War on terror?

[jraf 0]

Indeed the supply demand curve will drive prices of oil up EVENTUALLY. Currently there is plenty of oil (at least for the next 80 years). It's the uncertainty of supply that hikes the prices.

Paying $2.50 a gallon is a good question. I also have the answer. Yes I would, as I would drive a small diesel. When I worked in Europe I had a Land Rover Discovery with a 2.5 liter turbo diesel engine. I think the performance was better that the same car I have right now with a 4 liter V8. Also it gave me 650 miles out of a gas tank as opposed to not quite 300. I do believe that your solution is too simplistic. You just don't solve global problems by raising the price of gas.

Lately the Federal Government pretty much let of Libia and Iran. You used a funny argument earlier. You said: Travel more. I will reply equally inappropriately: Read more. (Sorry, I am a mean bastard and could not help myself)

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[billvon 2,991]

>Currently there is plenty of oil (at leas for the next 80 years).

While we will be able to get oil for the next 80 years, it will become more and more difficult, and the supply will slow as old wells run dry. That's going to drive prices up. I can't see much hope for them dropping.

>You said: Travel more. I will reply equally inapropriately: Read more.

In which case, I'll use: write more (words), and statements like:

>Lately the Federal Government pretty much let of Libia and Iran. . . .

will make more sense (sorry had to do that.) I assume you mean "let go of Libya and Iran." I hope you are correct, and that they are not just ignoring them until they need a good target again.

[Scoby 0]

Quote

Indeed the supply demand curve will drive prices of oil up EVENTUALLY. Currently there is plenty of oil (at leas for the next 80 years). It's the uncertainty of supply that hikes the prices.

World proven oil reserves were 1,015 billion barrels. As of 1999, world oil consumption was 74.5 million barrels a day. That works out to 36.6 years of reserves. Keep in mind that consumption is only going up. Obviously, more oil will be found, but increases in demand will balance this. Oil prices will ramp up long before we get to the point of running dry, and a lot of the reserves are harder (read: more expensive) to tap than what we are pumping now. Cheap oil will be history SOON. Raising the price of oil is the best route to preserving what we have left for as long as possible while we work on alternative.

[mjkoziel 0]

In my opinion, happy voters = re-election.
With the want for bigger SUVs (for a specific example)
Gas can't get to 2.50 /gal. That makes for some seriously ticked off voters.
This is why I think that The US wants to keep from having to pay very high prices for oil... But at what cost, I don't know.

Although I dred to think it, when we do run out of oil, in a few hundred years or so, (assuming we still have a planet) perhaps this whole oil thing will resolve itself - and even if it is only to be replaced by another problem, at least it's a change of pace.

M

[jraf 0]

My oh my, well prices of oil have fluctuated up AND down as the last 15 or so years prove. New oil reserves have been found in Sibiria and Alaska, so I would not be so sure as to the stable rise of oil prices.

As for alternatives: 50% of all new cars in Brazil are required to run on alcohol. A diesel engine can run equaly good on fossil oil as it can on vegetable oil (needs cut with a bit of alcohol not to clog the fuel pump)

I am far from even trying to explain here the balnce of power issues that the Federal Government is dealing with. Perhaps the simple approach you suggest would be the most efficient, yet we are not dealing with opponents who would be willing to play the game according to our rules. Hence, we play their game and we succeed - size does matter!

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[marschall 0]

It seems that no one has mentioned the fact that Iraq, should they obtain any weapon of mass destruction, would not hesitate to use it.

Most of you will remember the Gulf War, and Iraq's willingness to launch several medium range missles into Saudi Arabia, and Isreal (spelling?). Almost all of which were shot down before the could reach they're target.

War is never a good thing, and it will be costly to both the American forces, as well as the people of Iraq. But sadly, this mad man, Saddam, most be removed from power before he can become a serious threat to the middle east.

It's not just about the oil, or the U.S. flexing it's muscles.

Just one persons thoughts.

[billvon 2,991]

>It seems that no one has mentioned the fact that Iraq, should they
>obtain any weapon of mass destruction, would not hesitate to use it.

