moments of silence

User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

moments of silence

Post by Bill Sikes »

It's not a war at all, at best it could be described as a punitive action. Who

declared war? No-one! Having to play by the rules, when one can just wade

in and give someone a bashing... no way!
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by anastrophe »

i'm not in favor of war, but we are totally justified in taking military action to protect 'our' supply of oil. yes, it's not very nice, but it's a question of lives. yes, it is costing lives in iraq, and ostensibly we aren't even there for the oil (yeah, right).



think about it. the US imports more than 60% of its oil. think about the consequences if the rest of the world banded together and decided to completely shut off our oil supply. it's not a question of people having to curtail their SUV pleasure trips. if the US oil imports were shut off there would be massive deaths in the united states. It would take barely a month for absolute anarchy to set in. People would starve to death. this *isn't* hyperbole. how do you think your local grocery store keeps its shelves stocked? where do you get your food?



'no blood for oil'? i agree. if we don't ensure the availability of our oil imports, blood will run in the streets of this country. our dependence on foreign oil 'sucks', but it's a matter of life and death. we are trading lives in iraq for lives here.



i only wish we could have waged a 'smarter' war, with less reliance on ground troops. the grunts always take it in the shorts. twas ever thus.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Serenity
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:26 pm

moments of silence

Post by Serenity »

well said "Anastrophe".

I truly don't think people realize the seriousness of the war in Iraq.....(neither did i until recently).

It's crucial that people are exposed to the RELEVANT view point, and not this muddly-cuddlin viewpoint of wich all of us would like to be blanketed by.

Ever since the test of time have we battled for access of necessities. Throughout the course of civilization and most definitely after the last WW, the general concensus believes in peace.

That's fine and dandy....it's a measure that loves practice....yet the very people that preach it, don't practice it.

The world's dependency on fossil fuels is an understatement when i use the word "Addiction".

As stated above, without it many will DIE. no "peaceful" matter.

And all the while we like to bs ourselves that we live a peaceful god-worthy way of life.....we're more then likely driving down the road, on our way to the grocery store, or at home cooking for the family-----all of which depends on fossil consumption.

Clearly the point I'm trying to make, is that no matter how much we talk about the peace we want, we fuel the war day after day.

Who's got what you need? and who dies first?
Action Cures Fear. ;)



"Hi. Nice to meet you...I'm "Mr. Everything's a conspiracy theory". "
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

moments of silence

Post by Bill Sikes »

> i'm not in favor of war, but we are totally justified in taking military action to

> protect 'our' supply of oil.

Ye Gods, it's no wonder that the U.S.A. has a very slight "image problem" over

a large part of the world. The oil there belongs to Iraq, not the U.S.A.

> think about it. the US imports more than 60% of its oil. think about the

> consequences if the rest of the world banded together and decided to

> completely shut off our oil supply. it's not a question of people having to

> curtail their SUV pleasure trips. if the US oil imports were shut off there

> would be massive deaths in the united states. It would take barely a

> month for absolute anarchy to set in. People would starve to death.

> this *isn't* hyperbole. how do you think your local grocery store keeps

> its shelves stocked? where do you get your food?

If the whole of the world refused to sell oil to the U.S.A., it would still

have 40% of what it needs now - and if the price increased it could be

self sufficient. Sorry, but the above is not "hyperbole", it's just rubbish.

> 'no blood for oil'? i agree. if we don't ensure the availability of our oil

> imports, blood will run in the streets of this country. our dependence

> on foreign oil 'sucks', but it's a matter of life and death. we are trading

> lives in iraq for lives here.

It's most unlikely that *everyone* would refuse to sell oil to the U.S.A.

The current activity in Iraq has, IMO, everything to do with politics, and

money, and very little to do with much else.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by anastrophe »

Bill Sikes wrote: > i'm not in favor of war, but we are totally justified in taking military action to

> protect 'our' supply of oil.



Ye Gods, it's no wonder that the U.S.A. has a very slight "image problem" over

a large part of the world. The oil there belongs to Iraq, not the U.S.A.
well, for one thing, i put 'our' in quotes for that reason. We don't own it, but we are dependent upon it. we require it for our survival.



as far as the U.S's image problem, most of europe has hated us since world war II when we liberated it. Nobody likes to be saved, as it means your life is indebted to someone else. The french have despised us through thick and thin since WWII, because without us, well, you know your history.



it seems a popular notion these days for people to wind up the 'look at what Bush (or whomever) has done to the united states image in the world', which is just silly nonsense. we've been reviled for a century. my opinion? it's simple jealousy, most often.



If the whole of the world refused to sell oil to the U.S.A., it would still

have 40% of what it needs now - and if the price increased it could be

self sufficient.
i fail to see what increasing the price would do for filling the gap between 40% and 100%. increased price won't magically make more oil appear. a certain amount is required in order to run the country. if we go below that, we'll find that society grinds to a halt. food won't make it to market. goods won't make it to market. people *will* starve.



Sorry, but the above is not "hyperbole", it's just rubbish.
well, we disagree. this isn't london during the blitz. this is a huge country with 300 million people spread across thousands of miles. it is certainly not rubbish - as i said, if all of our foreign oil were cut off, there would be anarchy.



It's most unlikely that *everyone* would refuse to sell oil to the U.S.A.
well, that wasn't the scenario i presented, so i don't really know what it has to do with my premise. true, it is unlikely, but it could happen, but it is definitely not impossible - keep in mind what you started with, and the fact behind it - much of the rest of the world hates the US. much of the rest of the world would love to see us reduced to requiring C.A.R.E. packages from them, rather than the other way around.



true also, while iraq alone is responsible for only a small portion of our oil, the bulk comes from the middle east, and that's where this conflict is occurring. maintaining a foothold of force and power there is necessary.



The current activity in Iraq has, IMO, everything to do with politics, and

money, and very little to do with much else.
well, that can be applied to most things on a global scale, besides the weather.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by anastrophe »

plazul wrote: There's a lot more oil in Alberta Canada than there is in Saudi Arabia. It just costs more to get out of the ground. We only get a small percentage of our oil from Iraq so I seriously doubt that invading Iraq was necessary for our economic survival. Plus, sanctions were already affecting production.
it's not quite as simple as 'it costs more'. there's also the energy expenditure to energy produced problem. tar sands require a lot of energy input to extract usable fuel. there *is* a net energy surplus, but the time, cost, and volume of extraction are decades away from scaling to where it will be useful. that's not to say that it's not worth working on, not by any stretch.



of course, the US has enough coal to last us another 350 years. even better would be to find ways to produce clean and mobile energy from that.



yes, iraq alone provides only a small amount. there is a lot to be said for the impact of a military presence over there. it's not "nice", but it serves a purpose. saudi arabia has an inkling of what might be in store for them if they aligned with terrorists.



As far as the 60% import thing goes, remember that the economic impact of an oil embargo would work both ways. Who do you suppose would suffer more, America or the OPEC nations? And I doubt that countries like Russia, Venezuala, and Mexico would cut us off.
very true, an embargo would harm the nations involved as well. however, most oil producing nations themselves use only a fraction per capita of what the US uses. most do not have the same standard of living (saudi arabia, of course, being a standard of living in the 'other' direction!). other nations could embargo us and weather it pretty well - longer than we would weather having no oil.



whether russia, venezuala, mexico, et al would join in depends upon the circumstances, obviously. i presented a hypothetical, but it is based upon fact.



So, with all due respect, I do think you're engaging in a little hyperbole. But that's okay, I do it myself.
i don't think it's hyperbole when the argument itself presents the circumstances. if i was claiming that 'without iraq's oil we would have anarchy', that would be hyperbole....
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by capt_buzzard »

Good one Anastrople

I agree.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

moments of silence

Post by Bill Sikes »

Sorry, the quoting in this is becoming really difficult - that's why I prefer Usenet,

as it's easy to keep track of who said what - however:

Re: moments of silence

An> i'm not in favor of war, but we are totally justified in taking military action to

An> protect 'our' supply of oil.

Bill>Ye Gods, it's no wonder that the U.S.A. has a very slight "image problem"

Bill> over a large part of the world. The oil there belongs to Iraq, not the U.S.A.



A> well, for one thing, i put 'our' in quotes for that reason. We don't own it, but

A> we are dependent upon it. we require it for our survival.

So it doesn't belong the the U.S.A., but the U.S.A. will take it if it's not given?

> as far as the U.S's image problem, most of europe has hated us since world

> war II when we liberated it. Nobody likes to be saved, as it means your life

> is indebted to someone else. The french have despised us through thick and

> thin since WWII, because without us, well, you know your history.

What a load of rubbish. I'm sure that if person A was drowning, and person

B saved him, then person A would not hate person B. You do seem to have

a problem with the Frogs at the moment, as they would not support the U.S.A.

Well, not everyone gets their own way all the time. When you don't. you just

have to be civilised and live with it. "Freedom fries", indeed! What a joke!

Going back to the above quoted paragraph, it is clear that the main benefactor

of Europe in the struggle during WW2 was in fact the USSR. There were also

major contributions from many other countries.



A> it seems a popular notion these days for people to wind up the 'look at what

A> Bush (or whomever) has done to the united states image in the world', which

A> is just silly nonsense. we've been reviled for a century. my opinion? it's simple

A> jealousy, most often.

Do you really believe the two paragraphs above? If so, IMO that's really sad.

There are other ways I could describe it, but... Why should people be jealous

of the U.S.A.? Lovely countryside, I guess...



Bill> If the whole of the world refused to sell oil to the U.S.A., it would still

Bill> have 40% of what it needs now - and if the price increased it could be

Bill> self sufficient.



A> i fail to see what increasing the price would do for filling the gap between

A> 40% and 100%. increased price won't magically make more oil appear.

Erm, yes, it will. If the price increases, deposits which were not economic to

extract at a certain price become economical. Taking things further, alternatives

become viable, for instance biofuel, oil from coal, etc.



Bill>It's most unlikely that *everyone* would refuse to sell oil to the U.S.A.



> well, that wasn't the scenario i presented,

Er, well you did mention that in your previous article.

A> so i don't really know what it has to do with my premise. true, it is unlikely,

A> but it could happen, but it is definitely not impossible - keep in mind what

A> you started with, and the fact behind it - much of the rest of the world hates

A> the US.

I would not say that much of the world hates the "U.S.". Why should they?

That is unless it's a bit that's been trampled on, like Iraq, etc.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

moments of silence

Post by Bill Sikes »

Erm, thinking about this, if you want to continue this, a change to Usenet would

be appropriate - it's much easier for duscussions that rise above the trivial. So,

for more discussions, please suggest a group...
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by anastrophe »

Bill Sikes wrote:

So it doesn't belong the the U.S.A., but the U.S.A. will take it if it's not given?actually, so far we have not simply taken - saudia arabia isn't the 51st state of our union, for example. we pay for the oil. but we have to ensure that it is available, so while it's a weird concept, we are willing to force oil bearing nations to sell us their product.



unlike GB, which simply conquered whomever, whereever, whenever, in the good old days when they were a super power, and extended the reach of their kingdom just for the sheer joy of conquering. how about those falklands! yes, those sheep were worth the hundreds of lives lost to maintain british dominance of those..uh...pastures.



[i'm teasing you - there's hardly a nation on earth that hasn't engaged in expansionism and aggression at one time or another in its history]



What a load of rubbish. I'm sure that if person A was drowning, and person

B saved him, then person A would not hate person B. You do seem to have

a problem with the Frogs at the moment, as they would not support the U.S.A.


the french are always a problem. they consider themselves the dominant world power, sitting on their cardboard throne. they clearly believe they are superior to every other nation, that's palpable. A favorite sardonic quote:They aren't much at fighting wars anymore. Despite their reputation for fashion, their women have spindly legs. Their music is sappy. But they do know how to whip up a plate of grub.



-Mike Royko



:D





Well, not everyone gets their own way all the time. When you don't. you just

have to be civilised and live with it. "Freedom fries", indeed! What a joke!well sure. that's just politicians pandering. happens all the time, here and everywhere.



Going back to the above quoted paragraph, it is clear that the main benefactor

of Europe in the struggle during WW2 was in fact the USSR. There were also

major contributions from many other countries.i'd be interested in your rationale that the russians were the main benefactor. i find that unsupported by history. the iron curtain descended right after world war II, while the US was helping rebuild europe. where were the russian troops in the liberation of france? austria? italy? spain?



Do you really believe the two paragraphs above? If so, IMO that's really sad.

There are other ways I could describe it, but... Why should people be jealous

of the U.S.A.? Lovely countryside, I guess...we are the only remaining world superpower. yet - in the main - we don't wield our power as tyrants or conquerers. yes, we stick our little fingers into affairs all over the globe. we don't however run around blithely toppling and taking over nations. again, in the main. i'm sure any number of examples of this can be tossed about. however, heck, there's cuba, a communist, totalitarian nation, just ninety miles off our shore - we could incredibly easily take over that island, but there it has remained for the last fifty-plus years.



A> i fail to see what increasing the price would do for filling the gap between

A> 40% and 100%. increased price won't magically make more oil appear.



Erm, yes, it will. If the price increases, deposits which were not economic to

extract at a certain price become economical.problem: the united states does not have enough reserves of any kind of oil to support our needs, whether extraction were economically feasible or not. besides those up in alaska, but that's a sticky bit of a wicket, so to speak. and even those reserves aren't enough to fill the gap.



Taking things further, alternatives

become viable, for instance biofuel, oil from coal, etc.that's a common misconception, at least WRT biofuel. oil from coal may happen - how many decades of study and experimentation would be necessary to make it a reality? it'd be great if we could just flip a switch and not be dependent upon foreign oil. but under the scenario, with all foreign oil cut off, the gap could not be filled fast enough.





Bill>It's most unlikely that *everyone* would refuse to sell oil to the U.S.A.



> well, that wasn't the scenario i presented,



Er, well you did mention that in your previous article.perhaps i didn't phrase that clearly. my scenario was that everyone cuts off the supply of oil to the US. you said it's unlikely that would happen. i agree - but that wasn't the scenario. but we're quibbling about a hypothetical.



I would not say that much of the world hates the "U.S.". Why should they?

That is unless it's a bit that's been trampled on, like Iraq, etc.as before. we are the only remaining dominant super power. other nations hate us because of who we are, and what we represent. obviously, we are speaking in gross generalities. the US has allies, the US has enemies, as do most nations. but just as the british have a general disdain for the french, much of the rest of the world has a general disdain for the 'ugly americans'.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by anastrophe »

you know what's funny? this thread is in the poetry & writing forum.



:eek:
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

moments of silence

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bill> Taking things further, alternatives become viable, for instance biofuel, oil

Bill> from coal, etc.

A> that's a common misconception, at least WRT biofuel.

You need to get out more! What's happening, even in the U.S.A.? Try:

http://www.pacfuel.com/ Do you know what Mr. Diesel's engine first

ran on, when demonstrated in Paris in 1900? Hint: it wasn't mineral

oil. What's happening in Brazil, then (what is the U.S.A. doing to stop

it, as well http://www.aebrazil.com/highlights/2004/mai/25/38.htm)?

How about the fact that I can run my diesel car on cooking oil? What

about the growing of oilseed rape in Europe on set-aside land for

biofuel (or rather, non-food) use http://www.ienica.net/commercial/refa.htm ?



A> oil from coal may happen - how many decades of study and experimentation

A> would be necessary to make it a reality?

http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_13667.shtml

- from China, which has concerns about dependance on oil. Their economy and

pace of development are beyond anything seen for a very long time. Their

industrial and cultural growth is hugely exciting.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex43159.htm

is another interesting introduction. This technology is old, has been refined, and

is in use now. There is even older technology about which may prove useful, oil

from shale deposits being one such.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by anastrophe »

Bill Sikes wrote: Bill> Taking things further, alternatives become viable, for instance biofuel, oil

Bill> from coal, etc.



A> that's a common misconception, at least WRT biofuel.



You need to get out more!okay.



What's happening, even in the U.S.A.? Try:

http://www.pacfuel.com/
great! but it won't make even a teeny tiny dent in our dependence on foreign oil, not for a long, long time. that's my point.



Do you know what Mr. Diesel's engine first

ran on, when demonstrated in Paris in 1900? Hint: it wasn't mineral

oil. What's happening in Brazil, then (what is the U.S.A. doing to stop

it, as well http://www.aebrazil.com/highlights/2004/mai/25/38.htm)?

How about the fact that I can run my diesel car on cooking oil? What

about the growing of oilseed rape in Europe on set-aside land for

biofuel (or rather, non-food) use http://www.ienica.net/commercial/refa.htm ?
it's a great idea. the problem is, you're using solar energy indirectly, and not creating enough to make a real, substantive contribution to ending reliance upon petroleum. do you have any idea how much land would have to be set aside to eliminate the need for petroleum? more than is available.



duelling URLs:



http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/ ... rces.shtml









A> oil from coal may happen - how many decades of study and experimentation

A> would be necessary to make it a reality?



http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_13667.shtml



- from China, which has concerns about dependance on oil. Their economy and

pace of development are beyond anything seen for a very long time. Their

industrial and cultural growth is hugely exciting.
great! problem: it's decades away. don't stop trying, certainly, but it's not going to replace petroleum any time soon.







http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex43159.htm



is another interesting introduction. This technology is old, has been refined, and

is in use now. There is even older technology about which may prove useful, oil

from shale deposits being one such.
great! same issue however. and of course - replacing petroleum with coal is replacing one fossil fuel with another. carbon dioxide. sulfur. global warming.



let me reiterate - i want to see alternative energy sources happen. absolutely. some day i may get a solar array on my roof - my parents had one installed on their roof, and their meter runs backwards all during daylight hours. it's great! but it'll take millions of homes doing that - with the concommitant (very large) expense to make a dent in our reliance on fossil fuels.



i'd love to see the pace of new alternative energy sources quicken. i dig solar. it's the only way to go - since solar is where all other energy sources on this planet originally came from. well, maybe not nuclear power, but you get the idea.



;)
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by capt_buzzard »

Warsai wrote: We must use the tools at our disposal as an American people to show the government that we don't agree this war, that this war isn't right, and that our troops must come home.

In the meantime, the government tries to stop pictures of all the dead coffins and bodies from getting back to America, they try to propagandize the media into making the people believe that what they're doing is right, and they label those who speak out against all this as people helping the terrorists.


I never agreed with the war on Iraq. Http://www.indymedia.ie

And Iraq is never ever going to forgive America for this war.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

moments of silence

Post by capt_buzzard »

Some Americans are very like some Brits when it comes to War. Very little Peace for the rest of us. :-5 :-5

Return to “Poetry Writing Forum”