Vandalus;842613276 said:

---

The coalition forces (and Russia) have begun targeting the trucks in recent weeks in an attempt to hurt their finances. When we first started the air campaign we apparently only went after those refineries and storage areas that were confirmed in ISIS control. It's my understanding that they changed their tactics and started up with these long columns of trucks, and for months we weren't attacking them for humanitarian reasons.

Essentially there is a lot of collateral damage to consider when thinking about attacking infrastructure like this (or power, water, communications, etc.) In this case, the truck drivers are just the locals driving trucks who need to earn a living, and generally aren't AK-47 wielding hardened jihadists. If you live in an area that has come under ISIS control, you either pledge allegiance or get executed, so what would you do if you are just a regular guy and need to put food on the table? They tell you to be a truck driver, and hey, that's no so bad (certainly better than getting your head chopped off, or watching your daughter sold off into slavery) so you agree to do it. Does that mean that you are now an enemy combatant and liable to be killed indiscriminately?

To avoid that kind of collateral damage we have been dropping leaflets warning them of the potential attacks on their columns prior to dropping the actual bombs in the hopes that they will jump out of their trucks and run away. There's definitely a lot to consider - certainly a lot more than just "lets carpet bomb them until the sand glows" which sounds a lot like a veiled threat for the use of atomic weaponry.

---

This doesn't sound like smart strategy. So we give the drivers advance notice with the hopes that ISIS will not get the same message in time to protect the supply?

calbear93;842613294 said:

---

This doesn't sound like smart strategy. So we give the drivers advance notice with the hopes that ISIS will not get the same message in time to protect the supply?

---

How exactly are they going to protect the supply? They are in caravans that are miles long in the middle of the desert being bombed from the air with no air defense system in place. I personally think that its the right call to give these guys advance notice and an opportunity to GTFO of dodge. I think it would only harm us if we are killing a bunch of, arguably, innocent bystanders. It's basically shooting fish in a barrel.

[video=youtube;8f8xp8T6xLk][/video]

Vandalus;842613301 said:

---

How exactly are they going to protect the supply? They are in caravans that are miles long in the middle of the desert being bombed from the air with no air defense system in place.

---

If they have advance notice that certain caravans will be targeted, force women and children in the trucks to make it even harder for US to bomb. I wouldn't put it past them to demonstrate such evil.

Vandalus;842613276 said:

---

The coalition forces (and Russia) have begun targeting the trucks in recent weeks in an attempt to hurt their finances. When we first started the air campaign we apparently only went after those refineries and storage areas that were confirmed in ISIS control. It's my understanding that they changed their tactics and started up with these long columns of trucks, and for months we weren't attacking them for humanitarian reasons.

Essentially there is a lot of collateral damage to consider when thinking about attacking infrastructure like this (or power, water, communications, etc.) In this case, the truck drivers are just the locals driving trucks who need to earn a living, and generally aren't AK-47 wielding hardened jihadists. If you live in an area that has come under ISIS control, you either pledge allegiance or get executed, so what would you do if you are just a regular guy and need to put food on the table? They tell you to be a truck driver, and hey, that's no so bad (certainly better than getting your head chopped off, or watching your daughter sold off into slavery) so you agree to do it. Does that mean that you are now an enemy combatant and liable to be killed indiscriminately?

To avoid that kind of collateral damage we have been dropping leaflets warning them of the potential attacks on their columns prior to dropping the actual bombs in the hopes that they will jump out of their trucks and run away. There's definitely a lot to consider - certainly a lot more than just "lets carpet bomb them until the sand glows" which sounds a lot like a veiled threat for the use of atomic weaponry.

---

Seriously. Did every on the death star deserve to die? Of course not. Unfortunately that's how people see it.

calbear93;842613306 said:

---

If they have advance notice that certain caravans will be targeted, force women and children in the trucks to make it even harder for US to bomb. I wouldn't put it past them to demonstrate such evil.

---

I hope that never comes to pass. If it does, we will have to address it - but unless/until it does, I think giving advanced notice if the humanitarian thing to do.

http://www.afr.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-eyes-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-for-renewables-20150522-gh796b

Al-Naimi their "Oil Minister" has publicly stated that phasing out oil into this mid century is a strong possibility. Phasing oil for Saudi Arabia?!? Is this for real or some strategic Janet Yellen doublespeak to get competitors to stop pumping oil in the long run? They are pumping money into renewable energy. True investment or just a hedge? Probably both. Also with the whole world agreeing to eventually reduce carbon emissions, maybe the writing is on the wall. If this is the case, can the price of oil go back up? As one time firm believer of the peak oil, I don't know what to believe. Is oil down for good? Maybe not every drop of oil WILL be pumped out so Saudi is going to get what they can, or if you are long in oil, this the buying opportunity of a lifetime?

burritos;842620927 said:

---

http://www.afr.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-eyes-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-for-renewables-20150522-gh796b

Al-Naimi their "Oil Minister" has publicly stated that phasing out oil into this mid century is a strong possibility. Phasing oil for Saudi Arabia?!? Is this for real or some strategic Janet Yellen doublespeak to get competitors to stop pumping oil in the long run? They are pumping money into renewable energy. True investment or just a hedge? Probably both. Also with the whole world agreeing to eventually reduce carbon emissions, maybe the writing is on the wall. If this is the case, can the price of oil go back up? As one time firm believer of the peak oil, I don't know what to believe. Is oil down for good? Maybe not every drop of oil WILL be pumped out so Saudi is going to get what they can, or if you are long in oil, this the buying opportunity of a lifetime?

---

Easy answer: fewer people drive during the winter. Oil Companies qare waiting for Summer to close down refineries for "maintenance".
Should be called "maintenance of profits".

Apparently Chevron didn't get this message. They bought up all the Tower Mart stations around my area and immediately started raising gas prices. I watch CNBC daily and I was getting pretty frustrated seeing the price of oil go down daily and then driving by all these new Chevron stations only to see the price of their gas rise. I'm pretty much never going to a Chevron station ever again if I can help it.

burritos;842620927 said:

---

http://www.afr.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-eyes-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-for-renewables-20150522-gh796b

Al-Naimi their "Oil Minister" has publicly stated that phasing out oil into this mid century is a strong possibility. Phasing oil for Saudi Arabia?!? Is this for real or some strategic Janet Yellen doublespeak to get competitors to stop pumping oil in the long run? They are pumping money into renewable energy. True investment or just a hedge? Probably both. Also with the whole world agreeing to eventually reduce carbon emissions, maybe the writing is on the wall. If this is the case, can the price of oil go back up? As one time firm believer of the peak oil, I don't know what to believe. Is oil down for good? Maybe not every drop of oil WILL be pumped out so Saudi is going to get what they can, or if you are long in oil, this the buying opportunity of a lifetime?

---

Vandalus;842613276 said:

---

The coalition forces (and Russia) have begun targeting the trucks in recent weeks in an attempt to hurt their finances. When we first started the air campaign we apparently only went after those refineries and storage areas that were confirmed in ISIS control. It's my understanding that they changed their tactics and started up with these long columns of trucks, and for months we weren't attacking them for humanitarian reasons.

Essentially there is a lot of collateral damage to consider when thinking about attacking infrastructure like this (or power, water, communications, etc.) In this case, the truck drivers are just the locals driving trucks who need to earn a living, and generally aren't AK-47 wielding hardened jihadists. If you live in an area that has come under ISIS control, you either pledge allegiance or get executed, so what would you do if you are just a regular guy and need to put food on the table? They tell you to be a truck driver, and hey, that's no so bad (certainly better than getting your head chopped off, or watching your daughter sold off into slavery) so you agree to do it. Does that mean that you are now an enemy combatant and liable to be killed indiscriminately?

To avoid that kind of collateral damage we have been dropping leaflets warning them of the potential attacks on their columns prior to dropping the actual bombs in the hopes that they will jump out of their trucks and run away. There's definitely a lot to consider - certainly a lot more than just "lets carpet bomb them until the sand glows" which sounds a lot like a veiled threat for the use of atomic weaponry.

---

Soldiers in an enemy army don't have many choices, either. So you don't shoot when you go to battle?

joe yaks;842613241 said:

---

ISIS is supposedly funding its activities with oil sold on the black market from production in Kurdistan, etc.

Questions:
Who is purchasing this oil?

It's moved by truck convoys. Why can't the flow be stopped?

---

Because Obama doesn't want to kill civilians (ie, truck drivers)

LethalFang;842621119 said:

---

Soldiers in an enemy army don't have many choices, either. So you don't shoot when you go to battle?

---

Exactly. It's a feel good calculus which ultimately means the innocent lives of our citizens (and those of our allies) killed by ISIS matter less than the lives of people in Syria who may or may not be innocent.

LethalFang;842621119 said:

---

Soldiers in an enemy army don't have many choices, either. So you don't shoot when you go to battle?

---

Yeah, because they are soldiers. That's exactly the same situation. By your analogy, an employee of Novosibirsk Cartridge Plant in Moscow is an enemy combatant because they work on the factory floor pressing 7.62x54mm rounds that are used by ISIS fighters. Or how about the American made WOLF rounds that have been found in in the field in the possession of ISIS? Are those who are employed by WOLF also "soldiers" because the fruits of their labor are used by the enemy? Or how about Toyota employees? ISIS sure loves their Toyota trucks.

http://www.conflictarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dispatch_IS_Iraq_Syria_Ammunition.pdf

tequila4kapp;842621130 said:

---

Exactly. It's a feel good calculus which ultimately means the innocent lives of our citizens (and those of our allies) killed by ISIS matter less than the lives of people in Syria who may or may not be innocent.

---

No, the feel good calculus is to characterize anyone over there as an "other" and subject to indiscriminate killing without much of a care for the complex situation on the ground. Never mind the fact that the more non-combatant's who we kill as "collateral damage" just breeds more contempt among the locals to fight against us, which perpetuates the cycle.

Vandalus;842621135 said:

---

No, the feel good calculus is to characterize anyone over there as an "other" and subject to indiscriminate killing without much of a care for the complex situation on the ground. Never mind the fact that the more non-combatant's who we kill as "collateral damage" just breeds more contempt among the locals to fight against us, which perpetuates the cycle.

---

Complex? Reducing oil revenues = reducing ISIS' capacity.

ISIS is attacking everyone that doesn't subscribe to their exact version of Islam, including other Muslims. The win them over with kindness argument is beyond absurd.

And for the record, I do not view the truck drivers as "others." I find that characterization of what I said to be offensive. Their deaths are not justified by their region or religion. If it happens it is an unfortunate necessity for the greater good.

tequila4kapp;842621147 said:

---

Complex? Reducing oil revenues = reducing ISIS' capacity.

ISIS is attacking everyone that doesn't subscribe to their exact version of Islam, including other Muslims. The win them over with kindness argument is beyond absurd.

And for the record, I do not view the truck drivers as "others." I find that characterization of what I said to be offensive. Their deaths are not justified by their region or religion. If it happens it is an unfortunate necessity for the greater good.

---

[video][/video]
Fast forward to 1:33

Vandalus;842621132 said:

---

Yeah, because they are soldiers. That's exactly the same situation. By your analogy, an employee of Novosibirsk Cartridge Plant in Moscow is an enemy combatant because they work on the factory floor pressing 7.62x54mm rounds that are used by ISIS fighters. Or how about the American made WOLF rounds that have been found in in the field in the possession of ISIS? Are those who are employed by WOLF also "soldiers" because the fruits of their labor are used by the enemy? Or how about Toyota employees? ISIS sure loves their Toyota trucks.

http://www.conflictarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dispatch_IS_Iraq_Syria_Ammunition.pdf

---

When we were fighting Germany, their factories, supply ships, power plants, etc. were perfectly legitimate targets. Thus, factories within ISIS control are priority targets. Soft-targets maintaining ISIS' war efforts should be destroyed first and foremost to minimize their fighting capabilities before actually fighting them on the battlefield.
OTOH, when ISIS got weapons on the black market, you cannot target the original manufacturer. Different matter. Different solutions.

Vandalus;842621135 said:

---

No, the feel good calculus is to characterize anyone over there as an "other" and subject to indiscriminate killing without much of a care for the complex situation on the ground. Never mind the fact that the more non-combatant's who we kill as "collateral damage" just breeds more contempt among the locals to fight against us, which perpetuates the cycle.

---

It's not that complex. ISIS supply lines are not collateral damages. They are legitimate military targets.

LethalFang;842621184 said:

---

It's not that complex. ISIS supply lines are not collateral damages. They are legitimate military targets.

---

Agreed. May I also add that Sherman's March to the Sea was a thing of beauty and anyone or anything who was killed or destroyed in his wake, deserved it 110%.

