| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Siobhan Medeiros
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
 |
|
On Jul 29, 7:27 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil
in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your total
ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why
not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the simple
question: "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are not -
and *that* is more the source of the problem than anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Oh really, we didn>t have ground troops in the first Gulf War, idiot?
Better reread your history.
[quote]Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Where we put boots on the ground, moron?
[quote]
Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
The one you referred to, clown.
[/quote]
Let me try asking again in moronese. Where. Are. You. From.
[quote]
It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason you
ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds of
thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first thing
you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields, while
letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of high
explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
[/quote]
THe point is, the world already knows you talk bigger than you fight.
[quote]
The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
[/quote]
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
The world knows you fucked up, and is laughing at you.
[quote]
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
[/quote]
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the rest of the world helping
you out in the first one. Good thing the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi
radar for you, or it wouldn>t have been such a cakewalk.
When you don>t have someone to show you how it>s done, you>re
pathetic. Ask North Vietnam.
[quote]
Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil
in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your total
ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why
not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the simple
question: "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are not -
and *that* is more the source of the problem than anything else)..
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. �Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! �Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. �And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
The one you referred to, clown.
It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! �For some reason you
ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds of
thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. �Which is why the first thing
you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields, while
letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of high
explosives. �How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. �Tell it to North Vietnam.
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
[/quote]
You tell 'em Rod!
You make sure you tell 'em that they>re "pathetic."
Just don>t go out and shoot up a Unitarian Church. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
Correct, it hasn>t. In June of 2007 oil was $64.20; it is now almost
double that. However, the inflation-adjusted price in 1980 was $97.68;
oil then slumped to below $20/bbl in 1998. In 2001 a barrel of oil
was $27.92 (adjusted for inflation); in 2002 it was $27.22. Only
then did it start to rise like the proverbial rocket.
[/quote]
Real rockets go up a tad faster than that.
[quote]http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
We>ll see...
I>m not hopeful, myself. China is *thirsty*, and a lot larger than we are.
[/quote]
I still doubt that that will produce 30% a year every year.
[quote]either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
Wrong again.
Drilling won>t do all that much. ANWR in particular has a thimbleful of oil. The
Arctic looks far more promising but I suspect it will be a decade or two before
we even start applying for permits, never mind drilling, extracting, and refining.
[/quote]
I was commenting on his whole list, not just the drilling.
One obvious other strategy would be to heat using electricity from nukes
and use the LPG and CNG thats currently wasted on heating as a transport
fuel in gasoline engines. Perfectly routine and currently used technology.
[quote]Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to natural gas
will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
It might help at that.
[/quote]
No might about it, particularly if what is currently used
for heating is replaced with electricity from nukes.
[quote]and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel
prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
So was diesel in the 1980>s.
[/quote]
Different factors involved. It was never as cheap relative to gasoline as LPG and CNG are currently.
[quote]LNG is not a panacea,
[/quote]
No one said it was. It cant be used in diesel engines for example.
[quote]though I could think of worse solutions.
[/quote]
And few better for gasoline engines.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. The bigger effect is the
demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
Maybe,
[/quote]
No maybe about it. The current drop cant be due to supply or demand.
[quote]but if the Saudis are smart they>ll start to back off production as the recession deepens.
[/quote]
Or they might have enough of a clue to realise that the current price is
having some effect on demand and that they might be better off not backing
off and allowing the recession to get it back to more reasonable levels.
Thats what they did in the 70s.
[quote]However, I>m not privy to their supply/demand curves.
As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price, when there
hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
Nope, nothing like it.
which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
be expected to have much impact on China>s growth rate.
Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China>s economy
will be larger than ours.
Taint gunna happen, you watch. Living standards in spades.
In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has been plummeting.
Nope, just dropping a bit.
When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
Irrelevant. What matters is how much its dropped
since it was a commonly used commercial product.
Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
Current price is about $5/peak watt for standard crystalline
PV cells. There is a major shortage of crystalline silicon,
as well, because of the information explosion.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. No one
in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
But at nothing like the same rate.
Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. This cannot be expected to last.
We>ll see...
And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
Batteries have been improving rapidly
Nope.
Batteries will never equal diesel, for the simple reason that
diesel engines garner almost 80% of the mass of their
regents from the outside air. That>s a 4x-5x energy gain.
[/quote]
The mass of their reagants isnt the problem.
[quote]Hydrogen will never equal diesel, for the simple reason
that the O-H bond is less powerful than the C=O bond.
[/quote]
Again, that isnt the problem.
[quote]Also, hydrogen is a gas, which makes for many storage issues;
[/quote]
Yes, but when the hydrocarbon liquids have increased in price substantially, it can be viable anyway.
[quote]one might liquefy it, which makes for an excellent
weight/energy ratio, but with still more issues.
[/quote]
There isnt just those two alternatives. Its currently used as a transport fuel.
[quote]and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and
burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
There>s a number of factors here. I frankly don>t know
how much more oil is in the ground, but as demand
goes up and supply goes down, prices will rise.
[/quote]
Sure, but that also means that more becomes available too.
[quote]For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
ITER looks promising.
[/quote]
Trouble is that its just that, not a demonstrated technology.
[quote]but it>s a reliable hope.
Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that
so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
Not stupid.
[/quote]
Very stupid.
[quote]Cheap. Housing price distribution will change as the price of commuting goes up.
[/quote]
And plenty with a clue will telecommute instead.
We already do that with callcenters outside the country.
[quote]Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
Easily fixed by changing to nukes.
Not even close to simple.
[/quote]
Tell that to the french. They generate something like 80% of their electricity that way.
[quote]Fission nukes are damaging to the environment,
[/quote]
Coal burning damages the environment MUCH more.
[quote]though not for the reason one might think.
A major problem is the tailings from mining;
[/quote]
Nope, thats trivial to deal with.
[quote]the actual waste products are an issue but are mostly
solid or liquid, and more easily contained than, say,
radioactive CO2 and fly ash from coal (though the latter can
be fed through scrubbers, and currently is required to be).
[/quote]
And even with that they damage the environment much more than nukes do.
[quote]Fusion nukes are still in progress, and I have
no idea exactly when they will become profitable,
[/quote]
They arent even available, let alone profitable
except for the rather large one we orbit around.
[quote]though with any luck the oil price and hydroelectric
shortage (there>s only so many rivers!) will help in
that respect, to get back to some sort of equilibrium.
[/quote]
Makes more sense to use fission nukes until they become viable.
[quote]Also, fusion currently uses a mix of deuterium-tritium,
and tritium is a problem if it gets out in the environment.
Even deterium is an issue, since the atoms are slightly
smaller and react just slightly differently from ordinary
hydrogen. (Other reactions are theoretically possible.)
[/quote]
Yep, fission nukes are currently much more viable.
[quote]There are also oil sands and oil shale, which are
possible, if expensive, to extract (and even more
expensive to do so without major environmental damage).
[/quote]
But still worth doing as the other oil starts to run out.
[quote]I do not like synfuels from coal, mostly because the waste
product looks problematic. However, that>s another possibility.
[/quote]
Yep, and the waste products are easy to deal with. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RogerDodger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:29:30 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
[quote]In sci.econ, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote
on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:33:38 +1000
6f1g14F914grU1@mid.individual.net>:
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
Correct, it hasn>t. In June of 2007 oil was $64.20; it is now almost
double that. However, the inflation-adjusted price in 1980 was $97.68;
oil then slumped to below $20/bbl in 1998. In 2001 a barrel of oil
was $27.92 (adjusted for inflation); in 2002 it was $27.22. Only
then did it start to rise like the proverbial rocket.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
We>ll see...
I>m not hopeful, myself. China is *thirsty*, and a lot
larger than we are.
[/quote]
It>s also poor. California uses more oil than China does.
China>s contribution to oil>s price is that its oil consumption has
been growing rapidly while world production and the developed world>s
consumption have both been basically flat.
Oil price is "double inelastic" so it swings sharply, whipsaws even,
wtih changes in demand.
It>s not the amount that China consumes but the *change* in that
amount that affects oil prices. Prices are set at the margin.
You may remember that in 1997 a major recession hit China and the
other developing Asian nations, knocking down their oil consumption.
By 1999 US-produced oil was selling for $8 a barrel.
http://www.wtrg.com/opec.html
That was only nine years ago.
One thing about China is that it spends a lot of money subsidizing the
consumption of gasoline and oil, so its oil consumption isn>t
restrained by price rises like the rest of the world>s is. They aren>t
going to be able to keep throwing money like that away forever.
(They are burning money on that, on subsidizing the exchange rate, on
holding huge dollar-denominated investments as the dollar loses value
.... they are still a poor country, something in all that is going to
have to give sooner or later.)
The latest data indicates that US oil consumption now is dropping at a
rapid clip, as not seen since 1979. There are also warning signs that
Europe is about to get hit by a recession. The US and Europe are
hugely bigger consumers of oil than China. If oil consumption drops
seriously in both the US and Europe, with oil being double-inelastic
and all, oil prices could whipsaw down as far and as fast as they went
up. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil
in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your
total ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why
not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage,
American Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the
simple question: "Does free speech precede each and every
free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are
not - and *that* is more the source of the problem than
anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Oh really, we didn>t have ground troops in the first Gulf War, idiot?
[/quote]
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
[quote]Better reread your history.
[/quote]
No need.
[quote]Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Where we put boots on the ground, moron?
[/quote]
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
[quote]Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
The one you referred to, clown.
Let me try asking again in moronese. Where. Are. You. From.
[/quote]
None. Of. Your. Business.
You>ve. Been. Told. All. You. Need. To. Know.
[quote]It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason
you ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds
of thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first
thing you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields,
while letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of
high explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a
pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Not hard tho.
[quote]which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
THe point is, the world already knows you talk bigger than you fight.
[/quote]
Nothing to do with me, fuckwit.
[quote]The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
[/quote]
Thats the stupid rag head>s problem.
[quote]The world knows you fucked up,
[/quote]
Bit hard when I wasnt involved, fuckwit.
[quote]and is laughing at you.
[/quote]
Nope, at your pig ignorance, actually.
[quote]Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the
rest of the world helping you out in the first one.
[/quote]
They were all completely irrelevant to the result.
[quote]Good thing the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar for you,
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[quote]or it wouldn>t have been such a cakewalk.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[quote]When you don>t have someone to show you how
it>s done, you>re pathetic. Ask North Vietnam.
[/quote]
Ask Saddam, fuckwit.
And just what have you fuckwit canucks actually managed in the last 50 years eh ?
Nothing, nada, ziltch, not a fucking thing.
>>>> Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil
in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your total
ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why
not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the simple
question: "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are not -
and *that* is more the source of the problem than anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
[/quote]
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
[quote]You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
[/quote]
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
[quote]Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
[/quote]
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
[quote]Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
[/quote]
The one you referred to, clown.
[quote]It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason you
ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds of
thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first thing
you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields, while
letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of high
explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
[/quote]
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
[quote]which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
[quote]The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
[/quote]
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
>> Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Frank Ketchum
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
"Peace in the Middle East!" <anyemail@myisp.com> wrote in message
news:488e4a59$0$1026$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[quote]
So your statement was and is utter bullshit spin ... mouthing the
opposiste to the truth of the matter that Solar has received under 5% of
the total Govt supsidies and support for ENERGY sectors in the last 53
years --- no wonder the development of that sector has been strangled of
potential growth and bringing to the market efficiency improvements and
economies of scale.
THAT>s THE TRUTH of the matter, whilst Govt has poured 50% of what it has
spent on the Oil Sector is also true, and accurate.
[/quote]
Solar produces far less than 5% of our power. If you read what I posted you
would see that per megawatt hour of production, solar receives way more
funding than oil, coal or nuclear. You cannot look only at how much money
goes into a technology, you must look at return on investment. Unless, of
course the actual facts don>t mean much to your argument and you just want
to bitch about everything. That seems to be the mode of operation here.
And adding military spending as a subsidy for big oil? Why don>t you add
the department of education budget to the subsidies for solar development,
after all, a lot of research is done in colleges? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Siobhan Medeiros
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Jul 29, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil
in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your
total ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why
not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage,
American Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the
simple question: "Does free speech precede each and every
free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are
not - and *that* is more the source of the problem than
anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Oh really, we didn>t have ground troops in the first Gulf War, idiot?
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Other than to chase Saddam>s troops out of Kuwait.
[quote]
Better reread your history.
No need.
[/quote]
Because you never read it the first time. Got it.
[quote]
Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Where we put boots on the ground, moron?
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Other than fight the enemy.
[quote]
Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
The one you referred to, clown.
Let me try asking again in moronese. Where. Are. You. From.
None. Of. Your. Business.
You>ve. Been. Told. All. You. Need. To. Know.
[/quote]
Yes, I have. You>re obviously pretty fucking stupid, so I>ll just
assume that you>re an American. That>s usually a safe bet.
[quote]
It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason
you ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds
of thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first
thing you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields,
while letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of
high explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a
pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
Not hard tho.
which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
THe point is, the world already knows you talk bigger than you fight.
Nothing to do with me, fuckwit.
[/quote]
You>re irrelevant to everything, retard.
[quote]
The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
Thats the stupid rag head>s problem.
[/quote]
Noooooo, now it>s YOUR problem.
[quote]
The world knows you fucked up,
Bit hard when I wasnt involved, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Sure you were. Retard.
[quote]
and is laughing at you.
Nope, at your pig ignorance, actually.
[/quote]
Riiiigggghhhhttttt....like they>re still laughing at France for
telling you there weren>t any WMD>s.
[quote]
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the
rest of the world helping you out in the first one.
They were all completely irrelevant to the result.
[/quote]
Bullshit. The reason your air war went so well is that the Swedes
sabotaged the Iraqi radar system for you.
They made way more of a contribution than your shitty Patriot missiles
which couldn>t hit the broad side of a barn.
[quote]
Good thing the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar for you,
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[/quote]
Nope. Iraq made the mistake of buying it>s radar components from
Sweden. The Swedes put in chips with embedded code designed to shut
down on the night of the invasion. Saddam>s MIGs were flying blind
and easy prey for coalition fighters.
[quote]
or it wouldn>t have been such a cakewalk.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[/quote]
Nope, somebody who bothered to learn a little about what they>re
talking about, dipshit Yank.
[quote]
When you don>t have someone to show you how
it>s done, you>re pathetic. Ask North Vietnam.
Ask Saddam, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Ask Osama Bin Laden too, while you>re at it.
[quote]
And just what have you fuckwit canucks actually managed in the last 50 years eh ?
[/quote]
We stopped WW3 from breaking out over the Suez Canal, and didn>t get
our butts kicked in North Vietnam, Iraq, or Cuba.
Your war record is so pathetic that Reagan decided to invade Grenada
just so you could put one in the "win" column. And you nearly fucked
that one up! LOL, what losers.
[quote]
Nothing, nada, ziltch, not a fucking thing.
[/quote]
Riiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt...that>s real convincing coming from a retard
like you.
[quote]Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, you fucked that one up too, didn>t you? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
1Z
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On 26 Jul, 23:25, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.
[/quote]
God keeps creating more, does He? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Jul 30, 4:00 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
Thats the stupid rag head>s problem.
Noooooo, now it>s YOUR problem.
Nope, nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
The world knows you fucked up,
Bit hard when I wasnt involved, fuckwit.
Sure you were.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.
and is laughing at you.
Nope, at your pig ignorance, actually.
Riiiigggghhhhttttt....like they>re still laughing at France for telling you there weren>t any WMD>s.
France never told me or my country anything of the sort, fuckwit.
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the
rest of the world helping you out in the first one.
They were all completely irrelevant to the result.
Bullshit.
Fact.
The reason your air war went so well
The air war had nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
is that the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar system for you.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
They made way more of a contribution than your shitty
Patriot missiles which couldn>t hit the broad side of a barn.
Thats not what the fucking over of Iraq from the air was about, fuckwit.
Good thing the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar for you,
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Nope.
Yep.
Iraq made the mistake of buying it>s radar components
from Sweden. The Swedes put in chips with embedded
code designed to shut down on the night of the invasion.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Saddam>s MIGs were flying blind
They didnt even fly, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
and easy prey for coalition fighters.
They didnt even fly, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
or it wouldn>t have been such a cakewalk.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Nope, somebody who bothered to learn a little about what they>re talking about,
Obviously not when you>re so stupid that you havent even noticed that Saddam>s MIGs didnt even fly, fuckwit.
dipshit Yank.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
When you don>t have someone to show you how
it>s done, you>re pathetic. Ask North Vietnam.
Ask Saddam, fuckwit.
Ask Osama Bin Laden too, while you>re at it.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
And just what have you fuckwit canucks actually managed in the last 50 years eh ?
We stopped WW3 from breaking out over the Suez Canal,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Your war record
You>re so stupid that you cant even work out which is my country, fuckwit..
is so pathetic that Reagan decided to invade Grenada
just so you could put one in the "win" column. And you
nearly fucked that one up! LOL, what losers.
They did a hell of a lot better in the first Gulf War than you fuckwit Canucks have ever done in any war, fuckwit.
Nothing, nada, ziltch, not a fucking thing.
Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice.
Oh yeah, you fucked that one up too, didn>t you?
Nope, not even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
You know, Rod. I kind of think you and Slob deserve each other. It>s
fun watching the two of you Tango together. Really. Most enjoyable. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of
oil in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your
total ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out
why not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage,
American Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer
the simple question: "Does free speech precede each and
every free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are
not - and *that* is more the source of the problem than
anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be
done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Oh really, we didn>t have ground troops in the first Gulf War, idiot?
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
Other than to chase Saddam>s troops out of Kuwait.
[/quote]
Didnt do that either. They pulled out after Iraq was fucked over from the air
very comprehensively indeed, and those who pulled out of Kuwait were fucked
over from the air very comprehensively indeed on the road to Basra, fuckwit.
[quote]Better reread your history.
No need.
Because you never read it the first time. Got it.
[/quote]
The only thing you>ve ever got is your dick in your hand, wanker.
[quote]Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Where we put boots on the ground, moron?
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
Other than fight the enemy.
[/quote]
Didnt happen.
[quote]Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
The one you referred to, clown.
Let me try asking again in moronese. Where. Are. You. From.
None. Of. Your. Business.
You>ve. Been. Told. All. You. Need. To. Know.
Yes, I have. You>re obviously pretty fucking stupid,
so I>ll just assume that you>re an American.
[/quote]
Stupid assumption, fuckwit.
[quote]That>s usually a safe bet.
[/quote]
You>ve lost that bet, fuckwit.
[quote]It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason
you ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing
hundreds of thousands of people even though it would have
been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa
where there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And
Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first
thing you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields,
while letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons
of high explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a
pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
Not hard tho.
which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
THe point is, the world already knows you talk bigger than you fight.
Nothing to do with me, fuckwit.
You>re irrelevant to everything, retard.
[/quote]
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
[quote]The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
Thats the stupid rag head>s problem.
Noooooo, now it>s YOUR problem.
[/quote]
Nope, nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
[quote]The world knows you fucked up,
Bit hard when I wasnt involved, fuckwit.
Sure you were.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.
[quote]and is laughing at you.
Nope, at your pig ignorance, actually.
Riiiigggghhhhttttt....like they>re still laughing at France for telling you there weren>t any WMD>s.
[/quote]
France never told me or my country anything of the sort, fuckwit.
[quote]Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the
rest of the world helping you out in the first one.
They were all completely irrelevant to the result.
Bullshit.
[/quote]
Fact.
[quote]The reason your air war went so well
[/quote]
The air war had nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
[quote]is that the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar system for you.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
[quote]They made way more of a contribution than your shitty
Patriot missiles which couldn>t hit the broad side of a barn.
[/quote]
Thats not what the fucking over of Iraq from the air was about, fuckwit.
[quote]Good thing the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar for you,
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Nope.
[/quote]
Yep.
[quote]Iraq made the mistake of buying it>s radar components
from Sweden. The Swedes put in chips with embedded
code designed to shut down on the night of the invasion.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[quote]Saddam>s MIGs were flying blind
[/quote]
They didnt even fly, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
[quote]and easy prey for coalition fighters.
[/quote]
They didnt even fly, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
[quote]or it wouldn>t have been such a cakewalk.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Nope, somebody who bothered to learn a little about what they>re talking about,
[/quote]
Obviously not when you>re so stupid that you havent even noticed that Saddam>s MIGs didnt even fly, fuckwit.
[quote]dipshit Yank.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[quote]When you don>t have someone to show you how
it>s done, you>re pathetic. Ask North Vietnam.