Do not underestimate Hussein. He is not stupid. He knows that if he got his hands on one (and if he successfully tested one) he would suddenly have a very big bargaining chip. If he used it on, say, NYC, he would also realize that we would reduce his country very quickly to a bunch of melted glass. Would Hussein rather have a sudden source of power to wield over the US, or die in a multi-megaton bombardment? Not a tough choice for a power hungry megalomaniac.

The "evil communists" understood this, too. They knew that if they ever launched a weapon against us, it would be all over very quickly. And even though they were the Husseins of their time, even though they were intent on destroying the US no matter what the cost, even though they saw capitalism as the ultimate evil - they didn't launch their weapons. Not because they were evil or good, but because they didn't all want to die.

In any case a better solution is to make sure that he doesn't get one in the near future. In the far future, of course, he _will_ have one - a dozen countries have them now, and stopping their spread will be like trying to stop the spread of the Internet. At that point we better pray that we learn diplomacy.

[jraf 0]

Once again a simplistic view. People are unlike a wolf pack. They obey the leader, unitl the leader is too old and then they either exclude him from the pack or kill him.

Whatever you say about diplomacy. the basic tool of US diplomatic policy is an aircraft carier. Let it remain so.

Czechoslovakia, though a mighty military power able to challenge Hitler tried to solve it's problems on the diplomatic way in Munich in 1938. It was efectively divided. If the used their 152 milimeter cannons as diplomatic tule Hitler would back off. He simply was not ready for military confrontation. He was ready for a good game of poker thugh.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[billvon 2,991]

>Once again a simplistic view. People are unlike a wolf pack. They
> obey the leader, unitl the leader is too old and then they either
> exclude him from the pack or kill him.

Did you really mean to say that? Or did you mean "not unlike a wolf pack?"

>Whatever you say about diplomacy. the basic tool of US diplomatic
> policy is an aircraft carier. Let it remain so.

Which is like saying the basic tool of any police force is a gun. It's A tool, but a cop who uses his gun instead of his ability to deal with people is a failure. A good cop uses his brain and judgement first, and falls back on his gun only when there's no other way to protect himself or the public. I hope we use the same wisdom when we deal with the rest of the world.

[jraf 0]

Typos, typos. But yes you get the gist. Even the British police started wearing guns. They are an effective deterrent.

I never said shoot the gun offensively, I said have it ready.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[christopherm 0]

You and your family are walking down a empty downtown street when a crazy man comes screaming at you from around the corner slashing a knife as he runs at you. You have a .45 holstered to your ankle and you are a trained marksman, what do you do?

If you are a liberal: Does he really want to attack us and if so did I do anything to upset him? Could I some how hit him with the gun to knock him out instead of shooting him? Maybe we could outrun him or maybe he his just trying to play a joke on us. Maybe I could hold his legs while my family runs away and he stabs me.

If you are a conservative: You shoot the son of a bitch, by your family some hotdogs, and take them to a ball came

-So, how hard is the ground?!

[jdhill 0]

Quote

No, I'm talking about the two reactors the US sold to the North Koreans under the 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework.

>We told NK we would sell them a reactor (that is not capable of
> creating weapons grade materials . . .)

Any LWR can create plutonium. LWR fuel can be used in breeders to make weapons-grade plutonium pretty quickly, and the same fuel can be processed to make weapons-grade uranium. You need a nuclear weapons program to do this sort of processing, of course - which they have.

Again, the reactors were never delivered as the NKs never showed that they were killing their program. Their materials did not come from a US supplied reactor.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

You and your family are walking down a empty downtown street when a crazy man comes screaming at you from around the corner slashing a knife as he runs at you.

I think you are spending too much time in front of you tv ...

[billvon 2,991]

>If you are a liberal:

>If you are a conservative:

And if you are a Bush conservative:

Let him kill your kids, shoot him, then bomb Iraq.

[quatorze 1]

Quote

It seems that no one has mentioned the fact that Iraq, should they obtain any weapon of mass destruction, would not hesitate to use it.

I have to agree with what billvon said concerning this

Quote

Do not underestimate Hussein. He is not stupid. He knows that if he got his hands on one (and if he successfully tested one) he would suddenly have a very big bargaining chip. . Would Hussein rather have a sudden source of power to wield over the US, or die in a multi-megaton bombardment? Not a tough choice for a power hungry megalomaniac.

extremley dicey situation for a madman. But what of the sons? Uday ( the loud boisterous one whom would most likely be dead by now if not for Sadam's desire to show solidarity to the rest of the world) and Quasay (spelling?) the quite, reserved and deadly son who allegedly put the hit on Uday that left him lame.

Quote

Most of you will remember the Gulf War, and Iraq's willingness to launch several medium range missles into Saudi Arabia, and Isreal (spelling?). Almost all of which were shot down before the could reach they're target.

I seem to remember that the patriot missile defense system really didn't quite perform like the initial reports had us beleive

Quote

War is never a good thing, and it will be costly to both the American forces, as well as the people of Iraq. But sadly, this mad man, Saddam, most be removed from power before he can become a serious threat to the middle east.

This Madman is the only thing keeping his sons from power and the US threat is the only thing keeping the three of them from killing one another. If you look into the wonderful family history, you get to see how the father and son outings were not to the ball game but to the "Last Palace" to watch the numerous acts of torture that were performed there, when Saddam ran the place. You also get to see how Uday, has some serious delusions of grandeur and likes to flaunt it. But yet again, beware the little brother, the quite, reserved and thorough psychopath that is in command of Saddam's Special Security service, the ones that hold all the keys to the bio/chem weapons.

Quote

It's not just about the oil, or the U.S. flexing it's muscles.

and it isn't about terror. A few months ago I said, and with the fear of repeating my self, if we really want to do something about terror, we need to have a long talk with the Saudi Arabians, our so called allies.

just a thought.

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Jraf, the reason petrol, you guys call it gas but hey... is, as you rightly point out due in a large part to Tax imposed by our government. This is the same same government that signed the Kyoto treaty to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions. The main reason it is taxed is to encourage more environmentally freindly technologies. Uncle Sam however, refuses to countenance such a preposterous idea...

"The US refuses to sign the climate treaty and take action to reduce emissions. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the US is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases and is responsible for 25 percent of global emissions. Also, governments continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industries, keeping dirty energy cheap while clean energy solutions remain under-funded"

Source:- Greenpeace, yes you have cheap fuel, but at what price?
I wonder how much of Florida and the Gulf coast is under threat from rising water levels as land bound ice is released into the sea, and why are we having 3 weeks of solid rain in Houston???
Ho hummm, at least it appears we may now be on the brink of agreement over the Iraq issue in the UN......
We're gonna need something else to squabble about, RSL anyone?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"So easy to be critical of the Big Bad Yanks. As far as I remember though the British government (poking at sonic) managed a small war in Ireland since 1916."
Umm no Jraf, there is no war in Ireland, there never has been.
There have been disturbances and terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland, and mainland Britain as you rightly point out since 1916. But the UK is not and never has been at war with Ireland. When the IRA bombs London, Belfast, Inneskillen, Omagh, Manchester etc in a terrorist attack, we do not invade the Republic of Ireland as a reprisal.
The IRA are a group of terrorists, or well organised criminals, not military representatives of any particular country.

And please do not forget that the attack on the WTC was the biggest ever single terrorist attack on UK citizens.

On the oil thing, America currently imports about half of its oil needs, in about ten to twenty year's time, she will require to import 2/3s of its requirement. Source...Gore Vidal.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Most of you will remember the Gulf War, and Iraq's willingness to launch several medium range missles into Saudi Arabia, and Isreal (spelling?). Almost all of which were shot down before the could reach they're target.

You may also remember that none of those scuds carried biological or chemical weapons as everyone feared they would. Hussein knew that would be his death sentence.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Almost all of which were shot down before the could reach they're target."

I seem to remember the failure of patriots to stop some of the scuds directed at Israel?
Hmmm....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson