print      source      versions

Comments ... #

It's refreshing that you admit this. Not many republicans wish to be honest about this subject. Greenspan said this but then quickly retracted the statement. However, the implications of such an admission are not very good. First, it means that the things America thought it stood for are basically not true. Democracy, freedom, liberty are trumped by money. The implications of this statement are that Americans really are not interested in establishing freedom in these countries or an equitable economy or social system, but rather securing our own interests.

Second, it shows that people who accept that the war in Iraq is about oil must also accept that they do not really believe in the free market system. If arabdom and the other nations of the world choose to raise the price of oil, then that is their right in a free market system. You might naively say that America is going to establish a free market in the mideast and they are really protectors of liberal trade. However, we know that that is not going to be true even if America could establish a stable democratic nation in the mideast, something that is getting farther and farther out of reach. Since the people do not or cannot embrace democracy and fight for it, the country will probably end up with either another Saddam Hussain running a despotic secular state or else it could end up like Iran and be run like a religious despotic state. In any event, there will probably not be free oil trade.

Anyway, I appreciate your honesty and it puts out on the table what has been so plainly obvious for many years. Thank you.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 21, 2007 at 03:43:48 pm     #

I don't know about anyone else, but the war has always been about oil, freedom and national security for me. They all tie together.

Personally, I have never cared either way about WMD's - or even 9/11 specifically for that matter. That's not to say that I don't care about 9/11 - but it wasn't the end all justification for me. I think we should have done this years ago.

>>it shows that people who accept that the war in Iraq is about oil must also accept that they do not really believe in the free market system. If arabdom and the other nations of the world choose to raise the price of oil, then that is their right in a free market system.>>

Being in a free market doesn't mean having the freedom to form a monopoly (Middle Eastern countries export 40% of the world's oil). Especially on a resource that is so universally valuable that the global economy hinges on it. And if having the monopoly isn't bad enough, to use it to fund attacks against our country and oppress people in your own country, indoctrinating and stoking an ideological hatred of us.

There is nothing free about the Middle East. The oil ownership needs to be broken up and the people need to be raised out of economic and religious oppression.

posted by babbleman on Sep 21, 2007 at 04:28:51 pm     #

I'm sorry, got my number mixed up. Middle Eastern countries export 48% of the world's oil. Considering that we consume 41% of the world's oil, freeing this market and keeping it that way is extremely important for worldwide freedom.

posted by babbleman on Sep 21, 2007 at 04:39:32 pm     #

Ok, now I am officially spamming this thread - sorry.

Exporting and consuming is just the daily flow.

In terms of assets, the Middle East is holding 60% of worldwide reserves.

posted by babbleman on Sep 21, 2007 at 04:43:47 pm     #

Is the war in Iraq about oil? I agree with AHL, with the caveat that the war in Iraq is not exclusively about oil. There are a few other factors, such as the monetary interests of any manufacturing company with a US military contract and construction companies who have contracted to rebuild Iraq. Let us continue with AHL's diatribe...

If the largest oil reserves in the world were controlled by an anti-democracy, anti-west, anti-capitalism, ANTI-U.S. dictator, such a tyrant would have to power to cripple the U.S. economy,

That would be the reserves in the middle east, many of which already are controlled by a dictator whose sympathies are not with the United States. The middle east has been this way for years and years.

Because of the liberal policies of the 80's and 90's restricting domestic production, limiting the construction of nuclear plants, stifling refinery construction, and limiting domestic exploration, we are beholden to the powers that be in the middle east.