Ask Saddam, fuckwit.
Ask Osama Bin Laden too, while you>re at it.
[/quote]
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
[quote]And just what have you fuckwit canucks actually managed in the last 50 years eh ?
We stopped WW3 from breaking out over the Suez Canal,
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
[quote]Your war record
[/quote]
You>re so stupid that you cant even work out which is my country, fuckwit.
[quote]is so pathetic that Reagan decided to invade Grenada
just so you could put one in the "win" column. And you
nearly fucked that one up! LOL, what losers.
[/quote]
They did a hell of a lot better in the first Gulf War than you fuckwit Canucks have ever done in any war, fuckwit.
[quote]Nothing, nada, ziltch, not a fucking thing.
Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice.
Oh yeah, you fucked that one up too, didn>t you?
[/quote]
Nope, not even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 4:00 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they
fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very
comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly
indeed in the next one too.
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
Thats the stupid rag head>s problem.
Noooooo, now it>s YOUR problem.
Nope, nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
The world knows you fucked up,
Bit hard when I wasnt involved, fuckwit.
Sure you were.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.
and is laughing at you.
Nope, at your pig ignorance, actually.
Riiiigggghhhhttttt....like they>re still laughing at France for
telling you there weren>t any WMD>s.
France never told me or my country anything of the sort, fuckwit.
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the
rest of the world helping you out in the first one.
They were all completely irrelevant to the result.
Bullshit.
Fact.
The reason your air war went so well
The air war had nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
is that the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar system for you.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
They made way more of a contribution than your shitty
Patriot missiles which couldn>t hit the broad side of a barn.
Thats not what the fucking over of Iraq from the air was about,
fuckwit.
Good thing the Swedes sabotaged the Iraqi radar for you,
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed
fantasys, wogchild.
Nope.
Yep.
Iraq made the mistake of buying it>s radar components
from Sweden. The Swedes put in chips with embedded
code designed to shut down on the night of the invasion.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed
fantasys, wogchild.
Saddam>s MIGs were flying blind
They didnt even fly, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
and easy prey for coalition fighters.
They didnt even fly, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
or it wouldn>t have been such a cakewalk.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed
fantasys, wogchild.
Nope, somebody who bothered to learn a little about what they>re
talking about,
Obviously not when you>re so stupid that you havent even noticed
that Saddam>s MIGs didnt even fly, fuckwit.
dipshit Yank.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed
fantasys, wogchild.
When you don>t have someone to show you how
it>s done, you>re pathetic. Ask North Vietnam.
Ask Saddam, fuckwit.
Ask Osama Bin Laden too, while you>re at it.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
And just what have you fuckwit canucks actually managed in the
last 50 years eh ?
We stopped WW3 from breaking out over the Suez Canal,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, wogchild.
Your war record
You>re so stupid that you cant even work out which is my country,
fuckwit.
is so pathetic that Reagan decided to invade Grenada
just so you could put one in the "win" column. And you
nearly fucked that one up! LOL, what losers.
They did a hell of a lot better in the first Gulf War than you
fuckwit Canucks have ever done in any war, fuckwit.
Nothing, nada, ziltch, not a fucking thing.
Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia
where hardly anyone will notice.
Oh yeah, you fucked that one up too, didn>t you?
Nope, not even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.-
You know, Rod. I kind of think you and Slob deserve each other.
[/quote]
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
[quote]It>s fun watching the two of you Tango together. Really. Most enjoyable.
[/quote]
You need to get out more. Bad. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Siobhan Medeiros
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Jul 30, 2:00 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves
runnig out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of
oil in the future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit..
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your
total ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out
why not one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage,
American Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer
the simple question: "Does free speech precede each and
every free trade?"
Pathetic.
(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are
not - and *that* is more the source of the problem than
anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be
done from the air there, fuckwit.
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
He>s completely irrelevant. All of his henchmen are either
dead, in Gitmo, or hiding in some hole in the ground etc.
You can>t win a war from the air, stupid.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Oh really, we didn>t have ground troops in the first Gulf War, idiot?
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
Other than to chase Saddam>s troops out of Kuwait.
Didnt do that either. They pulled out after Iraq was fucked over from the air
very comprehensively indeed, and those who pulled out of Kuwait were fucked
over from the air very comprehensively indeed on the road to Basra, fuckwit.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
"Shortly afterwards, the U.S. VII Corps assembled in full strength and
launched an armoured attack into Iraq early Sunday, February 24, just
to the west of Kuwait, taking Iraqi forces by surprise.
Simultaneously, the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps launched a sweeping
“left-hook” attack across the largely undefended desert of southern
Iraq, led by the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (3rd ACR) and the 24th
Infantry Division (Mechanized). The left flank of this movement was
protected by the French 6th Light Armored Division (which included
units of the French Foreign Legion). The fast-moving French force
quickly overcame the Iraqi 45th Infantry Division, suffering only a
handful of casualties, and took up blocking positions to prevent any
Iraqi force from attacking the Allied flank. The right flank of the
movement was protected by the British 1st Armoured Division. Once the
allies had penetrated deep into Iraqi territory, they turned eastward,
launching a flank attack against the Republican Guard."
Yeah, sounds like a whole lot of nothing, retard.
[quote]
Better reread your history.
No need.
Because you never read it the first time. Got it.
The only thing you>ve ever got is your dick in your hand, wanker.
[/quote]
OOooohhhh, you>re soooooo clever.
[quote]
Sooner or later, you need to put boots on the ground.
Have fun explaining the first Gulf War, fuckwit.
Where we put boots on the ground, moron?
Didnt use them to do anything much useful, fuckwit.
Other than fight the enemy.
Didnt happen.
[/quote]
"Forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France
continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back
into Iraq, moving to within 150 miles (240 km) of Baghdad before
withdrawing."
Want to try that again, moron?
[quote]
Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
And what country would that be?
The one you referred to, clown.
Let me try asking again in moronese. Where. Are. You. From.
None. Of. Your. Business.
You>ve. Been. Told. All. You. Need. To. Know.
Yes, I have. You>re obviously pretty fucking stupid,
so I>ll just assume that you>re an American.
Stupid assumption, fuckwit.
That>s usually a safe bet.
You>ve lost that bet, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Well, you>re certainly stupid enough to be an American, so I>ll just
keep going with that one.
[quote]
It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason
you ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing
hundreds of thousands of people even though it would have
been far easier.
Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.
The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa
where there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And
Haiti, etc etc etc.
It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first
thing you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields,
while letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons
of high explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I
lost count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of
dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a
pipeline.
Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr.
Clearly he was, fuckwit.
Not hard tho.
which is why the US is still there.
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.
Irrelevant to Iraq, fuckwit.
THe point is, the world already knows you talk bigger than you fight.
Nothing to do with me, fuckwit.
You>re irrelevant to everything, retard.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
[/quote]
I>m sorry, was that supposed to be coherent?
[quote]
The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.
The world has noticed that they did fuckover Saddam very comprehensively indeed
in the first Gulf War and then got rid of him very quickly indeed in the next one too.
Yeah, and Iraq is suuuuucccccchhhh a peaceful place now.
Thats the stupid rag head>s problem.
Noooooo, now it>s YOUR problem.
Nope, nothing to do with me or my country, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Sure it does, Yank.
[quote]
The world knows you fucked up,
Bit hard when I wasnt involved, fuckwit.
Sure you were.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.
[/quote]
You wish.
[quote]
and is laughing at you.
Nope, at your pig ignorance, actually.
Riiiigggghhhhttttt....like they>re still laughing at France for telling you there weren>t any WMD>s.
France never told me or my country anything of the sort, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Yeah they did. So did Germany, Russia and the UN. Guess what, they
were right and you were wrong.
[quote]
Bet that had russian generals shitting their pants for years.
LOL! Yeah, right. Only because you had the
rest of the world helping you out in the first one.
They were all completely irrelevant to the result.
Bullshit.
Fact.
[/quote]
"United Kingdom
The United Kingdom was numerically the largest European nation to
partake in combat operations during the war. Operation Granby was the
name for the operations in the Persian Gulf. British Army regiments
(mainly with the British 1st Armoured Division), Royal Navy vessels,
and Royal Air Force squadrons were mobilized to the Gulf. The Royal
Air Force, using various aircraft, operated from airbases in Saudi
Arabia. Almost 2,500 armoured vehic | |
