waelabdo Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Um, I have a question....... If we went into Iraq for oil, why did we give a large portion of that oil to Russia?? :stare: Would someone explain that to me? I guess I'm just not fully versed in the "greedy American" mentality yet. to let her shut up at the first place, the only thing that was preventing usa from attacking iraq was russia's support to saddam , but when (under the table deals) been made between usa and russia , then and only then , usa attacked iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comtron Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 The other issue I liked was when we met some marines passing our airfield, one was carrying a FAMAS. So he was asked where he got it. He said that it was one of many found in abandoned trenches near another airfield recently raided. They were sold among other weapons to the Iraqis for oil. So it wasn't just the russians liking saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 It is interesting you mentioned the embassy situation but you forget (intentionaly not?) mention why the embassy was taken over. The US had meddled in iranian affairs by actively promoting a dictator/king and over throwing a democratic elected president. And when the iranians got rid of the dictator through a popular revolution and noticed the US stil messing around in iran through their embassy.. they acted impulsively. But you cant expect them to act any other way right after a revolution. How would the US act right now if they find out that a certain nation's embassy was unloading millions of dollars and carrying other covart operations to over throw the democratic government and setting up a monarchy in the US????? So, the Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator and Ayatollah Khomeni was just misunderstood?? :stare: :stare: :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 So, the Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator and Ayatollah Khomeni was just misunderstood?? :stare: :stare: :stare: No! The shah replaced an democratic elected president-with the help of a certain nation of course... just like saddam. The ayatollah's took advantage of the situation. I am not saying khomeini was any better than the Shah but its at least what the people choose at the time. Just like we here we chose bush. I used to hate history classes but after being a student of history, alot of current events make sense. Although there is always some lunatic that will make history for the very first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 As far as Strategy goes in the long term' date=' Saudi Arabia is running out of oil. Their own officials have placed their reserves at lasting a maximum of 40 more years even at minimal rates of production.[/quote'] So I was right.......We need to come up with an alternative fuel source ASAP. B) Prez Bush wants to persue Hydrogen, and that's a good idea, but I think (feel?) we'd be better served by persuing fusion & ion power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Prez Bush wants to persue Hydrogen, and that's a good idea, but I think (feel?) we'd be better served by persuing fusion & ion power. Fusion is the best way to go and it uses hydrogen. I am excited to see the joint fusion reactor comming online as soon as they figure where to build it. My last bit of information about its site is that it was going to be in france. The US wanted it to be in japan but the french were demanding that it be in france. Although I personaly would have liked the US build its own fusion reactor here in the US. But I think the US is being cautious as to the outcome of the experiment since the US doesnt really need that much energy at the moment. I heard china was going all out and building its own. That would be interesting. But they have along way to catch up technologicaly. Although they will catch up sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer101 Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 California is low on energy! Those assholes at DC are thinking nothing but themeselves. and i dont see those 2-3 Power plants going online here any soon or they probably didnt start workin on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elladan Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 California is low on energy! Those assholes at DC are thinking nothing but themeselves. and i dont see those 2-3 Power plants going online here any soon or they probably didnt start workin on it "We believe that electricity exists, because the electric company keeps sending us bills for it, but we cannot figure out how it travels inside wires." "Electricity is actually made up of extremely tiny particles called electrons that you cannot see with the naked eye unless you have been drinking." -- Dave Barry (American writer and humorist best known for his weekly newspaper column. b.1947) You can yell about low power... but it's the governmental computers that really MUST keep going.. :p No, just kidding. California for one has rejected the Kyoto Protocols as one of the first US states. It even rejected them b4 the president did. ;) Maybe "Guv'nah Ahnold" can be put in a cage (a rolling cage, like rats do) attached to a dynamo... that would solve the problem quite a bit, don't you think? But Engineer, I really think you're generalizing DC... :) Your own GREEN ANARCHISTS have halted the building of those bloody power plants. So it really is yourself you've got to blame. I mean, look. You're anarchist, right? Then why yell at the government to solve the electricity problem? I'd say it's inconsequent. But thats just me, of course... ;) With the greatest respect, Elladan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martog Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Elderbear said: There is, however, a certain nation that has been convicted by the world court of government sponsored acts of terrorism. That same nation has a regime installed under questionable circumstances after a suspicious election. This regime has manipulated its population with militaristic propaganda in order to arrogate more power to its leadership, reducing civil rights, and violating international treaties. This nation has scoffed at international law, treaties, and accords repeatedly; frequently using the military to serve the interests of its oligarchy in direct contravention of said agreements. Wanna know the scary thing? This nation has chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. It has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, both in committing internal genocide and in attacking external threats. This reminds me of the United States foreign policy under the global elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elladan Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Elderbear said: There is, however, a certain nation that has been convicted by the world court of government sponsored acts of terrorism. That same nation has a regime installed under questionable circumstances after a suspicious election. This regime has manipulated its population with militaristic propaganda in order to arrogate more power to its leadership, reducing civil rights, and violating international treaties. This nation has scoffed at international law, treaties, and accords repeatedly; frequently using the military to serve the interests of its oligarchy in direct contravention of said agreements. Wanna know the scary thing? This nation has chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. It has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, both in committing internal genocide and in attacking external threats. This reminds me of the United States foreign policy under the global elite. lol, really?? ;) Now, why doesn't that amaze me... Ell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer101 Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Green Anarchists? Im not with that branch, Im with the anti war branch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elladan Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Green Anarchists? Im not with that branch' date=' Im with the anti war branch[/quote'] I know, I know... it's just a joke. :) I know YOU're no ecoterrorist, but I just wanted to say that all of us who actually don't want to have a government (okay, hyperbaton... yes...) still want that same gov't to solve all THEIR problems... Ell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Elderbear said: There is, however, a certain nation that has been convicted by the world court of government sponsored acts of terrorism. That same nation has a regime installed under questionable circumstances after a suspicious election. This regime has manipulated its population with militaristic propaganda in order to arrogate more power to its leadership, reducing civil rights, and violating international treaties. This nation has scoffed at international law, treaties, and accords repeatedly; frequently using the military to serve the interests of its oligarchy in direct contravention of said agreements. Wanna know the scary thing? This nation has chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. It has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, both in committing internal genocide and in attacking external threats. This reminds me of the United States foreign policy under the global elite. Hmmmm ... no kidding? B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elladan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Elderbear said: There is, however, a certain nation that has been convicted by the world court of government sponsored acts of terrorism. That same nation has a regime installed under questionable circumstances after a suspicious election. This regime has manipulated its population with militaristic propaganda in order to arrogate more power to its leadership, reducing civil rights, and violating international treaties. This nation has scoffed at international law, treaties, and accords repeatedly; frequently using the military to serve the interests of its oligarchy in direct contravention of said agreements. Wanna know the scary thing? This nation has chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. It has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, both in committing internal genocide and in attacking external threats. This reminds me of the United States foreign policy under the global elite. Hmmmm ... no kidding? B) That's what I said.. ;) Funny to see some people come to blossom in their political awareness here.. heh. LOL Ell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer101 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 and i never knew it reach 4 pages in like 3 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waelabdo Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 may be because each one has a long written signature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Sounds to me like alternative fuel solves everyone's problems....... Elladan won't think America is turning into Orwell's 1984..... Elderbear won't think we already *ARE* Orwell's 1984....... I'll get my Starships...... And everyone else won't be able to blame America when their economy's colapse, their leader's go on a killing spree, or their over-run by terrorists. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamp Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 just a thought, but anyone think the iraq war may just of been a precursor to a war with iran with the aim of increasing the U.S military presence next to iran, using iraq as a base point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgamesforu Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 lol i hear conspiracy theories comming on..care to break into homeland security and look for this secret plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oma Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 just a thought' date=' but anyone think the iraq war may just of been a precursor to a war with iran with the aim of increasing the U.S military presence next to iran, using iraq as a base point.[/quote'] A guy I was in class with pondered that Bush went to war with Iraq to get re-elected (among other things). I mean, americans wouldn't want to switch president during a war, right.... scary thought....now we will see a new american war breaking out with an interval of eight years.... I have some questions for americans: - Did that witch hunt lead by mccarthy make it almost impossible to question the leaders of the nation openly? - How do you define being a patriot - is it supporting your leader or your country? Here's Webster's (2003 ed.) definition: "One who loves his country and zealously guards it's welfare; especially, a defender of popular liberty. I'd like if more than one voices their oppinion(s)... (I'm Danish, in case you were wondering..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts