UN on Feb. 5th
- seigfreid
by seigfreid » Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:25 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Speaking of Nazis, check out this site. Pretty interesting...
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/
wow, that site has tons of shit, good find doug
by Kristov » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:35 am
Ah, El Cid, you mistook my writings, sorry, my fault(I can see where you got the idea), I'm FOR us going in and taking Saddam out, by any means necessary. I argue that we don't have the right to do so simply BECAUSE we're the #1 empire on the planet right now though, but because we ARE that power, we have a moral obligation to help defend the world from asswipes like Saddam. Sorry for the language, but I really can't think of polite things to call him, there's just no point to that, he's an asswipe and he should be obliterated.
He's not alone either, there's plenty of leaders of state in the world that we, the US, should probably take out of the picture, and quite a few of them are ones WE put into power for our own reasons decades ago, when the balance of world power was vastly different from what it is today. Talk about your past coming around to bite you on the ass... Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, they had no idea that the USSR would actually collapse like it did, and they did many things that are now causing problems for the US in order to combat the power of the former USSR. Hindsight being 20/20, we can all now see that those actions were wrong. However, at the time they were made, they were the proper choice of actions, same as the call to drop a bomb on a little town in Japan was in 1945. Sure, we can look back now and quite a few people say it was a mistake, but it was the only sensible choice at the time. We didn't support Bin Ladden in the 80s, we supported the Freedom Fighters(do NOT expect me to spell Muhajdin correctly either), and Bin Ladden just happened to be one of them. He had no agenda against the US at that time, only against the USSR. Times changed, the USSR isn't the power it was, so he changed his target. Saddam used to like the US as well, when he was at war with Iran. Times change, loyalities change, and now he's our enemy. Iran was once our allie, as were many other places on the globe we're now watching and worrying about. And not just the US, but Britian, France, Germany, the former USSR, etc. There's hundreds of countries that wouldn't exist without the support given by the world powers, and now they hate us all because..we're the powers, they aren't. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I personally feel it's time the US said 'fuck you! you don't like us, then you can shut the fuck up and die, because without OUR food, meds, and money, you won't make it through the year.' and let them all go to the hell of their own making. Lets see how many 3rd and 2nd world countries would still exist in 5 yrs time if we took that stand.
Bayotanzk, name the last major military engagement the US military won? I can't think of one since...hmm...have to be sometime in the 1800s. WW1 and 2 don't count, the US didn't do those alone. We got our asses handed to us in Korea AND in Vietnam. And we only did Vietnam by ourselves, Korea was a UN effort. Since then, we've not actually faced, by ourselves, a world power of any standing in combat. Hell, we've only done that a few times, in the early days of our country's history, and we blew most of those and only ended up winning due to logistics of trying to fight a war across the Atlantic when it took months to get across it. Read history a bit more, you seem to be rather misinformed.
And, I never said you couldn't voice an opinion, I did ask that the opinions voiced HERE be actually on the topic, and that they be informed, not wishful thinking. Harlan Ellison is the man I quoted, 'you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your INFORMED opinion'. Emotional outbursts don't make your point, they only make you look...well..uninformed, uneducated, and make me, personally, inclined to dismiss you as an idiot offhand. I could be alone in that, but I doubt it, since I've seen some very well written replys here, which shows more then a modicum of intelligence, and most intelligent people have issues with idiots, we tend to discriminate against the brain dead.
He's not alone either, there's plenty of leaders of state in the world that we, the US, should probably take out of the picture, and quite a few of them are ones WE put into power for our own reasons decades ago, when the balance of world power was vastly different from what it is today. Talk about your past coming around to bite you on the ass... Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, they had no idea that the USSR would actually collapse like it did, and they did many things that are now causing problems for the US in order to combat the power of the former USSR. Hindsight being 20/20, we can all now see that those actions were wrong. However, at the time they were made, they were the proper choice of actions, same as the call to drop a bomb on a little town in Japan was in 1945. Sure, we can look back now and quite a few people say it was a mistake, but it was the only sensible choice at the time. We didn't support Bin Ladden in the 80s, we supported the Freedom Fighters(do NOT expect me to spell Muhajdin correctly either), and Bin Ladden just happened to be one of them. He had no agenda against the US at that time, only against the USSR. Times changed, the USSR isn't the power it was, so he changed his target. Saddam used to like the US as well, when he was at war with Iran. Times change, loyalities change, and now he's our enemy. Iran was once our allie, as were many other places on the globe we're now watching and worrying about. And not just the US, but Britian, France, Germany, the former USSR, etc. There's hundreds of countries that wouldn't exist without the support given by the world powers, and now they hate us all because..we're the powers, they aren't. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I personally feel it's time the US said 'fuck you! you don't like us, then you can shut the fuck up and die, because without OUR food, meds, and money, you won't make it through the year.' and let them all go to the hell of their own making. Lets see how many 3rd and 2nd world countries would still exist in 5 yrs time if we took that stand.