LethalFang;842621184 said:

---

It's not that complex. ISIS supply lines are not collateral damages. They are legitimate military targets.

---

I never said they weren't. I support the destruction of their oil supply lines. But I agree with our decision to try to mitigate unnecessary deaths to those who are not fighters.

That being said, there are serious ramifications for the civilian population, including those who are relying on oil for home heating. I also question the cited figures for what ISIS is making from their oil operations. There is ample evidence to suggest that they aren't making anywhere near the $1.5m/day that was cited in the press.

Lastly, the Geneva Conventions prohibits the destruction of many types of infrastructure as a direct response to the scorched earth policies of WW2. But hey, this isn't the first time that we've ignored those rules, and won't be the last.

Vandalus;842621199 said:

---

Lastly, the Geneva Conventions prohibits the destruction of many types of infrastructure as a direct response to the scorched earth policies of WW2. But hey, this isn't the first time that we've ignored those rules, and won't be the last.

---

ISIS isn't exactly conventional so the world needs to consider whether violating Geneva is actually the only way to reduce collateral damage in the long run both to people suffering under the ISIS regime and worldwide victims of their terrorism.

Vandalus;842621199 said:

---

I never said they weren't. I support the destruction of their oil supply lines. But I agree with our decision to try to mitigate unnecessary deaths to those who are not fighters.

That being said, there are serious ramifications for the civilian population, including those who are relying on oil for home heating. I also question the cited figures for what ISIS is making from their oil operations. There is ample evidence to suggest that they aren't making anywhere near the $1.5m/day that was cited in the press.

Lastly, the Geneva Conventions prohibits the destruction of many types of infrastructure as a direct response to the scorched earth policies of WW2. But hey, this isn't the first time that we've ignored those rules, and won't be the last.

---

I do not oppose efforts to reduce deaths to people who do not mean to fight against us. But war is not fought theoretically. Any person in service of ISIS, whether they chose to or were forced to, is a legitimate target.

Wait, Saudi Arabia is our ally right?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fiorina-carson-saudi-arabia-executions_56894931e4b0b958f65beac9?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Executing 47 "terrorists". Wow. They are going Uber Texas style.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/05/462065762/troubles-are-up-in-the-middle-east-but-oil-prices-are-down-huh?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=yourmoney
Fascinating.

Not just oil ... China's weakening economy is a big cause but various commodities are falling also.
Producers keep producing despite the weak demand.

China’s Hunger for Commodities Wanes, and Pain Spreads Among Producers
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/business/international/chinas-hunger-for-commodities-wanes-and-pain-spreads-among-producers.html

Because there was a bumper crop of olives last year.

Money is cheap. Drillers in North America and the Middle East are financing their shortfall through bonds and creative financing schemes. The investment banks (and the ridiculous low interest rates) are keeping ALL oil producers in business right now. It's a bubble...but an artificially low bubble as opposed to most bubbles that are over-inflated assets.

hanky1;842631461 said:

---

Money is cheap. Drillers in North America and the Middle East are financing their shortfall through bonds and creative financing schemes. The investment banks (and the ridiculous low interest rates) are keeping ALL oil producers in business right now. It's a bubble...but an artificially low bubble as opposed to most bubbles that are over-inflated assets.

---

Not really a bubble ... more like a hole as, for various reasons, the supply keeps increasing as the demand is decreasing, so, describing it as a bubble, usually caused by "irrational exuberance", is okay but obscures the old supply demand curves as well as the panic reasons why producers keep digging the hole deeper.
However, consumers are finally enjoying the low gasoline/heating oil prices after having been gouged for years by these same producers, who kept supply down to inflate prices.
F 'em.

hanky1;842631461 said:

---

Money is cheap. Drillers in North America and the Middle East are financing their shortfall through bonds and creative financing schemes. The investment banks (and the ridiculous low interest rates) are keeping ALL oil producers in business right now. It's a bubble...but an artificially low bubble as opposed to most bubbles that are over-inflated assets.

---

When will this happen to cable? I though with cheap money, there'd be inflation.

Short reprieve for the oil producers with recent prices floating up recently. However, expect oil prices to plunge soon. The termination of the Iran embargo keeps on giving.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-says-not-attend-qatar-oil-production-meeting-052802004--finance.html