Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! dehliwalla #92: ``There is no exact way to measure when will Oil supply exhaust to completion, but it is widely acknowledged by financial analysts in Wall Street that when prices hits $100 per barrel, at the present rate of consumption, that is constantly rising now that India/china has joined the race, more excavation will further put the downward pressure on the Oil, hence making it more expensive to drill and not to mention refining it.``

Sardarji......ik naween theory.......I don`t mean to pick on you, but you are coming up with one new theory after another..........Now you are stating that there is no way to measure when the oil supply will run out. In your last reply, you stated that the oil supply would run out in 30-40 years! Is it running out or is it not running out?

Could you point me to the Wall Street analysts who are stating that, ``when the price of oil with reach $100/barrel......`` x and y will happen.

And what exactly are the stating? What does, ``more excavation will further put the downward pressure on the Oil, hence making it more expensive to drill and not to mention refining it`` mean?

It doesn`t make sense.....If more excavation will, ``furthur put the downward pressure on the oil,`` how does that make it more expensive to drill for it. As technology is advancing, drilling for oil, and getting oil from tar etc. is becoming cheaper, not more expensive. And how will it make it more expensive to, ``refine`` oil? What does cost of refining have to do with downward pressure on oil?

The fact is that oil is not running out in 30-40 years. It is peaking in that time. Also, the price of oil is not going up due to lack of oil availability. It is going up due to lack of refining plants. And there is nothing to gaurantee that it will go beyond $100/barrell. At best, this could happen in a quick short term; if that. In fact, once it gets beyond x dollars, it actually becomes viable to get oil out of tar-sands, which will reduce the price of oil, again........

The key is to build more refiniries. Which will get build, under the laws of supply and demand. Now, someday oil will run out, obviously. But no one really knows when. It certainly isn`t in 30-40 years. People have been predicting its peak for a while. And they get proven wrong and wrong again, due to advances in technology, and newer reserves which are found..........

Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! dehliwalla #92: ``you people cannot take any debate in positive light. Anyways;;``

What exactly is taking a debate in positive light mean? I am simply asking you questions on some pretty wild assertions you are making. What is wrong with that? Do you consider that negative? What is negative about asking you to quantify an assertion. Feel free to ask me to quantify any assertion I make. I will not consider it negative. In fact, that is what debating is all about..........

You basically stated that the world was going to run out of energy sources in 30-40 years, and based your argument on that. You stated that Condi was an expert in x, y and z areas, and based an argument on that.........

I simply asked you to validate them. If the world is actually going to run out of oil in 30-40 years, as you claimed, then the debate will go in one direction, on this article. If it isn`t then it would go in another direction..........

You could simply state that your initial assertion was wrong............

Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! Stuka #77: ``Actually, what I did read was a paper on the impact of high energy prices on US consumption and conservation in the 1970s.``

Thanks for the info............Can you point me to the paper, or any similar paper. Did it state that 50% of the energy needs of a country could be handled by nuclear energy? That seems like a pretty big deal. There must be other papers on it, also, since such a large number would completely alter the way the world functions. In such a case, India`s deal with the USA would make a lot of sense. However, if the figure is not 50%, but undecided or far less than 50%, then the Indian deal would take a different turn...........

Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! Stuka #71: ``Even if you reduce fossil fuel dependence world over by say 50%, (obviously a huge target) it will lead to a glut in the market.``

50% is something one can consider. But 100% was a bit too much for me. However, even on the 50%, can you point me to some studies, on the basis of which, you have come up with this figure. Or is it your own guess?

Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! Netizen #49: ``I think russian and china abstained form the voting, they didn`t vote in favor of iran.``

Yes, this is correct. Only Vaneuzula voted in favor of Iran.........Others abstained, including Pakistan.........

Delhiwallah #45: ``Fossil Fuels: We all know that they are not going to last more than 30-40 years.``

Sardarji, thora hath hola rakho, tay saday tay rahm karo. Aye, tusseen, kidroon khich khich kay knowledge di barsaat kar raye hoo :)............

You keep coming up with some pretty wild assertions. Condi is an expert on China and had a background as a master strategician in foreign affairs. That was bad enough........But now the supply or energy resources are going to run out in 30-40 years. Not only that, but, aparently, ``we all know`` that.........

Could you kindly let us know where you got this formula from. The world is, today, more self-sufficient in oil, than ever before. In fact, the world will not even hit its peak production of oil till thirty to forty years from now - a point at which you are stating that the world will actually, ``run out`` of oil! And this is based on current technologies related to drilling.......The only reason the price of oil is high today, is not because of shortage of supply, but because of shortage of refining plants..........

If we take the evolution of technologies into account, then the supply becomes even higher, in the future. The tar-oil reserves in Alberta alone, make Canada a larger reservoir of oil than Saudi Arabia! And these reserves alone will be able supply the USA all its oil needs, for 40 years..........

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

I hope your fellow Sardarji, Manmohan Singh, thought through this, a bit more than you did.........

Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! Urstruly #43: `` wont quote any example from European countries but just your country Canada only. Canada is the country that can meet its 100% energy requirements thru nuclear power and even then it is left with surplus electricity``

Thanks for the info......I agree that access to nuclear technology is any country`s God-given right. In fact, I think access to nuclear weapons is also, unless there is a ban on all countries..........This was the argument used by India (and Pakistan) historically.........

To me, 100% energy requirements include things like electricity to light my light-bulbs, fuel to drive my car, gas to heat my house, energy to run my factories, fuel to grow my transportation systems, etc.

How can all of this be met 100% by nuclear energy. I don`t think it is being met 100% in Canada. It would require a complete re-construction of various entities that use energy. For example, the automotive industry will have to be revamped to create cars that can run on nuclear fuel. As will the transportation industry, the manufacturing plants etc.

If, however, nuclear energy is a 100% replacement, then why is the price of oil going through the roof? And why are countries fighting over gas and oil fields?

Scream Behram1 #163: As I stated earlier, if you want to interact with someone, then accept the writing style of the individual. If you don`t like the writing style, don`t interact with them. I am not trying to get you to change your writing style. Please don`t try to change mine........

Institutions are nothing more than the people who are their members. And there are honest poeple in every institution and group. But as a whole, Pakistan is a very corrupt country. And in any corrupt country, it is the affluent and the powerful who will be carrying out the most corruption, as a group. Since they have access to the most resources. And all of us on Chowk, are part of the affluent group. We must take responsibility, instead of always passing it onto others.......

The business community is as corrupt, as anyone else. The business community works through various institutions, and it works with various institutions. This includes the various Chambers of Commerce, Securities Exchanges, various Business organizations, Income Tax, Wapda, Customs etc. If you don`t think these organizations are corrupt, then I think both you and I have a different idea of how business gets done in Pakistan.

Just a simple customs collector in Pakistan can make a fortune. How exactly does he do that? He does it by accepting bribes on items that come into the country for various business houses. Similarly, how can the Income Tax dept. be corrupt, without someone on the other end, who is carrying on tax evasion? The larges amount of tax evasion is by the business community.........

The highest level of corruption, in a poor society, will always occur amongst the most affluent group. In Pakistan, the dice is heavily loaded in our favor. And unfortunately, we, as a community (which includes Chowk crowd) have let the society down. There are individual stories of success, and perhaps as you claim you maybe one. But as a whole, we, the group, have been a failure............

In any case, let`s agree to disagree..........If you don`t feel you have to take responsibility for the problems and corruption in Pakistan, that is your choice. But I do take responsibility. That is my choice........And I doubt we will be able to convince each other, of our views..........

Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik! Urstruly #21: Your analyses would be a lot better, if you stopped suffuxing them with ideological views. You tend to ruin otherwise good analyses in such a manner.......

``Your thesis is viable only if viewed thru the pradigm of energy sources that India utilizes today. However, I think that we should consider the option of alternative energy sources that are open to India.``

This is the question I asked. If nuclear power is a comprehensive replacement for other energy resources, then I think India has made a perfect move. If it is a replacement, then why haven`t the Western countries adjusted to it? Why is oil and natural gas in such high demand, to the point that countries are willing to invade and occupy other countries to control it. And why is price of oil going through the roof?

Delhiwalla #25: ``Down the road, Nuclear Technology would remove all the dependence of foreign countries and will make Indian self sufficient for at least 50-60 yrs and support India in it`s Space Conquests.``

Kindly explain what India is planning to conquer in space :) Is nuclear technology a compreshensive replacement for fossil fuels? Is fossil fuel demand dying? I think this is a key factor in deciding the importance of nuclear technology. If India will be self-sufficient for 50-60 years, through nuclear technology it gains from the USA, then why is the USA fighting over oil. And why are China and Russia fighting over oil and natural gas?

There seems to be a disconnect here.............

``Condy is a trained strategician in foreign affairs specialising in Balkans/Russia and China.``

Condaleeza Rice is an expert in Cold War Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Eastern Europe. I am not aware of her area of expertise being China. Or post-cold War Russia or post-Cold war Balkans. Could you point to some references..........

Her only foreign affairs assignment that I know of was a two-year stint in Bush Srs. administration, under Brent Scowcroft. Other than that, her career has been in various managerial and academia positions, in political science, at Stanford. Could you highlight how she became a, ``trained foreign affairs strategician?``

The Ground Beneath Pakistan’s Feet Anil #659: ``You have at least me as the supporter if Pakistan adopts the line you have stated.``

This is correct. Hamidm mian had figured out this whole situation, before the rest of us. I will have to give him credit for that. This is the way to go, in my opinion, for Pakistan.....But, as hamidm mian has pointed out, Pakistan should never agree to an India-centric solution, which legitimizes Indian occupation. It should also not agree to, ``business as usual`` without a clear agreement from India for a step-wise long term solution to Kashmir that is not India-centric........

Such a solution has an Indian component to it also. And it has a Kashmiri component. And I don`t see the Indian component taking any action, at the moment. There is no desire in India to form a long term solution on Kashmir, based on any kind of principle. The solution need not occur today. It could occur in thirty years. But there has to be some principle that must be agreed to. And the principle cannot just be India-centric.

If you take a look at all regional conflicts in South Asia, they have been settled by India, using force, on India-centric principles. From Parition to Bangladesh to Kashmir. This is why South Asia is a mess. As I keep saying, you are being extremely naive if you think Pakistanis and Kashmiris will agree to any solution, which does not take into account some sort of self-determination for Kashmiris. And that will involve re-adjustment of boundaries. If India has cut-off that option, from day one, then what in the world are we heading for?

Musharraf went out on a limb, and hung himself like a political piniata, by offering to withdraw UN Resolutions in return for India getting rid of Atut-ang. What kind of response did he get? Nothing. Manmohan Singh, the next day, said, we will accept anything accept ``territorial adjustments,`` thereby leaving Musharraf hanging in the wind! This window will last for another year, or so. After that, Musharraf will withdraw his offer, due to lack of equivalent response from India. And India will have missed a huge opportunity.

You (and Dost-mittar etc) need to get out of this, ``holding onto Kashmir at all costs, without territorial adjustments`` mentality. This is the problem, not the solution. It has messed up South Asia for 55 years. It will only mess it up more for the next 55 years. It has no principles on which it can stand. Not even principles, Indian, themselves, can define, based on India`s conduct in the past. This mentality is the basis of violence between India and Pakistan. It can never be the solution. It will always be the problem.........

Pakistanis are, now, out of this mentality. Once India is out of this mentality, also, then we can define a long term solutions, based on what Hamidm is saying. Any such solution to Kashmir WILL involve territorial adjustments. There are no other solutions, which have any principled basis. Those adjustments don`t have to fully satisfy Pakistan or Kashmiris. But they have to, at least, partially satisfy both.

Pakistan should give up on UN Resolutions. Kashmiris should give up on getting ``all`` of Kashmir. India should give up on Atut-Ang. The first two parties are ready. India is not. After all three parties are ready, then there are a million and one solutions that can be agreed to. And we can agree to them, peacefully, over the next decades.

``therefore in the future, if the two develop common interest, yes they will do business. Look next door India and China.``

Anil, you are far too shrewd a businessman to do business with someone you cannot trust and do not have faith in. You would not have had so much success in business if you did not evaluate business proposals, based on the trustworthiness of the person pitching it to you.............If I have ripped you off twice, you will never invest in me, until I give you a gaurantee that I am changing my ways, based on some legalities.........You will never invest in me first, and then hope that I don`t rip you off again............

I am not an expert in this area, but from what I know, India and China are starting to do business, after China agreed to India`s right over Sikkim. And India agreed to China`s right over Tibet. India made an adjustment to its stance of a long long time on Tibet (I personally agreed to India`s previous principled stance on opposing China, on Tibet, but that is a different debate).

Things did not just change on their own. China would never engage India, if India wanted a one-sided acceptance of Sikkim. With nothing in return, for China.

All mutual conflicts are only resolved on the basis of principles. Even if an immoral principle is followed, it has to be followed consistently. This is exactly what I am arguing for. I cannot see how any long term peace can occur in South Asia, if the only principle that will be followed, will be, ``India defines the solution, and then uses military influence to settle the solution in its favor, or remains in a state of conflict, forever.``

At the moment, will India vacate its troops from Kashmir. I don`t see that happening. Due to this, I don`t see the indigenous portion of the militancy in Kashmir dying down. I do see Pakistan changing directions, based in the direction suggested by hamidm. But I don`t see Pakistan agreeing to any solution that does not have territorial adjustments based on Kashmiri wishes. Nor should it, agree. And I don`t see India offering any such solution.............In addition, I see a young Indian generation, which will be even more hardened on anti-Pakistan ideas...........

India, in my opinion, is missing a golden opportunity to solve this problem. Musharraf has literally bent over backwards to offer all that Pakistan can, and more..........All India had to do was to agree to partial territorial adjustments..........And it isn`t even willing to do that............

Here is my solution:

Pakistan keeps Northern Areas. India keeps Jammu and most of Ladakh. India gives up the valley. Pakistan gives up Azad Kashmir (even though Azad Kashmiris want to remain with Pakistan desparately). Both the Valley and Azad Kashmir become a separate entity, with no ties to India or Pakistan, jointly run by both or run by UN, with no options of ever joining India or Pakistan.

Every side gains and loses equally.............Both India and Pakistan agree to this framework and we spend the next 20 years to implement. This is how conflicts, like Alsace-Lorraine etc., in Europe were solved. They weren`t solved through magic...........Both sides sacrificied............