billvon 3,070
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,070
>Hydrogen is an energy transport medium.
So's methane, and it's almost as easy to make as hydrogen (i.e. electrolysis or high temperature dissociation to make hydrogen from water, then the Sabatier process to make methane from hydrogen and atmospheric CO2.)
So's methane, and it's almost as easy to make as hydrogen (i.e. electrolysis or high temperature dissociation to make hydrogen from water, then the Sabatier process to make methane from hydrogen and atmospheric CO2.)
No..think more like...
"Well..I have this picture of the ex-wife doing this naked....and Oh..here's another. Here's this Porn she sent to my Hotmail address. Ooohhh....this one time...when I was off at Airborne camp....my neighbor told me....![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
"
"Well..I have this picture of the ex-wife doing this naked....and Oh..here's another. Here's this Porn she sent to my Hotmail address. Ooohhh....this one time...when I was off at Airborne camp....my neighbor told me....
"
billvon 3,070
>Uhm... wasn't this a JOKE thread?
So tell one already!
So tell one already!
QuoteNo..think more like...
"Well..I have this picture of the ex-wife doing this naked....and Oh..here's another. Here's this Porn she sent to my Hotmail address. Ooohhh....this one time...when I was off at Airborne camp....my neighbor told me....
Yikes... it must suck when the ex-insignificant other acts like a total nympho to everyone but the other spouse.
____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.
billvon 3,070
>That's not what that little slut says when I have her chained up in
>the closet....
Hmm . . . Mallory vs Clay . . . would be interesting to put em both in a closet and see which one came out alive.
>the closet....
Hmm . . . Mallory vs Clay . . . would be interesting to put em both in a closet and see which one came out alive.
Quoteacts like a total nympho
Well...that was the good part while it lasted...
That's the only thing she was any good at. 
QuoteHmm . . . Mallory vs Clay . . . would be interesting to put em both in a closet and see which one came out alive.
I say neither. Instead, Clay will be pregnant.
____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.
QuoteHmm . . . Mallory vs Clay
If I win.....Do I get to keep Lambchops?
ramon 0
Facts:
1. Saudi Arabia has a huge amount of oil.
2. Iraq has oil second only to Saudi arabia in the middle east.
3. The majority of islamic terrorists worldwide are funded or are themselves of the Wahhabi sect of Islam.
4. We helped put Sadamm in power and had a very good relationship with him before Kuwait.
5. We gave Sadamm the ingredients for nerve agents that he used to kill kurds (one of the..so called mass destruction weapons we are claiming against him now.
6. We, helped fund and arm him againts Iran (islamic fundamentalism).
7. Our secretary of state told him we were neutral on his claim to Kuwait before th invasion.
There are several types of Islam, and Saudi Arabi follows the Wahabbi tradition (this was actually mentioned in the press for a little while after 9/11). In ~1800 the Wahhabi preached jihad against infidels (which included ealier moslem religions). Using 'terrorism' (or mass murder of civilians as a passport in to heaven) the Wahhabis took over Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabi's attempted to invade Turkey, but the Sultan dealt with them by slaughtering them. They fled back to Saudi Arabia. Later when Oil was discovered the US set up a special relationship with the Saudi's and Big Oil companies. Richard Cheney's top priority was to maintain good relations with the Saudi's which included avoiding surveillance.
ok enough of the conspiracy stuff..
It has been theorized and even stated as fact on corporate media that money from Saudi Arabia has been funding the Al qaeda. It is well known that Bin Laden and al Queda as a whole are Wahhibi sect.
While I was in the middle east and Bush was calling Iraq part of the "Axis of Evil" the Saudi princes (fat, soft, rich doughboy looking arabs) came to america to talk to Bush about not invading Iraq.
Bush is adamant about invading Iraq and there is several weeks of blah blah about him and the UN and whether Bush will ask for congresses approval or the UN's approval, whether we will ask for weapons inspectors and will Iraq submit.
Well, Sadamm's #1 goal is to stay in power, defying us openly would really result in getting his roof blown off.
Just today on the news I heard that there was new information that the royal Saud family was linked ever more closely to the Al queada funding.
All of a sudden, The Saudi stance on Iraq is ... "you may topple the regeme "if the UN inspectors are not allowed, and Saud royal family is kept out of the news".
And.. suddenly Iraq will agree to weapons inspections (I knew they would, Sadaam wants to stay in power)
The only logic available is the US wants to control the oil in Iraq by insitituting a new regeme. This oil has been on a serious embargo since the gulf war and has only been going to Jordan and Syria in limited amounts. This will lower our dependence on Oil from Saudi arabia and allow us to NOT patronize the fuckers that attacked us.
Our lack of any credible reason to attack must mean it is the oil. And Saudi arabia does not want us to toppel Sadaam because we will get access to his oil.
Right now there are European countries that have signed contracts with Sadaam's government (France I heard in particular, probably TotalFina and also Russia) to get to work on out of production oil fields if the embargo is lifted.
Well if the US toppled the regeme and instituted a different "CEO" there would be no reason to maintain the embargo and I am sure American oil would get "very good " chances in the bidding process. America as a whole could have had an even worse economy if we had pointed fingers at the Saudi's instead of going after Sadaam. According to API we get 13.9% of total imports from Saudi. we may as well get another option.
Sadaam is just another dictator..with a capital "Dick" like Castro. The Saudi's on the other hand have a country filled with Wahhabi clerics preaching the killing of Americans (soldier or civilian). It could almost be said that they owe us reparations yuk yuk
Why are we protecting the Saudis, and going after Sadaam if it is not for oil?
not pointing fingers I am looking for "special " debate.
ramon
"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.
I like the abandonment approach most of all. We have the technological expertise to help move the country off a stern dependence of petroleum and petroleum based products; and if we do it, Europe and Asia will follow.
____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.
____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.
ramon 0
Until we people have a bigger lobby than corporations...sheesh.
the best is the Diesel engine made by a man named Diesel was originally supposed to run off vegetable oil (no aromatic hydrocarbons), better emissions and renewable. Standard oil was in full swing and they adapted it for petroleum.
aahhh...
the best is the Diesel engine made by a man named Diesel was originally supposed to run off vegetable oil (no aromatic hydrocarbons), better emissions and renewable. Standard oil was in full swing and they adapted it for petroleum.
aahhh...
"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.
skybytch 273
QuoteHmm . . . Mallory vs Clay . . . would be interesting to put em both in a closet and see which one came out alive.
My money'd be on Mallory.
BTW, everyone who gets FOX Channel 11 out of LA - Mallory and Lambchop will be on the 10 pm news tonight talking up Jump For The Cause!
Deuce 1
Pictures of pink jumpsuit now. Bytch!
billvon 3,070
>Why are we protecting the Saudis, and going after Sadaam if it is not
> for oil?
Interesting question. I think the reason we invaded Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia is primarily that 1) we have better relations with Saudi Arabia, 2) we get a lot of oil from them and 3) it was much easier, politically and logistically, to invade Afghanistan. In terms of blame for 9/11, Saudi Arabia came in a close second behind Afghanistan in terms of funding Bin Laden, giving him sanctuary, and allowing terrorist groups free reign. Saudi Arabia _certainly_ had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq.
I strongly suspect that an American Iraq is part of a master plan to control the middle east; I think our administration wants to do this to both help prevent future terrorism and to secure reliable sources of Middle Eastern oil. A non-OPEC Iraq would be a big economic blow to the Sauds, and would give us a lot more control over what we pay for foreign oil.
The problem is that I don't think a puppet government will work in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Those countries are hideously unstable; their people have never had a stable government for very long (other than Hussein.) At best we will install a slightly more American-friendly government that will stand for a while, but keep in mind that we once considered the Mujahideen a group that would create such a government in Afghanistan. The Taliban was the result.
I think there's an image that some people have that, after a war with Iraq, the downtrodden peoples of Iraq will unite in their determination to throw off the mantle of dictatorship, and come together to form a democracy (and, of course, to sell the US oil at ever lower prices.) I don't think it will really happen like that. I think we will get another tottering, somewhat belligerent government that we will support even as they gas their citizens (or whatever the civil rights violation du jour is) in hopes that they will like us and sell us cheap oil. As I've said before, I think the best possible thing to do is just to get out of there. Stop buying their oil; let them fight it out when their economy collapses. If Arabs are going to kill someone, well, maybe we can't stop that - but it sure would be nice if the people they kill aren't Americans.
>And.. suddenly Iraq will agree to weapons inspections (I knew they
>would, Sadaam wants to stay in power)
Yep, I think he'd even be willing to truly disarm to stay in power. Ironically, the one country now standing in the way of inspections is the US, since inspections might lead to a peaceful settlement, and much of the administration seems hellbent on war.
> for oil?
Interesting question. I think the reason we invaded Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia is primarily that 1) we have better relations with Saudi Arabia, 2) we get a lot of oil from them and 3) it was much easier, politically and logistically, to invade Afghanistan. In terms of blame for 9/11, Saudi Arabia came in a close second behind Afghanistan in terms of funding Bin Laden, giving him sanctuary, and allowing terrorist groups free reign. Saudi Arabia _certainly_ had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq.
I strongly suspect that an American Iraq is part of a master plan to control the middle east; I think our administration wants to do this to both help prevent future terrorism and to secure reliable sources of Middle Eastern oil. A non-OPEC Iraq would be a big economic blow to the Sauds, and would give us a lot more control over what we pay for foreign oil.
The problem is that I don't think a puppet government will work in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Those countries are hideously unstable; their people have never had a stable government for very long (other than Hussein.) At best we will install a slightly more American-friendly government that will stand for a while, but keep in mind that we once considered the Mujahideen a group that would create such a government in Afghanistan. The Taliban was the result.
I think there's an image that some people have that, after a war with Iraq, the downtrodden peoples of Iraq will unite in their determination to throw off the mantle of dictatorship, and come together to form a democracy (and, of course, to sell the US oil at ever lower prices.) I don't think it will really happen like that. I think we will get another tottering, somewhat belligerent government that we will support even as they gas their citizens (or whatever the civil rights violation du jour is) in hopes that they will like us and sell us cheap oil. As I've said before, I think the best possible thing to do is just to get out of there. Stop buying their oil; let them fight it out when their economy collapses. If Arabs are going to kill someone, well, maybe we can't stop that - but it sure would be nice if the people they kill aren't Americans.
>And.. suddenly Iraq will agree to weapons inspections (I knew they
>would, Sadaam wants to stay in power)
Yep, I think he'd even be willing to truly disarm to stay in power. Ironically, the one country now standing in the way of inspections is the US, since inspections might lead to a peaceful settlement, and much of the administration seems hellbent on war.
JJohnson 0
I like everything you said. It boils down to greed and power. Those in power want to stay there. Our own government is no different, we just try to hide it differently....national security.
Dependence on oil would certainly affect our stand on the region, but not solve it. America will always back Israel, we have too large of a Jewish population not to. And I'm not knocking the Jewish.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand all the shit going on there, but the fact remains that there is no word of God that I know of that tells us to kill, for any reason.
It is that and that alone that pisses me off the most. If you are going to do all this shit, at least stand up and say why you are doing it: Greed, Lust, Ego-maniac, Racism...whatever....but don't bring God into it. I don't think He wants us killing anyone in his name. I could be wrong.
JJ
Dependence on oil would certainly affect our stand on the region, but not solve it. America will always back Israel, we have too large of a Jewish population not to. And I'm not knocking the Jewish.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand all the shit going on there, but the fact remains that there is no word of God that I know of that tells us to kill, for any reason.
It is that and that alone that pisses me off the most. If you are going to do all this shit, at least stand up and say why you are doing it: Greed, Lust, Ego-maniac, Racism...whatever....but don't bring God into it. I don't think He wants us killing anyone in his name. I could be wrong.
JJ
JJ
"Call me Darth Balls"
"Call me Darth Balls"
Kennedy 0
Quotebut the fact remains that there is no word of God that I know of that tells us to kill, for any reason.
It is that and that alone that pisses me off the most. If you are going to do all this shit, at least stand up and say why you are doing it: Greed, Lust, Ego-maniac, Racism...whatever....but don't bring God into it. I don't think He wants us killing anyone in his name. I could be wrong.
who says He even really gives a shit?
JJohnson 0
Not the point amigo, These morons ain't killing cause God said so. You can't show me a religion that has it's foundations in killing innocents. You also can't say that over throwing governments is a religious ideal either. Throughout history mankind has used creative interpretations of God's word to justify what really boils down to self serving b.s.. To quote Humphry Bogart in Casablanca," I don't mind a crook, its a cut-rate you I object to." Or something like that, been awhile since I watched the flick.
If you want to do something, that morally you know is wrong, at least have the balls to admit why you are doing it. Don't hide behind someone's skirts so to speak.
Whether He gives a shit or not don't make using Him as an excuse anything more than cowardice.
JJ
If you want to do something, that morally you know is wrong, at least have the balls to admit why you are doing it. Don't hide behind someone's skirts so to speak.
Whether He gives a shit or not don't make using Him as an excuse anything more than cowardice.
JJ
JJ
"Call me Darth Balls"
"Call me Darth Balls"
billvon 3,070
>You also can't say that over throwing governments is a religious ideal
> either.
We added the phrase "under god" to the pledge of allegiance specifically to show our moral superiority to the godless communists in the 1950's - so at least the US places some importance on whose government god favors. However, I agree that we should try to keep god out of such issues.
>Throughout history mankind has used creative interpretations of
>God's word to justify what really boils down to self serving b.s.
I agree; there have been no end of wars, crusades and invasions in 'the name of god.' Most of the nonsense going on in Israel right now is an outgrowth of religion - who's religion has a stronger claim to the area, which dirt is more holy, etc.
>If you want to do something, that morally you know is wrong, at least
> have the balls to admit why you are doing it.
While I agree, keep in mind that often, the people performing the acts do not think it's morally wrong. Someone from Africa might claim that Americans sexually mutilate young children in a bizarre cult ritual; we would claim "that's just circumcision! It's a religious tradition, and there used to be health reasons!" It all depends on your point of view.
> either.
We added the phrase "under god" to the pledge of allegiance specifically to show our moral superiority to the godless communists in the 1950's - so at least the US places some importance on whose government god favors. However, I agree that we should try to keep god out of such issues.
>Throughout history mankind has used creative interpretations of
>God's word to justify what really boils down to self serving b.s.
I agree; there have been no end of wars, crusades and invasions in 'the name of god.' Most of the nonsense going on in Israel right now is an outgrowth of religion - who's religion has a stronger claim to the area, which dirt is more holy, etc.
>If you want to do something, that morally you know is wrong, at least
> have the balls to admit why you are doing it.
While I agree, keep in mind that often, the people performing the acts do not think it's morally wrong. Someone from Africa might claim that Americans sexually mutilate young children in a bizarre cult ritual; we would claim "that's just circumcision! It's a religious tradition, and there used to be health reasons!" It all depends on your point of view.
Michele 1
QuoteSomeone from Africa might claim that Americans sexually mutilate young children in a bizarre cult ritual
Can you think of another comparison to use? The one you cite is a fairly poor example of "cultural" differences, considering that female genital mutilation is practiced regularly in the Far and Mid East, as well as Africa. It is not a religiously exclusive "tradition" either, but rather practiced in countries which are considered Christian, Islam, Animist, as well as those which are multireligious in base. It is a cultural issue, rather than a religious one, that was implemented many hundreds of years ago. This is also not to say that male circumcision is unheard of; it's just a far more common practice worldwide, and is, in fact, "socially/culturally acceptable" to the majority of the public, including those in subSaharan Africa, Mid and Far East cultures.
I have provided a link to the Muslim Woman's League for an interesting read on their position on female circumcision.
http://www.mwlusa.org/pub_fgm.html
(Gawd, I must be bored tonight. I'm clinically discussing FGM with Bill Von!)
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
ramon 0
yeah.
typically religion is used to get the backing of the people in whatever immoral(financial) escapade your governing body has in mind.
typically religion is used to get the backing of the people in whatever immoral(financial) escapade your governing body has in mind.
"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.
cloud9 0
Its easy to say why we should attack, because there has been a no fly zone in the middle of Iraq for years. Can you immagine being a skydiver. No planes flying. Well if we get rid of Sadam then we can open up the no fly zones and skydiving will be leagal again. So go getem boys!
So go getem boys!
This isn't entirely correct. The Wahabbi tradition is actually a subset of the Sunni sect. The Sunni Wahabbi sect originated in Saudi Arabia but they no longer follow its original teachings entirely. Wahabbi teachings, among others, are that all other sects of Islam practice idolatry, no Christian or Jew should be allowed to set foot on the holy land (Arabian Peninsula), and Jihad should be waged against infidels. Bin Laden and the Taliban follow the Wahabbi teachings to the letter. Since we (the US) have troops in the holy land he has declared Jihad against us. The Saudis have not.QuoteThere are several types of Islam, and Saudi Arabia follows the Wahabbi tradition
This really isn't true either. The originators of the suicide bombing were the Shi'ites. The Sunnis were historically against terrorism until the Isrealis started pushing them around in Lebanon. The Sunni Wahhabi sect is currently mostly attacking US interests. All other terrorist attacks are made up of regular Sunnis and Shi'ites.QuoteThe majority of islamic terrorists worldwide are funded or are themselves of the Wahhabi sect of Islam.
This is true but a little misleading in how it is written. Iraq claimed Kuwait based upon historical rights to the land. We did not give him our blessing to attack Kuwait and take it by force.QuoteOur secretary of state told him we were neutral on his claim to Kuwait before th invasion.
I've never heard this before. Can you explain a little further?QuoteWe helped put Sadamm in power.
Where did you get this information from? The US does not sell nerve agent even to our allies. I also never knew that Iraq killed any Kurds with nerve agent. All of the reports I read cited blood and blister agents but no nerve agents. When attacking civilians nerve agent would be overkill and a waste of an expensive weapon. I attached a copy of a blister agent victim from the Kurd attacks. Nerve gas causes no burns.QuoteWe gave Sadamm the ingredients for nerve agents that he used to kill kurds (one of the..so called mass destruction weapons we are claiming against him now.
Why are you ignoring the threats that Iraq poses to our soldiers and interests overseas? What about the attempted assassination of the first President Bush by terrorists supported by Iraq in the early 90s? Take a look at this site and see if you can come up with another reason. http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.htmlQuoteOur lack of any credible reason to attack must mean it is the oil.
Oil definitely has a lot to do with it. Oil powers our nation, our economy, and our military. It is extremely important. The Saudi government is at least trying to be our allies. The problem with the Saudi government is that they are scared to death of their own population. They are not going to force the Wahabbi Clerics to shut up because they would risk terrorism in their own country. The Saudis have to be handled differently than Iraq. If we can get what we want from them without going to war then why attack them.QuoteWhy are we protecting the Saudis, and going after Sadaam if it is not for oil?
I don't think the Saudis are great allies but I also don't think we should go to war with them. Their government is not sponsoring or supporting terrorism like the Taliban was and Iraq is. Some of the royal family has sent personal donations to terrorists and some have also sent personal donations to the US. They are a touchy subject.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
> again until OPEC manufactures another crisis again that
> economically forces these people to go back to small cars.
We could, of course, do the same thing with oil tariffs - essentially make imported oil uneconomical to use. It would solve our problem very quickly, but no politician who proposed it would survive.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites