We Are All Spaniards

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
People have been raving about biodiesel, but guess what - biodiesel is
95% dead dinosaur and only 5% rape seed oil.

Not in Llanelli.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...807299,00.html
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/22/int17.htm

Paul

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:LAn9c.107772$1p.1537022@attbi_s54...
Just wait until their lights and air conditioners start clicking off, one
by
one, however. THEN you will see how truly weak the anti-nuclear crowd
is --
and nuclear power plants will start popping up all over the planet once
again.

Already happening in North Korea. They're short of electricity.
They want oil. The US imposes sanctions on North Korea,
restricting the amount of oil sold to them. North Korea hence
builds a nuclear power station to try to make up a bit of the
electricity shortfall. The US are really happy about that idea...

Paul

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:LAn9c.107772$1p.1537022@attbi_s54...
Just wait until their lights and air conditioners start clicking off,
one
by
one, however. THEN you will see how truly weak the anti-nuclear crowd
is --
and nuclear power plants will start popping up all over the planet once
again.

Already happening in North Korea. They're short of electricity.
They want oil. The US imposes sanctions on North Korea,
restricting the amount of oil sold to them. North Korea hence
builds a nuclear power station to try to make up a bit of the
electricity shortfall. The US are really happy about that idea...

Hmmm...the United States GAVE North Korea, what, 500 million bbls of oil?
How much of that went to their military? They gave them enormous quantities
of food, the vast majority went, you guessed it, to the military.

IIRC, Korea's nuclear capacity is NOT geared towards primarily electrical
generation, but towards creating of bomb making material.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...
I'd recommend (for simiplicities sake) "The Doomsday Myth": 10,000 Year of
Economic Crisis" by Maurice & Smithson, and then some of the works of Julian
Simon. I could offer long quotes, but I've NEVER found anyone embroiled in
crisis-mongering that it could sink into (Alex, in this case possibly).

And possibly not. I have a very superficial knowledge of the oil
crisis; I was just stating that oil is not renewable. I will search
for the book and read it if I find it.

(Alex) wrote:

Let's see:

1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)

In Southamerica the US supported government killing of innocents in
concentration camps without trials of any kind. They trained the local
military and turned a blind eye to the tortures and killings.

I don't know much about that, to be honest. But it doesn't sound like
the stated policies of any administration in the last 20 years, let
alone the normative American approach to things.

I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
something like the shrill content of "FSTV".

4 -- Trade with Americans.

Only Chile has a trade agreement with the US, and that's decades after
they defeated the US-puppet Pinochet.

What? I thought we'd extended NAFTA to South America, and joined GATT
and the WTO... We've been buying Mexican and Venezuelan oil for
decades, etc, etc, etc...

Rob, you have watched too many Hollywood movies.

Doesn't follow. I'm more unique than virtually every American in the
respect that I've actually lived overseas.

Rob

Doug Carter wrote in message ...
Alex wrote:
The primary images these people have to produce their perception of the
U.S. is based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael Moore,
Ludacris and Dan Rather.

I don't think so. I, for one, get my impressions of the US from a lot
of sources: news (both US and foreign), political analysts (both US
and foreign), having been there, having friends and family there, and
from direct experience of the effects of US intervention in my
country.

You disagree, but are exceptional in that you have been to
the U.S. Direct experience is hard to come by and new

You don't need to go to the US to see what the effect of the US
foreign policy has been around the world. On the contrary, you need to
get out of the US to see it. Within the US you may see only benefits.
Outside of it, the story is quite different in most cases.

analysts are clearly suspect because they most of them are
very biased towards an ideology (pro or con) if not
directly controlled by government. I wish everyone had
more channels like CSPAN and more direct contact so we
could form our own opinion.

You can read between the lines. If you understand the bias in each
media you have the elements to separate the truth from the propaganda.
And if you read opposing media you get an even clearer picture.

I am curious about the "effects of US intervention in my
country." The U.S. has a macro track record of rebuilding
and withdrawing from defeated countries (Marshall Plan)
compared to Russia (Soviet Union). I presume there are
exceptions, but is this a "glass half empty vs. half full"
perception problem?

You seem to speak about countries bombed by the US / Allies. I am
speaking about countries where the US played behind the scenes and
helped in the country's destruction, not of their buildings, but of
their people. And being unofficial and behind the scenes, and there
being no bombed buildings, there is no rebuilding involved. It's not
even half empty. It's empty. Period.