Bayotanzk, name the last major military engagement the US military won? I can't think of one since...hmm...have to be sometime in the 1800s. WW1 and 2 don't count, the US didn't do those alone. We got our asses handed to us in Korea AND in Vietnam. And we only did Vietnam by ourselves, Korea was a UN effort. Since then, we've not actually faced, by ourselves, a world power of any standing in combat. Hell, we've only done that a few times, in the early days of our country's history, and we blew most of those and only ended up winning due to logistics of trying to fight a war across the Atlantic when it took months to get across it. Read history a bit more, you seem to be rather misinformed.
And, I never said you couldn't voice an opinion, I did ask that the opinions voiced HERE be actually on the topic, and that they be informed, not wishful thinking. Harlan Ellison is the man I quoted, 'you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your INFORMED opinion'. Emotional outbursts don't make your point, they only make you look...well..uninformed, uneducated, and make me, personally, inclined to dismiss you as an idiot offhand. I could be alone in that, but I doubt it, since I've seen some very well written replys here, which shows more then a modicum of intelligence, and most intelligent people have issues with idiots, we tend to discriminate against the brain dead.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- seigfreid
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:57 am
Damn Kristov - just when I think you're finished, you put out another volume.
Seriously though, good words except for the paragraph aimed at Bayotansk. I could knitpick the whole thing, but only a couple of things really stood out - US did not go it alone in Vietnam. And yes, the UN had its ass handed to them in Korea, but our forces handed it right back (remember the 48th parallel). It was ill-advised to use that paragraph to point out how someone is uninformed. Again, just knitpicking.
At least you're not one of those whiny liberals who think that just because we help people, we can't smite those same people when they turn around and bite us. Anyone seriously making that argument should just be ignored. It's like saying that I could loan someone money, but that I'm not allowed to collect for any reason, because I loaned the money. It just makes no sense.
Seriously though, good words except for the paragraph aimed at Bayotansk. I could knitpick the whole thing, but only a couple of things really stood out - US did not go it alone in Vietnam. And yes, the UN had its ass handed to them in Korea, but our forces handed it right back (remember the 48th parallel). It was ill-advised to use that paragraph to point out how someone is uninformed. Again, just knitpicking.
At least you're not one of those whiny liberals who think that just because we help people, we can't smite those same people when they turn around and bite us. Anyone seriously making that argument should just be ignored. It's like saying that I could loan someone money, but that I'm not allowed to collect for any reason, because I loaned the money. It just makes no sense.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:38 am
Some of our good friends in Europe at it again...with friends like these...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78065,00.html
I know we have some Belgians around here - I feel for you, with your country taking France's lead....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78065,00.html
I know we have some Belgians around here - I feel for you, with your country taking France's lead....
- El Cid
by El Cid » Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:19 pm
Table 2 – Selected Country Oil Statistics
(Billions of Barrels)
Country Production |(2000)|| Reserves (2000)||||| R/P ratio
U.S.----------------353.5--------------29.7-------------10.4
Canada-----------126.3 --------------6.4--------------8.5
Mexico ----------- 172.1--------------8.3 -------------- 23.5
Venezuela--------166.8 --------------76.9 --------------66.4
Brazil-------------63.5 --------------3.1 --------------17.7
Norway -----------157.5--------------9.4 -------------- 7.7
UK .--------------126.2 --------------5.0 -------------- 5.3
Kazakhstan ---- 35.3 --------------8.0 -------------- 31.1
Russian Fed.----323.3 --------------48.6 --------------20.6
Saudi Arabia ----441.2--------------261.7 --------------81.1
Iran.-------------186.6--------------89.7 -------------- 65.7
Iraq -------------128.1 -------------- 112.5 -------------->100
Kuwait -----------105.6 --------------96.5-------------- >100
UAE --------------114.7 --------------97.8-------------->100
Source: BP, 2001.
An important fact often overlooked is that, in 2000 the U.S. was the world’s second largest oil producer. Saudi Arabia produced the most oil in 2000, 441.2 billion barrels, followed by the U.S. at 353.5 and the Russian Federation at 323.3 billion barrels, respectively. At yearend 2000 Saudi Arabia had 261.7, U.S. 29.7, and the Russian Federation 48.6 billion barrels of oil reserves identified. This results in an R/P ratio of 81.1 for Saudi Arabia, 10.4 for the U.S., and 20.6 for the Russian Federation.
Intrestingly, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, followed by Venezuela, then Mexico. Oil from the Middle east in terms of US supply accounts for less than 25 percent.
(Billions of Barrels)
Country Production |(2000)|| Reserves (2000)||||| R/P ratio
U.S.----------------353.5--------------29.7-------------10.4
Canada-----------126.3 --------------6.4--------------8.5
Mexico ----------- 172.1--------------8.3 -------------- 23.5
Venezuela--------166.8 --------------76.9 --------------66.4
Brazil-------------63.5 --------------3.1 --------------17.7
Norway -----------157.5--------------9.4 -------------- 7.7
UK .--------------126.2 --------------5.0 -------------- 5.3
Kazakhstan ---- 35.3 --------------8.0 -------------- 31.1
Russian Fed.----323.3 --------------48.6 --------------20.6
Saudi Arabia ----441.2--------------261.7 --------------81.1
Iran.-------------186.6--------------89.7 -------------- 65.7
Iraq -------------128.1 -------------- 112.5 -------------->100
Kuwait -----------105.6 --------------96.5-------------- >100
UAE --------------114.7 --------------97.8-------------->100
Source: BP, 2001.
An important fact often overlooked is that, in 2000 the U.S. was the world’s second largest oil producer. Saudi Arabia produced the most oil in 2000, 441.2 billion barrels, followed by the U.S. at 353.5 and the Russian Federation at 323.3 billion barrels, respectively. At yearend 2000 Saudi Arabia had 261.7, U.S. 29.7, and the Russian Federation 48.6 billion barrels of oil reserves identified. This results in an R/P ratio of 81.1 for Saudi Arabia, 10.4 for the U.S., and 20.6 for the Russian Federation.
Intrestingly, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, followed by Venezuela, then Mexico. Oil from the Middle east in terms of US supply accounts for less than 25 percent.
- seigfreid
by seigfreid » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:16 pm
so the US buys less than 25% of its oil from the middle east. i have a few questions cid, maybe u can hel me.
what country is that 25% bought from?or is it from a few?
is the US the top buyer in oil from the mideast?
btw that is an interesting stat, i always wondered how much was purchased
what country is that 25% bought from?or is it from a few?
is the US the top buyer in oil from the mideast?
btw that is an interesting stat, i always wondered how much was purchased
- El Cid
by El Cid » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:55 pm
Canada supplies most of the oil the US buys. Second is Venezuela, then Mexico. The US is the second largest producer of oil in the world, with Texas and Louisiana and Gulf of Mexico oil stations being large supply centers. Saudi Arabia supplies most of 25 percent of total oil from the Middle East that the US buys. Other arab suppliers include Iran, Iraq, Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman. Europes oil supply is more dependent on the Middle East and Russia than the US. I think transportation costs being the major reason.
Hereis the information pertaining to US Oil Supply
Hereis the information pertaining to European Oil Supply
Hereis the information pertaining to US Oil Supply
Hereis the information pertaining to European Oil Supply
- seigfreid
by seigfreid » Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:51 pm
being that we purchase 25% for saudi does that make us thier best consumer???
being that euro is the top buyer of mideast oil, could that be the reason for germanys, frances and belgiums apprehension to the whole agenda?
i couldnt open the pdf file, im not really good with pc's
being that euro is the top buyer of mideast oil, could that be the reason for germanys, frances and belgiums apprehension to the whole agenda?
i couldnt open the pdf file, im not really good with pc's
- El Cid
by El Cid » Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:59 pm
You have to have adobe acrobat reader installed, it's free, so you just download it. I'm not sure what the apprehension is of Europe. Probably the fact that they dont matter anymore is very crucial. Europe pretty much has no navy, and the only army to speak of is the UK. The Europeans see Africa to the south, the Middle East to the East, I think they feel hemmed in. By the way, Europeans by and large could care less about foreigners. This is not my opinion, and I'm not trying to aggrevate any Euro's. But if you examine Germans, French, and other Euro states that let foreign immigrants into their country during the 70's you will see legislation (laws) passed to restrict these second and third generation people ffrom ever becoming citizens. Added to this is the very provincial nature of those people from the Alps region, who don't admit it, but I have heard snub their noses at even the Italians for being inferior. My only point here is that the best interests of the Iraqi people are not being weighed by Euro politicians. If that was the case they would support the US's liberation of that region. All france and Germany care about are saving their own asses. Both countries have large Arab populations.
- seigfreid
by seigfreid » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:25 pm
they may feel threatened by terrorist actions, being they have large arab minorities, and also not beiong able to deal with it due to little military presence.
i also think those laws were passed due to thier economic porblems i.e. cold war, gas crisis, post ww2 especially for germ. im not sure about france.
but one thing i do know. my mother was a flight attendent during this time, and she said the french were very nasty out of the euro countries and germans were the most welcoming
i also think those laws were passed due to thier economic porblems i.e. cold war, gas crisis, post ww2 especially for germ. im not sure about france.
but one thing i do know. my mother was a flight attendent during this time, and she said the french were very nasty out of the euro countries and germans were the most welcoming
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:30 pm
Originally posted by seigfreid
being that we purchase 25% for saudi does that make us thier best consumer???
being that euro is the top buyer of mideast oil, could that be the reason for germanys, frances and belgiums apprehension to the whole agenda?
i couldnt open the pdf file, im not really good with pc's
People like to say that the US is in it just for the oil; the truth is that those same people or countries are in it for the oil (whichever side they choose). They just like to bad-mouth America's intentions because they think it's cool to do so, or they just hear that same crap so much that they easily believe it, but wouldn't believe the same of themselves.
France and Germany have lots of business and oil interests there (Iraq) that they would hate to see upset. They are willing to appease a madman for their own ends. With the way some people talk, I would've thought the US was the only country ever guilty of that.
And liberals here in the US want to "just say no" to oil, and in the same breath bitch about rising heating oil costs or rising gas costs. They want it both ways.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests