“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Events in Libya have shown, the US hasn't learnt anything from its past mistakes. The campaign aimed at overthrowing Gaddafi and eventually tearing him to pieces, so enthusiastically supported by the US and its NATO allies, finally resulted in the murder of the US ambassador.




Is Barack Obama arming Al Qaeda?


Oct 16, 2012 15:43 Moscow Time

On Sunday, the New York Times published a lengthy article by David E. Sanger “Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria" that has drawn a wide response in the international media.

The story, citing unnamed American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats, states that most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.

"That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict," the story goes on, "casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States."

One American official familiar with the outlines of those findings told the Times that "The opposition groups that are receiving most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it."

The intricate point is that the US is not sending any arms to the rebel groups directly, and only provides intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria. The shipment itself is orchestrated by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

This may turn into a sensitive issue on the eve of the November 6 election and become embarrassing for the US President Barack Obama who is tied neck-and-neck with his Republican rival Mitt Romney. Arming jihadist militants associated with al-Qaeda instead of true democrats is something that the American public is not ready to swallow.

On the other hand, as the Times points out, the story "also calls into question the Syria strategy laid out by Mitt Romney." In a recent speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney said he would ensure that rebel groups "who share our values" would "obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets." So now it is time for Mr. Romney either to acknowledge that his values are shared by the jihadists, or to admit that the weapons are going to the wrong guys.

Indeed, the revelations made by the paper do not reveal anything new.

The fact that the closest American allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are supplying arms to the most radical Islamist elements is no surprise. On the contrary, it would be surprising if the two countries with the most oppressive radical Islamist regimes were supplying arms to proponents of democracy. And it is highly doubtful that the US was not aware of the fact from the very beginning. When control of the "Great Middle East" is at stake, one should close one's eyes to the true nature of allies, as long as they support one's fight with enemies like Syria or Iran.

Then, what kind of secular opposition "sharing American values" was the US looking for in a war that from the very beginning bore the nature of a religious one. The Sunni majority bolstered and instigated by Saudi Arabia and Qatar is waging an all-out war against all other religious groups in Syria, and not just the Assad family and not even the Shiite Alawite minority. While it is an acknowledged fact that al-Qaeda is the most powerful tool used by the most radical factions of Sunni Islamists, it is no wonder that the arms shipments orchestrated by the Saudis and Qataris go directly to al-Qaeda affiliated groups.

As for al-Qaeda itself, too much has been said that back in 1980s, it was created by the US as a CIA-affiliated militant group fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The fact that later it turned arms against its creator is the result of an obvious miscalculation by the latter.

But as the events in Libya have shown, the US hasn't learnt anything from its past mistakes. The campaign aimed at overthrowing Gaddafi and eventually tearing him to pieces, so enthusiastically supported by the US and its NATO allies, finally resulted in the murder of the US ambassador.

Now, the US is stubbornly trying to drop the same brick on its own toes.

And it hardly matters whether the Times story will help Obama or Romney. The one whom the US voters elect in November, will inevitably be Obamney, which means that the policy is not going to change.

59 comments:

  1. Even Big Bird will not help Obama on the foreign policy debate. However, the author is correct, Romney will be no better at doing anything to stop the utterly destructive US policy of intervention and involvement in the Middle East.

    What will it take to convince us to mind our own business and stay out of the sordid affairs of others?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deuce: What will it take to convince us to mind our own business and stay out of the sordid affairs of others?

    Downgrade of US credit to junk status, interest on the (then) $50 trillion dollar nut higher than the defense budget.

    But what do Democrats do when the race card, and class warfare card, and the gender card max out?

    ReplyDelete
  3. THE MUSLIMS ARE NOT HAPPY!

    They're not happy in Gaza ..
    They're not happy in Egypt ..
    They're not happy in Libya ..
    They're not happy in Morocco ..
    They're not happy in Iran ..
    They're not happy in Iraq ..
    They're not happy in Yemen ..
    They're not happy in Afghanistan ..
    They're not happy in Pakistan ..
    They're not happy in Syria ..
    They're not happy in Lebanon ..

    SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?

    They're happy in Australia .
    They're happy in Canada .
    They're happy in England ..
    They're happy in France ..
    They're happy in Italy ..
    They're happy in Germany ..
    They're happy in Sweden ..
    They're happy in the USA ..
    They're happy in Norway ..
    They're happy in Holland .
    They're happy in Denmark .

    Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!

    AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?

    Not Islam.
    Not their leadership.
    Not themselves.

    THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!

    AND THEN; They want to change those countries to be like....THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

    Excuse me, but I can't help wondering... How dumb can you get?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that is excellent, Miss T. But what do we do? Welcome them in.

      End Moslem Immigration Now!

      bob
      Buck
      Chief Plenty Coups

      Delete
    2. Miss T copies without giving credit to?

      Delete
  4. The adults want to talk about:

    Libya
    Iran
    unemployment
    recession
    Fast and Furious
    a 1 trillion dollar a year welfare state
    a 16 trillion dollar debt
    The White House being a "hostile work place" for women
    The moron Joe Biden being one heartbeat away

    The children want to talk about:

    Big bird and binders.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the true adults want to talk about jobs, and the recession. That other stuff is pretty far down the list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanwhile, the thinkers are probably more interested in "energy," and the "true cost of our China policy."

      Delete
  6. NASA is proposing a low-earth orbit spectrographic project called FINESSE which be able to gather spectroscopic data from 200 known exoplanets over a two-year period, helping scientists to determine the composition of their atmospheres, surfaces, and even their weather.

    That would be a step up from their primary role under the current President, of Muslim outreach.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With all the excitement, and hyperbole concerning fracking, etc, a Six Hundred Percent Increase in the number of Rigs drilling since 2005 has led to a 20% increase in U.S. oil production.

    Rigs/Production

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, even with $90.00 Oil they seem to be running out of good drilling prospects (witness the recent decline in "rigs-drilling.")

      Delete
  8. For those that are surprised that I don't get too het up over "global warming," I would bring your attention to this chart:

    CO2 Measurements at Mauna Loa

    As you can see - CO2 is increasing at about 0.5%/yr. In other words it would take about 100 years to increase the temperature of mother earth 1 degree F.

    IF, we continued the increase in Fossil Fuel use at the current rate.

    However, since oil has, more or less, peaked, and since coal is probably no more than 10 years behind oil, the whole things just seems to be a non-event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another thing, the line from 1970 to the present is pretty much a straight line, no "exponential" sign (this, I might add, in spite of the fact that our fossil fuel use has been somewhat exponential in its growth.) Something to think about.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chief Buffalo Chip say pump up car tire.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0

      Bicycle tire maybe.

      Chief Plenty Coups

      Delete
  10. Obama's foreign policy is to weaken the United States. His Defense Secretary has warned about the coming defense cuts. He wants to get us down to 300 nukes. Iran will have the bomb, maybe Egypt too. Takes the missile shield out of Poland, Czechoslovakia. No more ships. No more planes. No more nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Who Is Responsible for the Mess in Libya?
    The unraveling of a value-free foreign policy and its unintended consequences

    Andrew Napolitano | October 18, 2012

    How many times have you heard the truism that in modern-day America the cover-up is often as troubling as the crime? That is becoming quite apparent in the case of the death of Chris Stevens, the former U.S. ambassador to Libya.

    Stevens and three State Department employees were murdered in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month, on September 11th. About an hour before the murders, the ambassador, who usually resides in the U.S. embassy in Tripoli but was visiting local officials and staying at the consulate in Benghazi, had just completed dinner there with a colleague, whom he personally walked to the front gate of the compound. In the next three hours, hundreds of persons assaulted the virtually defenseless compound and set it afire.

    Around the same time that these crimes took place in Benghazi, a poorly produced, low-grade 15-minute YouTube clip was going viral on the Internet. The clip shows actors in dubbed voices portraying the prophet Mohammed and others in an unflattering light. The Obama administration seized upon the temporary prevalence of this clip to explain the assault on the consulate. Indeed, the administration sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to represent it on five Sunday morning TV talk shows on September 16th, to make the claim that the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube clip, that it could not have been anticipated, and that the perpetrators were ordinary Libyans angry at the freedom moviemakers in America enjoy.

    Soon, U.S. intelligence reports were leaked that revealed that the intelligence community knew the attack was not as described by Rice. The intelligence folks on the ground in Libya reported before September 16th that the attack was well organized, utilized military equipment and tactics, and was carried out by local militias with ties to al-Qaida. In response to these leaks, the State Department, for which Rice works, acknowledged that the assault was an organized terrorist attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Obama administration has publicly rejected the intelligence leaks and insisted as recently as last week during the vice presidential debate that "we" did not know the assault was an act of terrorism against American personnel and property. The word "we" was uttered by Vice President Biden, whose credibility hit a new low when he insisted that the government did not know what we now know it knew. A day after the debate, the White House claimed that the "we" uttered by Biden referred to the president and the vice president, and not to the federal government or the State Department. This is semantics akin to Bill Clinton's "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is."

      Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in one of her rare forays into domestic politics, backed up the White House. She actually claimed that the White House was kept in the dark by the State Department.

      What's going on here?

      What's going on here is the unraveling of a value-free foreign policy and its unintended consequences. The whole reason that the streets in Libya are not safe and the country is ruled by roving gangs of militias is because the U.S. bombed the country last year. In an unconstitutional act of war, the president alone ordered the bombing. It destroyed the Libyan military, national and local police, roads, bridges, and private homes. It facilitated the murder of our former ally Col. Gadhafi and ensured the replacement of him by a government that cannot govern.

      The consulate attack defies the claims of the president, articulated loud and long during this presidential campaign, that because he killed Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida is dead or dying, and the terrorists are at bay. Thus, in order to be faithful to his campaign rhetoric, the president has been unfaithful to the truth. I personally have seen excerpts from intelligence cables sent by American agents in Libya to Washington on September 12th, the day after the attack and four days before Rice's TV appearances, acknowledging the dominant role played by al-Qaida in the attack.

      So, who is to blame here? The president. He is responsible for destroying the government in Libya, and he is responsible for the security of U.S. personnel and property there. He is accountable to the American people, and he is expected to tell the truth. Instead, he has leaked the possibility of more bombings in Libya. These bombings would be more than a month after the Benghazi consulate attack and would attack the very government that Obama's 2011 bombs helped to install.

      Is it any wonder that Bill Clinton, in an unguarded private moment, referred to Obama as "the amateur"?

      Delete
  12. Arm al Qaeda, disarm America.

    Dangerous Cuts To Defense Spending And Veterans Care Are Mandated By Obama’s Sequester

    “Total Defense Function Spending Must Be Reduced By $54.667 Billion.” (“OMB Report Pursuant To The Sequestration Transparency Act Of 2012,” Office Of Management And Budget, p.6, 9/14/12)

    Obama’s Sequestration Would Cut Defense Programs By 9.4 Percent And A Number Of Pentagon Accounts By 10 Percent. “The overview: There would be a 9.4 percent cut to most defense programs – except those exempted in the sequestration law – and a 10 percent cut to a handful of other Pentagon accounts that are not subject to annual congressional appropriations.” (Austin Wright And Jonathan Allen, “White House Releases Sequester Details,” Politico, 9/14/12)

    The White House Sequestration Report Claims That “Sequestration Would Result In A Reduction In Readiness Of Many Non-Deployed Units.” “While the Department of Defense would be able to shift funds to ensure war fighting and critical military readiness capabilities were not degraded, sequestration would result in a reduction in readiness of many non-deployed units, delays in investments in new equipment and facilities, cutbacks in equipment repairs, declines in military research and development efforts, and reductions in base services for military families.” (“OMB Report Pursuant To The Sequestration Transparency Act Of 2012,” Office Of Management And Budget, p. 1, 9/14/12)

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Says Cuts To Defense Will Result In The “Smallest Ground Force Since 1940, The Smallest Number Of Ships Since 1915 And The Smallest Air Force In Its History.” “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spelled out a doomsday scenario Monday that he said could occur if Congress fails to take action to avoid a $1 trillion cut in defense spending over the next decade. Panetta, responding to a letter from Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, said cuts of nearly $100 billion a year would leave the United States with its smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the smallest air force in its history.” (David Alexander, “Panetta Spells Out Budget Cut Doomsday Fears,” Reuters, 11/14/11)

    “‘The Impacts Of These Cuts Would Be Devastating For The Department,’ Panetta Wrote Monday In His Letter, Which Was Released By The Senators.” (David Alexander, “Panetta Spells Out Budget Cut Doomsday Fears,” Reuters, 11/14/11)

    If Sequestration Takes Effect, The Navy’s Current Fleet Of 285 Ships Would Be Reduced To 235 Ships. “Ayotte later told New Hampshire reporters that Navy officials say if the cuts take place, the current fleet of 285 ships must be reduced to 235 over the next 10 years, which, she said, would be the smallest U.S. Navy since 1915. She said the Navy believes 313 ships are needed to adequately fulfill defense needs.” (John DiStaso, “Ayotte Warns: Defense Cuts Potentially ‘Devastating’ For Shipyard, Contractors,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/29/12)

    The Reduction Would Include Submarines, Of Which The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Is Responsible For Maintenance On. “The reduction would include submarines, and Ayotte noted that the shipyard is responsible for maintenance of attack submarines.” (John DiStaso, “Ayotte Warns: Defense Cuts Potentially ‘Devastating’ For Shipyard, Contractors,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/29/12)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Dangerous Cuts To Defense Spending And Veterans Care Are Mandated By Obama’s Sequester

      Obama's sequester?

      Bob, you are a complete clodpate.

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      The original fight over the Budget Control Act involved the central argument over a trigger that would cause pain if a final agreement couldn't be reached. For a trigger, the Dems wanted to reverse the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and the GOP wanted a reversal of the individual mandate in Obamacare. When they couldn't agree on either of these, they finally settled on the current sequestration bill that effected spending cuts in both military and non-military spending.

      Ryan voted for the bill he now decries, in fact, he pushed to get it passed; and when it did he called it a victory.

      Now, since the GOP obviously miscalculated (again) he is whining about the military cuts.

      He is being too clever by half. He says the goal (his goal one assumes) "...was never that these defense cuts actually occur, the goal is that we get to work and cut spending so that we prevent those defense cuts...I voted for a mechanism.”

      Here we have Paul Ryan channelling John Kerry's much-ridiculed statement in the 2004 campaign, that he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.

      That a certain dunderhead from the boondocks of Idaho can't see this is sad but not unexpected.

      .

      Delete
  13. ((((( Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Says Cuts To Defense Will Result In The “Smallest Ground Force Since 1940, The Smallest Number Of Ships Since 1915 And The Smallest Air Force In Its History.” “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spelled out a doomsday scenario Monday that he said could occur if Congress fails to take action to avoid a $1 trillion cut in defense spending over the next decade. Panetta, responding to a letter from Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, said cuts of nearly $100 billion a year would leave the United States with its smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the smallest air force in its history.” (David Alexander, “Panetta Spells Out Budget Cut Doomsday Fears,” Reuters, 11/14/11) )))))

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chief Buffalo Chip want fight Sioux, Cheyenne with no pony, bow, arrow.

    Heap shit.

    Chief Plenty Coups

    ReplyDelete
  15. THE AMBASSADOR DIED, OBAMA LIED

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yeah, instead of spending 2.0 Times the amount on defense of the next 15 Countries, Combined, we would only be spending 1.8 Times the Next 15 Countries, Combined.

    Oh, Noes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Europe spends nothing. We defend them. Canada too. Mexico too. Japan too.....

      Delete
    2. When even Big Chief Panetta doesn't like it, we ought to be concerned.

      Delete
    3. .

      Bob, why do you continue to prove that you are such a sap?

      Europe spends nothing. We defend them. Canada too. Mexico too. Japan too.....

      Do you think that will change under Romney? More likely the 'allies' will be given earned income credits on their non-spending.

      Grow up. Grow a brain, you dolt.

      .


      Delete
    4. Actually, Obama did bring "some" troops back from Europe. At least, One Combat Brigade, that I know of.

      Yeah, yeah, I know; not a lot compared to the hundred thousand or so that we have there. But, still . . . .

      Delete
    5. In fact, the Europeans have decided not to go down the expensive route of developing their own aircraft and instead have provided assistance in the development of the F-35 as their future front-line aircraft.

      The services needing the F-35 will still have to rely primarily on updated F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and F-22s, as will European partners who will have to weigh whether to continue their investment in the F-35 or instead place their limited funding in upgrading what they have.

      http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/troubles-mount-for-f-35-jet-fleet/

      Delete
  17. OBAMA LIED, THE PRESS COMPLIED

    ReplyDelete
  18. Relax, boys, pop a beer. Your problems will ALL be over in a little over two weeks. :)

    Romney's going to Increase Defense Spending, AND Lower your taxes.

    Zippa dee doo dah, zippa dee yay

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AND, Balance the Budget, AND put back that $716 Billion for the Hospitals, and Insurance Companies. :)

      Man, it's Great being a Republican.

      Who knew there was so much magic in a pair of drawers?

      :)

      Delete
  19. Look at this shit -

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/back_in_the_eussr.html

    Back in the EUSSR

    Picture of new EU symbol.

    Pagan59

    Three Crosses and five Hammers and Sickles, which ideology do you think the totalitarians in the European Parliament prefer? Daniel Hannon is brilliant. Nigel Farage is no slouch either.




    ReplyDelete
  20. This is a cool chart:

    Chart


    The Bakken "Shale" Play has not, in one single month since 2009, produced a positive cash flow. It is, now, $14 Billion "upside down."

    That play might not, Ever, "turn a profit."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why o why do I continue to listen?

    Louisiana Tech 35
    Idaho 14

    FIRST QUARTER

    Louisiana has only gained about 300+ total yards so far....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 49-14, nine and a half minutes left in the first half.

      I walk with Blake in hell, delighting in the torments of the devils, and the rejected.

      Here's to 100 for Louisiana Tech!

      Delete
    2. Final Louisiana Tech 70
      Idaho 28

      Put in the subs or they would have gone over 100

      ....

      Maybe the question above should not be, Is Barack Obama arming Al Qaeda? but rather Is Barack Obama arming Al Qaeda intentionally?

      ?

      Delete
  22. .

    How both sides lie...er, I mean mislead with the numbers

    On the surface, we want our world divided into simple outcomes, winners and losers. But the candidates would be well advised to look at another number: the popular vote, which is likely to be extremely close. Winning slightly more than the other guy does not equal a mandate. If in 2013 politicians show a little more modesty about what numbers really mean, they may see a particularly important number improving: their approval rating.


    Do you think either side will view it that way if they win?

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In an election night, or morning, wrap up, I'll be reporting on the number of votes cast nation wide for the Natural Law Party, with a magnifying glass on the Michigan area. If the Natural Law Party should win, I want to know what kind of mandate they have really gotten. I fear it might go to their heads.

      Delete
    2. You might be onto something. The Dems won in '08 and shoved ObamaCare up our asses, then got clobbered in '10, and now may lose the Presidency and the Senate over it this time around. Humility is generally a good thing.

      By the way, here's another look at the 'Liverpool Pathway", which is coming to your family soon, if things don't change.

      Just tag that toe with your own name, and that of your loved ones -

      http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/20/47622/

      Delete
    3. .

      What this has to do with my post above, I haven't a clue. I'm sure after this year's election the NLB won't be claiming a mandate.

      However, you are a betting man. Would you like to bet that whichever major party wins in November won't have leaders spouting the oft used phrase "The people have spoken!", ironic given that half the people who voted for the winners actually had to hold their nose while voting?

      .

      Delete
  23. The U.S. Navy has just flipped the switch on its latest solar power venture, a 13.8-megawatt behemoth at its vast China Lake research center in the Mohave Desert. The Navy’s new China Lake Solar Power Plant is expected to save about $13 million per year in electricity costs, accounting for about 30 percent of the facility’s annual electricity usage. Amazingly, there were virtually no up-front costs for the Navy and the entire thing didn’t cost taxpayers one thin dime.
    Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1qAyi)


    Navy Solar Power for Nothing

    If you’re familiar with the commercial solar industry, the Navy’s ability to get “free” solar power is no mystery. The China Lake plant was constructed under a power purchase agreement (PPA) with SunPower Corp. in which SunPower got the right to install its solar panels on Navy-owned land, and in return the Navy agreed to buy electricity generated by the panels.

    Under the agreement, the price of the solar-generated electricity is much lower than the price the Navy was paying for grid-supplied electricity, and that’s where the savings comes in.

    The new installation uses the SunPower Oasis™ Power Plant product, which is designed as a fully integrated, pre-assembled module. That pretty much accounts for how the plant just broke ground last January and here it is up and running in less than a year . . . .


    Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1qAyi)

    Hell of a Deal for the Swabbies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, shit, I forgot; I'm a Republican, Now.

      Ah, the damned thing will probably break down, anyway. And the taxpayers will have to pay to haul it away. And, the poor desert turtles won't get enough sunshine, and all those panels will probably interfere with the earth's rotation, and cause cancer in whooping cranes, and bald eagles. And, all; and what's wrong with coal, anyway; and Deuce thinks they're ugly, and they won't work as well as the ones in Havaaii, and Bob knows they're some sort of Kenyan, Anti-American plot. And, Q thinks they're all dicks, and . . . .

      Delete
    2. Under the agreement, the price of the solar-generated electricity is much lower than the price the Navy was paying for grid-supplied electricity, and that’s where the savings comes in.

      Hmm, we might ought to be contacting our new Republican Overlords; this type of thing could get out of hand in a hurry.

      Delete
    3. .

      Real impressive, Rufus.

      But you put this stuff up as if it is something new. Companies, private companies, have been doing these kind of things to reduce energy costs for decades.

      An example is Ford's Wayne Assembly Plant (Wayne was combined with Ford's Michigan Truck Plant operations in 2009)

      A long-term agreement between Detroit Edison and Wayne allows landfill gas from Woodland Meadows Landfill to be collected, compressed, and sent through underground piping to the plant. The boilers burn a combination of natural gas and landfill gas to create steam for use in the plant., The landfill gas also powers three engine generators, which produce approximately 2.4 megawatts of electricity. The electricity is sent to Detroit Edison's grid system using a step-up transformer. Flaring of the landfill gas is minimized in turn reducing emissions from the landfill. Exhaust from the engines is recycled via ducts to the boilers' fireboxes; the combustion in the boilers acts as a re-burn cycle to further reduce the emissions from the engines. The 2 MMBTU per hour of recovered heat from the engines means less gas in the boilers, reducing energy consumption and emissions. The partnership of Ford and Detroit Edison gives the utility company an electricity source from garbage that displaces coal-fired power.

      It makes sense to do whatever it takes to reduce costs including those of energy. Companies all over the country are doing things like these just to stay competitive. Look some place other than Clean Technica and you might find a few.

      Not quite sure what the rest of your rant was about but you seem to be having a breakdown over this election thingy.

      .

      Delete
  24. Amazingly, there were virtually no up-front costs for the Navy and the entire thing didn’t cost taxpayers one thin dime.


    Come to think of it, killing this god-awful commie crap might oughta be one of those "first day on the job" things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give us a report on the use of the Chevy Volt by our military, Rufus.

      No one else wants to drive it, so the military gets stuck with it, and they sure as hell don't want it.

      Delete
    2. Give it a rest, Bob. Just pick up your election win at the door, and be happy.


      btw, they sold a record 2,500 Volts in Sept. It's brand new technology, and expensive, but that could change a bit. And, customer satisfaction is very high with those cars.

      I don't know if you noticed, but the much-maligned Prius was the number one selling car in California last month.

      Try not to be a complete fucking fool, okay; you just embarrass yourself.

      I mean, what the fuck does that Navy Solar deal have to do with the Volt?

      Delete
    3. Lifetime Democrat Lee Iacocca Endorses Romney...


      So, it can be done. Look at Lee...and Rufus. Though you might look at Lee a little harder. Rufus just doesn't want to be "swept into the dustbin of history"

      Delete
    4. I am quite certain I will be swept into the dustbin of history, and probably quite soon. Not one of my major "concerns."

      And, I'm sure that everyone on this site, but you, has figured it out by now that I've been yanking your chain. Romney has no more chance of being elected President than does Lee Iacocca's dog (and, the Dems are going to carry the Senate, easily. The Death Panels await you.)

      But, think about what you've been posting. You seem to be all concerned about the Military having enough money, and yet when I post an article where a Military Installation is saving $13 Million/Yr, with No Up-Front Costs, all you can think of to do is ask some sort of ill-informed, silly question regarding a new high-mpg technology vehicle.

      Delete
  25. Gives us a break, Rufus, The Navy is letting that company use their land RENT FREE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Put another way, the Navy is getting 'free stuff' by giving up some 'free stuff' on their side. It's called a 'swap', swabbies.

      Delete
    2. It's in the fucking MOHAVE DESERT, Bob!!!

      You couldn't give that shittin' land away.

      Delete
    3. 13 Megawatts would be approx. 90 Acres if Mohave Desert. You couln't raise a decent rattlesnake on ninety acres of that desolate wasteland.

      Delete