Now we're in the barn yard. I had high hopes when I started this reading this little exercise in honesty and integrity, but it seems my hopes are every bit as forlorn as yesterday's racing form. The United States imports almost all of its oil from Mexico. That would be the same Mexico that we're having the immigration problem with, the very same Mexico that continually sends us their tired, their hungry, their poor, their gang members, revolutionaries, mentally ill and violent criminals. This would be the Mexico that our federal government is reluctant to separate US citizens from by constructing a wall along the border. Believe it or not, this is the same Mexico that also sends us various recreational substances highly prized by desperately bored citizens everywhere in the US. And, while I'm at it, this is the very same Mexico that exports critically pregnant chicas who deliver their babies in US hospitals, then enroll the new citizens in US schools where we have to provide them with a teacher fluent in Spanish, because we wouldn't want to discriminate against little Pedro, would we? Which makes taxes go up like a fucking moon rocket on methamphetamine. Yeah, that Mexico.

As for limiting the construction of nuclear power plants, let me tell you something, AHL. I used to work at a nuclear power station, and the only way I'd ever let another nuclear power station be constructed is if the engineers on site and the politicians in office at the time of construction could be held criminally liable when the thing finally failed, and if, at their trial, I could pack the jury with Greenpeace activists, each and every one of whom was a constipated soccer mom with hemorrhoids who was currently experiencing severe menstrual cramps. Half of these jurors should be recently divorced soccer moms who caught the Old Man cheating and now suspect they have some weird new sexually transmitted disease. By the way, the Davis-Bessee Nuclear Power Station is a train wreck looking for a place to happen; That it hasn't is proof of Devine Intervention.

As to the domestic exploration, let's refer to that by its proper name, shall we? Lets fuck up the environment beyond any hope of repair so that we can cut oil imports by 4%, or at most, 5%. Canada won't mind, will they? Maybe someone like you, genius, ought to ask Canada because, strange as this may be, what we aren't getting from Mexico we are getting from the Canadians, less the wetbacks, pollution and Lord only knows what that sneaks across the border with Mexico. Check me on this, but the last time I looked we weren't having a major problem with Canadian citizens sneaking across the border at Niagara Falls to land a good job cleaning toilets at a Motel 6 in Detroit. Yet we are going to casually crap all over Canada's back yard with this "domestic exploration" bull shit.

Sadam was a valid threat to our national security

I'm willing to bet that Sadam couldn't even find the United States on a map labeled in Arabic, let alone threaten it. Sadam didn't do any more or less than anyone else in the middle east that wasn't Jewish. They listened to their Clerics, shouted imprecations and fired their AK 47's into the air on Yiddish high holidays. The terrorist organization Al Qaeda attacked the US, so the US sent troops to Afghanistan and dropped both jack boots on them, and if we'd confine our activities to Al Qaeda we would all be better off.

An so the diatribe continues: forced to succumb to the desires of Muslim extremists

Not true. This is making me tired, so I'm going to be brief. If the US did, in fact, invade Iraq in order to get the oil there, where is the oil? Because I don't see any of it. I see that fuel is over $3 per gallon, and if we are supposed to be looting the place, shouldn't we be seeing some kind of payoff by now? We aren't, and we won't. This "war" with Iraq was started by an inept president, one who will probably be remember as one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States, and that's saying something.

Oddly enough, I wouldn't oppose the war in Iraq if only I could see some benefit to the stupid business. I don't. All I see is a monumental debt that makes the Reagan years pale by comparison.

If the US government wants to end the country's dependency on oil, here's the first step:

"The single biggest step that Congress could take to reduce our oil dependency is to significantly increase the fuel economy standards of the cars and trucks that Americans buy and drive," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which works on environmental issues.

From:
Bill Wouldn't Wean U.S. Off Oil Imports, Analysts Say

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Page A01

The is an automobile being sold in India right now that runs on compressed air, but naturally the auto can't pass US safety standards. I suppose it has something to do with fuel.

posted by madjack on Sep 21, 2007 at 06:34:50 pm     #

Wow -- Madjack I'm not sure where to start.

A least you attempt to weave some facts into your post with the quips, jibes, falsehoods, exaggerations and clever plays on words. Problem is most of your facts are incorrect.

You attempted to hide the standard lib arguments but you failed.

"such as the monetary interests of any manufacturing company with a US military contract"

CMON just say it your dying to...HALIBURTON -- boo hisss evil.

Nice try playing immigration against oil - transparent.

So you worked at a nuclear power station. OK, congrats, you helped produce the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power generation on the planet. Your work history, however, does not grant you a position of authority or superiority. Davis Bessie was as mess yes, anyone DIE. NOPE. The problem with nuclear power plant regulation is???............ITS GOVT. RUN.

"Lets fuck up the environment beyond any hope of repair so that we can cut oil imports by 4%, or at most, 5%."

That is how you characterize domestic exploration and production. Well smoke a dooby, kick of the Birkenstocks, and lightly paddle on the bongos while drinking from your sierra cup. Your facts, rhetoric, and enviro wacko assertions are even less hidden standard lib talking points.

I am a proud son of the single most successful example of both petroleum development and eco-tourism and conservation. Alaska. A clean environment, safe planet, and successful oil exploration are not in opposite. Canada is in fact leading the way in domestic petroleum reserve access, including shale oil production. They need it, they are dying under federalized social medicine and IMMIGRATION issues.

"invade Iraq in order to get the oil there" THAT is not what I said, not what my post meant, and is a drastic oversimplifcation if the issue. Thanks for making our point.

ilovetoldo:

You managed to oversimplify my statements and exaggerate their meaning and impact in the same response. Nice try. The reality of admitting the fact that control of Middle East oil is a national security issue, does not equate to the abandonment of Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy principles.. I did not say OPEC did not have a right to charge whatever price the market would bare. I freely accept that control of those resources by those people and countries bent on our destruction could cripple us as a nation. Your interpretation and attempt to twist my position simply shows your narrow view. It is not a zero sum equation between the principles. But yes, freedom is at times messy.

"Americans really are not interested in establishing freedom in these countries or an equitable economy or social system, but rather securing our own interests."

Well, if "securing our own interests" means safeguarding and ensuring the safety, security, and continuation of our country, democracy, freedom and liberty. I agree. What other "interests" should be our national priority?

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 21, 2007 at 07:22:07 pm     #

The populations of virtually every Middle Eastern country have exploded in the last twenty years, and the majority of the demographic is an age group younger than thirty in many of these countries. Look it up. The people have become accustomed to a standard of living which may not measure up to ours, but is better than many other poorer countries. What does this mean? They have to sell their oil no matter who is in charge anymore, it doesn't really matter. They cannot turn off the spigot as they had done in the early seventies. That game won't work for a minute.

The second part of the wrong theory is that we are fighting for the right to get cheap oil. I believe the President and Vice President are beholden to their Texas oil slick buddies, oil companies, and campaign financiers, and also throw in a few Saudi Sheiks which would mean the opposite. There is a vested and profit driven interest in keeping the price of oil high, not lowering it. Watch where the money comes from, and watch to whom it is distributed. There will be your true answer.

posted by Bbcmjeep43 on Sep 21, 2007 at 08:04:02 pm     #

>>The United States imports almost all of its oil from Mexico.>>

It is amazing how people spout off things like this and either assume that they will be swallowed unchallenged or have themselves swallowed it unchallenged. Madjack, where did you get this from? I am serious - I would like to know. Was it a liberal blog?

Ok, time to look at some real numbers.

The US consumes around 20 million barrels a day and produces about 9 million barrels for a net import of around 11 million barrels.

Mexico produces about 4 million barrels a day and consumes about 2 million leaving a net export of about 2 million. The US imports about 1.6 million barrels of Mexico's 2 million. That is about 17% of what the US imports - not quite what I would call "most".

So where does the US really get most of its imported oil? You guessed it - OPEC at 5.6 million barrels per day. That's a 62% dependency!!

But frankly, it doesn't really matter where the US gets it from. The enemy holds a near monopoly on a key ingredient of the world's economy. What's more, the US consumes more of it than anyone else. That is a serious problem.

Now, regarding the idea of reducing that dependency by regulating fuel consumption or using alternative energy - what will both of those result in? A significant increase in the cost of energy - and energy cost is a significant factor in economic health - and economic health (and growth) is what is required to maintain a security force to protect us.

Tying the environmental causes to energy dependency is incredibly bad strategy.

posted by babbleman on Sep 21, 2007 at 08:27:02 pm     #

>>The second part of the wrong theory is that we are fighting for the right to get cheap oil.>>

Its not about "rights" to "cheap" oil. It is about freeing a market to make it more competitive, more stable and less able to fund totalitarian regimes and their terrorist allies.

It is about economy and security all at once. At it is not just "for" the US. It is for the world. They are evil - we are good. Evil is threatening the world and we are the strongest superpower in the world. We have to do this for ourselves and the rest of civilization.

>>There is a vested and profit driven interest in keeping the price of oil high, not lowering it. Watch where the money comes from, and watch to whom it is distributed. There will be your true answer.>>

Of course - everyone is always trying to get as much of a market as they can. That is exactly what happened in the Middle East. So we are going to try to break it down. Will others come in and try get as much as they can? Absolutely - so we have to watch that too. But what is your point? Leave it as it is?

Two things are important:

1. Increase the number of producers.

2. Decrease the amount of government controlled production.

posted by babbleman on Sep 21, 2007 at 08:41:54 pm     #

"Sadam was a valid threat to our national security strictly based on this issue, and his demonstrated desire to expand his grip on the gulf. Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, and the terrorists they support constitute the same valid threat. We can, should, and must continue to fight for democracy in and friendly control of the Middle East."

The difference between Saddam and Al Queda is the difference between Stalin and Hitler. Which was the true believer? Which one will have the "will" to radiate the oil fields with nuclear fall-out if they believe that their ideology won't succeed without it. We need oil (we are capitalists, not ideologues), they do not (they are quite content to return to a 10th century existenace). To believe that the threats we make against their population base have any bearing on their religious leadership is playing with fire. As long as we are dependent on oil from the Third World they have us by the balls, and any threats we make are empty. We need oil to provide for a non-religious consumer society. They don't care about non-believing consumers.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Sep 21, 2007 at 09:52:36 pm     #

If gay marriage was legal in Ohio I would propose.

You rock babbleman!!

A-Hole, The ironic conservative.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 21, 2007 at 09:54:04 pm     #

Its not about "rights" to "cheap" oil

My point exactly.

It is about freeing a market to make it more competitive, more stable and less able to fund totalitarian regimes and their terrorist allies.

1. I disagree. It is about controlling Iraq’s production capacity and awarding future production rights to our oil and energy companies. Keeping control of supplies, and ensuring steady high pricing. Who profits from this scenario?
2. Oil companies cannot make any real money, a.k.a. correct amount of profits, unless there is a floor under pricing, this must be maintained whether artificially or otherwise.
3. The Saudi ruling family holds enormous power in Washington. High prices are not only in their interest, but their survival depends upon it.
4. Those profiting from this scenario have never been concerned about gas pump prices, they are multi-millionaires and are much more concerned with their stock portfolios which include energy and defense companies.

They are evil - we are good. Evil is threatening the world and we are the strongest superpower in the world. We have to do this for ourselves and the rest of civilization.

Who is they? The boogey-man? This line of thinking encourages endless war.

But what is your point? Leave it as it is?

They have to sell their oil no matter who is in charge anymore. A population must be fed no matter what their ideology is. I believe the people over there want to control their own countries, make their own laws, and do not like being occupied, no matter what the reason is.

P.S. I have to figure out how to use this new textile and html coding and what I'm doing isn't working. I did read the reference sheets.

posted by Bbcmjeep43 on Sep 21, 2007 at 10:38:14 pm     #

If gay marriage was legal in Ohio I would propose.

So now we have AssHoleLawyer offering to do the nasty with Babbleman. I don't want to know any more about it.

posted by madjack on Sep 21, 2007 at 10:56:49 pm     #

Sure, Haliburton.

You know, this idiot, AssHoleLawyer, reminds me a lot of LimeDrops. Is that you, Limey?

posted by madjack on Sep 21, 2007 at 10:58:16 pm     #

Bbcm,

>>1. I disagree. It is about controlling Iraq’s production capacity and awarding future production rights to our oil and energy companies. Keeping control of supplies, and ensuring steady high pricing. Who profits from this scenario?>>

Ok, so of course there will be jockeying for position - and of course there has been jockeying already for most of the last century.

But right now, what is being funded by the majority controllers of the world's most valuable resource is the worst kind of tyranny and evil and oppression that can happen when political and economic power derive not from the population being productive but from the whim of a handful of people that ended up with the winning geographic lottery ticket - and not only that, but they are one and the same with their government too. And that tyranny, both directly and indirectly, is producing a culture of war against us. It is the perfect storm of challenge to world order.

So in the process of breaking it up, thus reducing the risk to us and hopefully igniting a spark of individual freedom in such an otherwise dark place, and quite possibly saving the world, I am not really concerned if the outcome means another Enron or two or maybe a few more yachts and Hummers for Bush's friends. I mean, I understand that shit will go down and I don't condone it. But to me, it's like the proverbial dollar tripping over a nickel. The positives so outweigh the negatives that they aren't a deal breaker.

>>2. Oil companies cannot make any real money, a.k.a. correct amount of profits, unless there is a floor under pricing, this must be maintained whether artificially or otherwise.>>

With enough producers and no global market fixing cartels, the cost will be up to the ingenuity of each producer and the price will be unmercifully driven down by you. The more it is broken down and the less government that controls it - the more "otherwise" it will be.

>>3. The Saudi ruling family holds enormous power in Washington. High prices are not only in their interest, but their survival depends upon it.>>

Excellent! That gives us another opportunity to strike back - let's de-fund our federal government except for defense (its only essential function). The only reason there is power in Washington to hold (and thus to gain access to by others) is because Washington has succeeded in taking power (that is, money) from us (as of today, 60% of our income).

You said earlier we should follow the money trail to get the real answer. Maybe you have just found both the beginning and end of the rainbow :)

>>4. Those profiting from this scenario have never been concerned about gas pump prices, they are multi-millionaires and are much more concerned with their stock portfolios which include energy and defense companies.>>

But you are going to buy from the lowest priced of them. And the more of them that there are, and the less collusion between them (like OPEC), the more they are going to reverse bid for your purchase. So the more producers the better for you (and less better for them). So why would you not want to break them up and pit them against each other?

posted by babbleman on Sep 22, 2007 at 12:23:33 am     #

I'm no Limey. I'm a good ole fashioned Mick.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 22, 2007 at 07:19:31 am     #

Two clarifications:

1) according to this, the official energy stats from the government,

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in July, exporting 2.317 million barrels per day to the United States, which was a decrease from last month (2.375 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.605 million barrels per day.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

CANADA
MEXICO
SAUDI ARABIA
VENEZUELA
NIGERIA
ALGERIA
IRAQ
ANGOLA
COLOMBIA
KUWAIT
LIBYA
UNITED KINGDOM
ECUADOR
BRAZIL
EQUATORIAL GUINEA

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

CANADA
MEXICO
SAUDI ARABIA
VENEZUELA
NIGERIA
ALGERIA
RUSSIA
IRQA
ANGOLA
UNITED KINGDON
VIRGIN ISLANDS
COLUMBIA
KUWAIT
BRAZIL
LIBYA

2) This otherwise interesting discussion is based upon comments from Greenspan about the war. According to MSNBC,

Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
...
In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.”

But Greenspan’s main support for Saddam’s ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

“My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.

What's he's saying in this interview is that his support for the war was economically motivated. Other news reports also included his admittance that he was not involved in discussions concerning other reasons presented for the war.

IMHO, people wil use his statements to reinforce their own opinion.

And here's a different question: does protecting the U.S. economy qualify as 'national defense'?

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 22, 2007 at 07:48:43 am     #

Sadly the war was about oil. Of coarse then, that means Bush lied to the American people. And the one lesson I learned from the Clinton years was that lying = Impeachment. If I had a dollar for every time I heard some right wing asshole say “It’s not about blowjobs, it’s about the lying.” I could retire.

The extra sad part here (there are soooo many) is that Bush can’t even guarantee Americans cheap oil. We’ve now been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought in Europe in WWII and we have nothing to show for it. Bush is an incompetent buffoon.

Now if we had invested the $500 Billion that we have spent (and the $500 Billion we will spend if the buffoon has his way) we could be independent of foreign oil. Of coarse Bush’s friends (big oil, Saudi dictators) wouldn’t be raking in trillions each year.

posted by SensorG on Sep 22, 2007 at 07:53:00 am     #

The post has nothing to do with the price of oil. Bush has no power to impact the price of oil, other than by ENCOURAGING domestic produciton, ENCOURAGING continued development of nuclear and coal energy production, and ENCOURAGING congress to continue cutting taxes to support economic growth.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 22, 2007 at 08:27:11 am     #

Maggie:

In the stats above, Canada and Mexico are both the top EXPORTERS to the US, and the top IMPORTERS world wide. Interesting.

Your follow up question of whether protecting the U.S. economy qualifies as "national defense" is a slightly different take on the issue than I attempted to post.

I think overall control of Mid East Oil reserves and means of production is a national security issue. Not because of increased prices, but because such control (retained by our enemies) could halt our ability to function at the most basic levels, domestic energy production and delivery, transporation, food production, etc.

Thanks for your continuing voice of intelligence and reason in NW Ohio.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 22, 2007 at 08:35:43 am     #

And here's a different question: does protecting the U.S. economy qualify as 'national defense'?

No. Nor is there much precedent for it.

posted by madjack on Sep 22, 2007 at 08:43:42 am     #

Here are the figures I used (2005):

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

Mexico accounted for 12% of total US imports that year (I said 17% above becuase I was using a different year's number for the total).

As a single country source, Mexico is the second largest, yes (with Canada being number 1). But at 12% of the total, this statement does not stand:

>>The United States imports almost all of its oil from Mexico.>>

posted by babbleman on Sep 22, 2007 at 09:03:00 am     #

So...I'm trying to get this straight.

If someone has something you need and the person isn't very nice, then it's alright to take it?

posted by SensorG on Sep 22, 2007 at 11:17:57 am     #

If someone has something you need and the person isn't very nice, then it's alright to take it?

That depends on the relative military strength between the two of you.

posted by madjack on Sep 22, 2007 at 12:42:59 pm     #

The United States imports almost all of its oil from Mexico.

No, it does not stand, and you are quite right in saying so.

As of 2005 the United States imported 3.9% of our oil from Iraq, which I will round up to 4%. So this 4% is worth fighting a multi-billion dollar war over? No, I don't think so. Iraq is (was?) a part of OPEC, the organization that's been giving the US such a wonderful deal on oil since about 1973, when the US sided with Isreal against the Arabs.

If we needed oil, we could easily buy it somewhere else. Unless we don't want to buy the oil, we just want to help ourselves. In which case, the war in Iraq still doesn't make good economic sense.

Again, if this war is about oil, just where is this cheap or free oil we're supposed to be getting?

posted by madjack on Sep 22, 2007 at 01:18:29 pm     #

Mexico accounted for 12% of total US imports that year (I said 17% above because I was using a different year's number for the total).

Which is close enough for the purpose of this discussion. Combine that with Canadian imported oil, and we have 25 to 30 percent. Mexican oil imports go a long way to explaining our policy about illegal aliens and amnesty.

posted by madjack on Sep 22, 2007 at 01:21:18 pm     #

So you worked at a nuclear power station. OK, congrats, you helped produce the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power generation on the planet.

Real wrong. Nuclear power is dirty as hell and it isn't getting any cleaner. Hydro, wind, solar are all clean sources of power. In particular, none of them pollute the atmosphere or provide us with nuclear waste.

Your work history, however, does not grant you a position of authority or superiority.

The hell it doesn't. I was there, you moron. I saw what happened on a regular basis at DB.

Davis Bessie was as mess yes, anyone DIE. NOPE. The problem with nuclear power plant regulation is???............ITS GOVT. RUN.

You know, I don't believe you're an attorney. No one as plain old stump dumb as you are could have ever passed the bar exams. DB is still a mess. The place should have never been built, and having been built should never have been allowed to start.

I still think this idiot is some reincarnation of Limedrops. The tactics are the same.

posted by madjack on Sep 22, 2007 at 01:29:25 pm     #

I thought it was war profits, like Vietnam (and the x amount of historical expamples) all over again. Perpetual war for a peace just out of reach.

posted by charlatan on Sep 22, 2007 at 03:16:46 pm     #

/\
you misspelled example, jerk.

posted by charlatan on Sep 22, 2007 at 03:17:42 pm     #

>>Who is they? The boogey-man? This line of thinking encourages endless war.>>

92% of the world's oil reserves are owned by governments that are not free.

32% is owned by governments that are (or until very recently were) on the State Department's list of state terrorism sponsors (Iran, Iraq and Libya).

posted by babbleman on Sep 22, 2007 at 06:58:06 pm     #

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

posted by babbleman on Sep 22, 2007 at 07:00:06 pm     #

Can anyone tell me? Was Iraq exporting more oil under Saddam Hussein, or is it exporting more oil now it is under U.S. control? As someone stated above, the oil would have had to be sold to someone (unless a leader or group decided to leave it in the ground). I doubt that Saddam would have done that. Al Queda might to pursue a strategy. We might be better off if Iran gets the oil than an Al Queda derived state. We might have to stay in Iraq until it either runs out of oil, or we get serious about solar power. Oh well, get's rid of labor excess to the needs of the state.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Sep 22, 2007 at 07:11:09 pm     #

Its been pretty volitile in the last 30 years. Right now it's around the average of what it has been during that time:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/images/Iraq%20Cab%20Data%202007_2.xls

posted by babbleman on Sep 22, 2007 at 07:40:39 pm     #

I don't have any "tactics" that was in another life serving our country and citizens in uniform(s). But, I do need to meet this Limey character.

"The hell it doesn't I was there you moron!" --great, get the t-shirt. It was a job, Jack, not a war. You apparently did not spend your time studying the nuclear industry and power generation on a nationwide scale.

Wind, solar and hydro -- all very "clean" but inefficient and at current technology impossible to supply the energy needs of a city, let alone a state or country.

Psssst! you gotta cut down trees for wind, harm the precious salmon for hydro, and spend millions to make a few thousands on solar. But don't point out the enviromental hypocracy or contradictions.

But I will admit, I am not an engineer. I am a lawyer, thanks for the personal attack MadJack - great way to change perspectives and sway the opinoins of those you disagree with.

I'm just happy to have started a string getting alot of responses.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 22, 2007 at 09:50:59 pm     #

who knew an oil based economy would sorely be lacking lubricant? (rhetorical ?)

posted by charlatan on Sep 23, 2007 at 12:01:18 am     #

I don't have any "tactics" that was in another life serving our country and citizens in uniform(s).

And that uniform, was it international orange or black and white stripes?

posted by madjack on Sep 23, 2007 at 06:15:21 pm     #

Army green, Police blue, and public defender brown JC Penney's suits.

The A-Hole.

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 25, 2007 at 08:10:38 am     #

public defender brown JC Penney's suits

Ha!
Ha!Ha!
Ha!Ha!Ha!

That's a good one! Seriously, AHL, that really is good.

posted by madjack on Sep 25, 2007 at 08:27:45 am     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 22-Nov-2008 12:28 P.M.

old version of Toledo Talk