$98 per barrel oil

Jay Honeck schrieb:


Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
1979...

to fix what? the financing of the Ayatollah? all the political moves
made by the British (et-al)?

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

Jay Honeck schrieb:


(...) and 28 years later
we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
tied our diplomats for over 440 days.

I know it is hard, but just try for one minute to think what _they_
might think about us (Europeans) or you (Americans).

They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

Martin Hotze wrote:
Jay Honeck schrieb:


(...) and 28 years later
we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
tied our diplomats for over 440 days.

I know it is hard, but just try for one minute to think what _they_
might think about us (Europeans) or you (Americans).

They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

#m

Is the "they" you are referring to the same "they" that ****ed in the face
of all international law by taking over an embassy and holding its diplomats
hostage for 440 days, have supported international terrorism since the day
they came to power, have called for the destruction of multiple nations,
have attempted to over through the governments of their neighbors and have
tortured and killed their own citizens? Yeah, if I were them I'd want to be
armed too.

They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
fights an international, religiously-driven war. The rules of war, so
cut and dried when everyone agrees to wear different-colored uniforms,
behind a flag, get pretty fuzzy when one side hides behind women and
children, and doesn't identify themselves until they pop up holding an
RPG.

This war is quite different from past wars. Thanks to instant
worldwide communication national boundaries mean little. Radical
Islamicists span the globe, and carry on the fight without regard to
nationality. For the first time in history, an enemy is capable
(thanks to this wonderful internet) of carrying on a global war
without any kind of traditional force structure. This means that the
enemy can be literally *anywhere* -- truly a chilling thought.

Gitmo is a POW camp, and POWs are released when the war ends. With
one side so diffuse, and no one empowered to sign surrender papers,
how do you tell when the war is "over"? Your guess is as good as
mine.

How can we address the diffuse nature of the enemy? Aside from the
removal of Saddam, one of the main purposes of the invasion of Iraq
was to concentrate the opposition in one place, under the "flag" of
Jihad. While the Left has labeled Iraq a failure for becoming a
"spawning ground for terrorists", I believe that this was a deliberate
(and quite successful) strategy from the start. Like flies to ****,
the terrorists squandered their one true advantage by geographically
concentrating themselves so that a traditional military could defeat
them.

Of course, there are signs that they are starting to realize their
mistake. The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq illustrates
that the enemy is no longer willing to confront the military head-to-
head, and may simply be melting back into the landscape.

It also may illustrate that the enemy has finally realized that all
they really have to do is wait till November 2008, and they will be
able to march into the Green Zone unopposed. Much like the Viet Cong
in 1974, all they have to do is wait for the US to retreat. (In case
you don't know, by 1975 the Viet Cong had renamed Saigon -- the former
capital of South Vietnam, "Ho Chi Minh City".)

Not that I would expect you to appreciate or understand the often
subtle nature of this worldwide conflict, but you really need to think
a LITTLE before you post. The issues are never as cut and dried as
you apparently believe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Judah wrote:
kontiki wrote in
:

Oil companies profit margins are about average compared with other
industries. As far as the price of oil... its not controlled by the
oil companies, it is set by the world-wide marketplace. The US could
be a bigger producer of oil but it chooses not to (for a number of
reasons) therefore it is much more at the mercy of Opec and the
geopolitical forces throughout the world.

If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
downward pressure on worlwide prices. But we don't (that requires
actual intelligent leadership and the US has none) so we are in
the situation of paying out the nose with dollars that are worth less.

An increase of production of alternatives would only stand to drive the price
of oil even further up, based on the law of supply and demand...

There are no alternatives to oil.

The electric grid uses a vanishingly small amount of oil.

The transportation system uses a vanishingly small amount of electricity.

Electric transportation will never be viable until and unless a dramatic
advance in battery technology is made that will enable electric cars
to go 200-400 miles and power all the trucks on the interstate.

And of course you would have to build more electric generation
facilities.

We'll ignore ships and airplanes for the moment.

Technically the problem is trivial; manufacture synthetic fuels. We've
known how to do that for half a century.

Practically the problem is enourmous; the estimated costs I've seen
for synthetic fuels would be many times the current cost of gasoline
and diesel.

Synthetic fuel will never be viable until and unless a dramatic
advance in the cost of electricity production is made.

So called "renewable energy" isn't the answer; all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
costs comparable to coventional methods is slim. Making the costs
a fraction of conventional costs isn't going to happen.

So, the bottom line is, either someone invents a wonder battery
making electric transportation practical, or someone invents Mr. Fusion
making production of synthetic fuel practical.

No free lunch.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jay Honeck wrote in news:1194529729.666509.257910
@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

I think so. I don't drink crap.

Green chartreuse is made by Benedictine Monks in France. My dad
brought it back with him after WWII, and introduced me to it when I
came of age. It's 110 proof, served straight up, and tastes a bit
like a cross between Nyquil and Jet-A.

I'll keep it in mind if I run out of rocker grease.


Bertie

Andy Hawkins wrote in
:

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Having aid that, credit where it's due. I didn't hear one single whine
about the Rugby!

I was absolutely flabbergasted I have to tell you.



I think I was the only person in England that *didn't* think it was a try
(and yes, I'm English).


God, you'll have to move now.


Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a British
ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?

Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote in
oups.com:

A paraphrase, Can't remember if it's Huxley, Orwell or Wells, but if
serious history ceases to be taught and the pursuit of the trivial by
an otherwise sophisticated society is central to a society, then they
are truly lost.

This being usenent, I'm sure someone will correct me, but it won't be
you, methinks.

Your rapier wit cuts me to the quick, sir.

And your qualifications to make this statement are....?


I have a brain.



Bertie

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Martin Hotze wrote:
Jay Honeck schrieb:


(...) and 28 years later
we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
tied our diplomats for over 440 days.

I know it is hard, but just try for one minute to think what _they_
might think about us (Europeans) or you (Americans).

They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by
some idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for
undefined time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

#m

Is the "they" you are referring to the same "they" that ****ed in the
face of all international law by taking over an embassy and holding
its diplomats hostage for 440 days, have supported international
terrorism since the day they came to power, have called for the
destruction of multiple nations, have attempted to over through the
governments of their neighbors and have tortured and killed their own
citizens? Yeah, if I were them I'd want to be armed too.


Actually, aside from the reference to the hastage thing, yo could e
talking about the US o Britain.


Bertie

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
God, you'll have to move now.


Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a British
ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?

Maybe. Is fuel cheap there?

Andy