And I don't think I am fundamentaly different from millons over the world.

There are billions of people in the world and I think you
are over estimating the fraction of people who have the
access you do.

How many people have access to the internet and/or cable TV? Granted,
not a big fraction of the world population, but still millons.

In article , Alex wrote:
The primary images these people have to produce their perception of the
U.S. is based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael Moore,
Ludacris and Dan Rather.

I don't think so. I, for one, get my impressions of the US from a lot
of sources: news (both US and foreign), political analysts (both US
and foreign)

And those of us who can get BBC Radio 4, let's not forget Alistair
Cook's "Letter From America", which was a regular programme from 1946
until 2004. Sadly, Alistair Cook died this week. Letter from America was
always very insightful.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Alex wrote:
You seem to speak about countries bombed by the US / Allies. I am
speaking about countries where the US played behind the scenes and
helped in the country's destruction, not of their buildings, but of
their people. And being unofficial and behind the scenes, and there
being no bombed buildings, there is no rebuilding involved. It's not
even half empty. It's empty. Period.

I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.

Direct U.S. foreign aid runs about $15-20b/year (before
special accounts like Iraq). Unless the U.S. is
endeavoring to destroy "most" countries out of pure malice
then this wanton destruction would seem to be rather short
sighted economics.

My perception is that you are used to such a nice living standard in
such a nice neighborhood, that you simply lost contact with the rest
of the world, who usually suffers unjustly. (By "you" I also mean most
americans, and by "neighborhood" I also mean the world).

Well, I enjoy a nice standard of living, true enough. Although my yearly
income is currently far less than that of an entry-level grade school
teacher.

But I got here by working since I was 13. This is now the third business
I've started from scratch, and working 80 hour weeks is the norm, not the
exception.

The only thing that separates people like me from the rest of the world's
population is the fact that America lets someone who works hard succeed --
period. THAT is what makes the United States the envy of the world.
Work hard, be persistent, and success will likely follow.

Right now I employ several excellent people who, had they made better
choices in the past, would be working in higher-paying jobs. But they are
*working* and succeeding, some are attending university classes to better
themselves (and make themselves more employable) and eventually they will
work their way up to a better, higher paying position, probably in another
company. They haven't given up, and they -- unlike so many people I talk to
and have interviewed -- do not feel that the world "owes" them a nice
standard of living.

In my experience, there are two types of failures. The first kind are
involved with drugs and alcohol, or who suffer a mental illness. They are
basket cases for a myriad of reasons, and I don't regard them as anything
but sick people.

The second group are folks who truly worry me. They are the ones who burn
with resentment that "the Man" has denied them something, who portray
themselves as "victims," and who feel "entitled" to a better life. In my
experience, these are the same workers who routinely show up late, cheat on
their timecards, steal and lie.

Does this mean regular working people don't suffer occasional set-backs? Of
course not. George, and millions just like him, will find work, eventually,
and they will get on with their lives. And I've had more than my share of
ups and downs, too.

It's called "life"... And no one gets off of this planet alive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Rob Perkins wrote in message . ..
(Alex) wrote:

Let's see:

1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)

In Southamerica the US supported government killing of innocents in
concentration camps without trials of any kind. They trained the local
military and turned a blind eye to the tortures and killings.

I don't know much about that, to be honest. But it doesn't sound like
the stated policies of any administration in the last 20 years, let
alone the normative American approach to things.

Of course it never was the "stated policies" of any administration.
But the documents have been declasified, so it's more that just a
theory. Yes, it happened more than 20 years ago, but the effects of it
are still shaking southamerican societies. Today the US foreign policy
is more bold and blunt, but I don't think its moral quality has
improved.

I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
something like the shrill content of "FSTV".

Rob, honestly. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean I have
to prove it to you. Search for the information yourself. For example,
do the following search in google: ["Plan Condor" "CIA"] THere

4 -- Trade with Americans.

Only Chile has a trade agreement with the US, and that's decades after
they defeated the US-puppet Pinochet.

What? I thought we'd extended NAFTA to South America, and joined GATT
and the WTO... We've been buying Mexican and Venezuelan oil for
decades, etc, etc, etc...

Ok, I was talking about southamerican countries where the US installed
dictatorships. Trade was not the motivation and the current lack of
trade agreements in those countries proves it.

Rob, you have watched too many Hollywood movies.

Doesn't follow. I'm more unique than virtually every American in the
respect that I've actually lived overseas.

South America is overseas?