not only do to operating a 3 speed automatic, but an automatic geared to be used on a V-8. Four and five speed Manuals were available (and did much better mileage in most situations, much better then on the EPA tests which tend to favor Automatics).

As to Europe, they mileage measurement is different then the US measurement. This is because they did such measurements later then the US. The US started early for when the oil crisis of 1973 hit, people wanted cars with better mileage and the Big Three started to talk about how good the mileage of their cars were. I remember on ad when it was claimed that a Land Yacht of the time period could get almost 25 mpg. It turned out that was done in the Land Yacht between two cities that were down hill of each other and the driver would turn off the engine and then restart it was it came close to Zero.

Such fraud was common, I once did 25 mpg in a 1982 GMC 3/4 tone Pickup with a Manual Transmission, operating on a stretch of Interstate where no other car was on and it kept it in high gear at 25 mph. That was between fill ups. It was such acts that had no connection with the real world that forced Congress to step in and Require the EPA to set standards to mileage. The EPA was picked for it was already testing the cars for pollution, it was just an easy add on to do mileage.

I bring this up for the US EPA mileage system is older and tends to give different numbers then the European do. I will NOT say more accurate for both have to be used only for cars done under one or the other system. Both tests (and Japan, China and India have their own systems) tend to be accurate but the numbers are ONLY GOOD WHEN COMPARING CARS WITHIN THE SAME SYSTEM.

Thus the Smart Car in the US gets 34 city 38 Highway. 66 in the UK (which is often converted to 54 MPG for the US Gallon is that much smaller then the British Gallon).

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2014.pdf

http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/51310/SMART-fortwo-coupe-1.0-mhd-Grandstyle-Edition-71bhp-softip-Petrol-Semi-automatic

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-comparing-epa-figures-page-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/forums/f4/do-they-really-get-30-mpg-more-europe-20997/


Just a comment that overseas cars do NOT get the mileage a lot of people think they get. The one's that do tend to be Sub Compact (City Car in European Terminology) or smaller. The SMART Car for example does so poorly on the EPA Test for its engine is so small that you have to over rev it to get it up to 50 mph, the test speed for the EPA tests. Over reving an engine will lead to early engine failure but also bad fuel economy. Thus the SMART car only gets 38 highway in the EPA test and the Chevrolet Eco-Cruize get 42 Highway mpg on the same tests (and the Eco Cruize has a larger engine, larger body and over all heavier car). The difference is the engine on the Cruize was designed to operate at its best mileage at 50 mpg for it was designed for US use. The SMART car was NOT designed for the US Market, so it has a much smaller engine and its most economic speed is below 50 MPH, while the Cruize does its best mileage at 50 mph.

Since at least the 1980s and increasingly in the 1990s Car makers, both in the US and overseas, knew of the EPA tests set up their cars sold in the US to max out that test. If you stay at 50 mph and only slowly get up to speed and down to a stop you will match the EPA number. If you drive like 99.99% of the population, your mileage will be much less.

Now, since the 1970s the weight of cars have gone down and this is the most cost effective way to improve mileage. Right now, it appears the limit has been reached in reducing car's weight WITHOUT making both the Transmissions and Engines smaller. I read in either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science a report by their then Auto Expert who said he questioned the need for any engine bigger then 2.5 liters (152 Cubic Inches) in the 1970s. Most Cars did NOT have such a small engine til recently (i.e. the last 10 years and most within the last five). The Vega/Monza had 140 and 151 liters engines but few people purchased them, what sold was the V-6s of 3.8 liters and V-8s up to 5.7 liters (Through most people opted for the V-6s). The SMART car and the Chevrolet Eco Cruize can do better then 40 mpg today in the real world.

As to higher mileage, other then the hybrids, the only real increase in fuel economy would be smaller engines. The newer Continuous and Automatic Manual Transmissions can match (and sometimes exceed) what manual transmissions can do in increasing mileage. That is NOT true of traditional Automatic Transmissions, even the newer six speed transmissions (and within the last 20 years, you started to see Automatics Transmission made just for small engines, not big enough also to take a V-8 as was the case of Automatics in the 1970s). Please note the Automatics of today are more fuel efficient then the Automatics of the 1970s, but still not up to Manual Transmissions, Continuous and Automatic Manual Transmissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

Automated Manual Transmissions use a computer to electrically shift the gears in what would otherwise be a manual transmission. This came out of the Semi-Automatic Transmissions of the 1960s but with the addition of a computer doing the shifting.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/september/cars/small-sedans-hatchbacks/automated-manual-transmissions/index.htm

http://www.magnetimarelli.com/excellence/technological-excellences/amt

The problem is the key is still going with a smaller engine, as VW did several years ago in its 200 mpg car (it was a test vehicle not for sale).

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/04/vw_aims_at_200m.html

Since that car was made (it was one of a kind), VW has played with the concept, even making a hybrid version of it:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/xl1.asp

The big reason the VW is producing just 200 of these cars is that they are expensive to make, for they use a lot of exotic parts, including carbon-Fibre body parts and a ,8 liter engine tied in with a plug in electrical charging system. It also shows the real issue on improving auto fuel economy, the need to lower the weight of the car so the smaller engine can move it. Lighter body, lighter engine, lighter transmission better fuel economy, but this light weight does NOT come cheap. We are talking Titanium and Carbon Fibre, neither of which are cheap to buy or build with. No one is willing to use such material on a car people use for commuting, but VW is selling such cars to those people who want the most fuel efficient vehicle on the earth no matter what the cost of the vehicle.

Just a comment that we are heading brick walls when it comes to fuel economy. We do know how to overcome those walls, but can it be done at a price most people can afford? Right now that is looking like a big NO. Hybrids may be the last generation of cars intended for most people, and most people may not be able to afford them. This is the same brick wall the Car Makers have been hitting since the 1970s. Improvements have been done, but they seems to be at the tail end of what they can do. People may have to decide to spend money more to get a Hybrid, or just do without. I do not know if the US economy can withstand a sizable chuck of its population saying they can NOT afford a Hybrid and thus must do without. The US is heading into that brick wall and no one is even addressing it, and that will make it all the worse.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. My POINT is STILL valid that the automakers have TWO markets and the US one SUCKS on MPGs.

[happyslug]

46. The problem is less the car makers then the Car Dealers.

Ford brought in the Fiesta three times since the 1970s, and each time they had to withdraw it for dealers refused to order it. The reason was salesmen received higher commissions on larger cars and wanted to sell larger cars not Sub Compacts. Most Sub compact buyers then went to Japanese dealers who were willing to handle Sub Compacts. Most Sub compact buyers tend to be first time new car buyers, who then stay with that brand and work upward. The domestic local dealers refuse to see this for it meant dealing with a vehicle that sold on price alone.

Sub compact car buyers were and are known to buy any subcompact if it saves them a few hundred dollars, large car buyers tend to be more loyal to brand and thus will pay extra for a car of that brand. Thus Domestic car dealers and domestic car salesmen wanted to sell only larger cars for they provided larger profits. These dealers then had the States pass laws protecting their franchise from competition from new franchises made by their auto makers (Tesla is running across this problem, Tesla want to sell cars directly and in many states that is illegal, you MUST sell through a local dealer, given Tesla have no local dealers they can NOT comply with that law). These state laws are restrictive and in many ways the Auto Makers own fault, they failed to fight to repeal them.

AS to Foreign cars getting better mileage, as I pointed out that is NO true, the number differ but it is do to HOW the numbers are calculated NOT that European Cars get better mileage then Cars made for the American Market. The sole exception is the City cars of Sub sub Compacts with engines smaller then 1,0 liter. Those cars are NOT designed to go 50 mph and as such do poorly on the EPA tests. The makers of those cars are NOT willing to spend the millions of dollars needed to Adapt the test for those cars (i.e. test at 25 mph in addition to 50 mph). The reason is such car makers do not see a return on their investment in changing the EPA testing system given the low profit on such cars. Sorry, the car makers are like everyone else, it has to pay them to make changes and when it comes to small engine cars the car makers do not see any return on their investment (and that is what it is when the car makers lobby Congress to change the law as to MPG).

I hate to say this, Gasoline is still cheaper in the US then elsewhere and given the lack of mass transit as an option, people need larger cars in the US (And that is from someone who is driving a Compact car). US society is set up for all people to have at least a compact, sub compacts barely meet the requirements of most families ad in most cases do NOT meet those requirements. In Europe, do to high gasoline taxes since WWII, they have NOT embraced the Automobile like we have in the US and as such smaller cars work, for automobiles are more a luxury in Europe, as opposed to a necessity that they are in the US.

In many ways that is the difference in the markets, US gasoline prices have been to low for decades and are still to low and that transformed society to one where everyone is expected to own a car and a decent size on to boot. In Europe, Cars are still a luxury that are high price to operate (but not to own) do to high gasoline prices, smaller cars are preferred.

Thus the problem, in many ways, is NOT the auto makers but Congress's refusal to increase the Federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes. If such taxes in the US would equal those in Europe the markets would be the same, but given the huge difference in tax rate you make different cars for each market. Thus the blame in Congress not the Auto makers or even Exxon.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Wrong. The PROBLEM is the car makers LAWYERS playing games with every loophole....

An example would be the SUV. It was SUPPOSED to be an off road vehicle and as such it was exempt from CRASH TESTS. It was NEVER supposed to be something you would take to the market and load with groceries. The first time I saw an SUV made by Cadillac I cracked up.

Then they go the other way, an import from Europe is given an all new drive train to make DAMN sure in only gets around 35MPG.

And as I said, when you ask why they ALWAYS blame the environmentalists.

Something happened recently that changed all of that. The Big Three auto makers crashed and burned and Big Oil, (despite record profits) didn't come to their rescue.

That is the ONLY reason you see mileage standards going up and the introduction of electric cars.

[7962]

14. As long as they're focused on killing each other, they lose the focus on us. Have at it.

Idiots. Like Baptists fighting Methodists if it were to happen over here. Sorry to sound as though I dont care, but its just damn stupid. Its like Westboro Baptist is all over the Middle East

[another_liberal]

16. Is this the beginning of a new order . . .

Or, maybe, just the end of the World?

Seriously, though, is this what the start of regional revolution looks like? How far will it ultimately reach?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. More like the last gasps of the old ruling class.

[7962]

33. Wont reach far unless the oil stops flowing. nt

[cosmicone]

21. Most religions go against logic, common sense and basic humanity.

One religion however, takes the cake in all three and many of its more fervent followers enjoy a blood-thirsty frenzy in trying to install a religion based state, oppressing women and minorities.

[Xolodno]

30. Hmmm.....

Pull back, deny pull back....leave easy target for "Caliphate".

Saudi's have been using proxies for their wars for awhile now. Maybe the US or Iran "advised" Iraq, in that since they are not ready to stop ISIS.....they can herd them towards low hanging fruit. Saudis fighting a group they armed has a sense of poetic justice, particularly since they tried to get the US government involved in Syria and reading the riot act about negotiating with Iran.

Who knows...maybe Iran has affirmed they are not interested in advancing Shiite Islam anymore and are just trying to protect the territory and people they have.

When you think about it...the USA was forced into an abusive relationship with Saudi Arabia when Iran (Persia) went heavily anti USA due to massive interference by the US and British governments.

[roamer65]

48. Jordan is the "canary in the coal mine"

If King Abdullah is overthrown, all hell will break loose.

[another_liberal]

49. It could happen . . .

What could we do to save him?