Well its very simple...

Post #37,024 by bepatient 5/1/02 12:53:09 AM 5/1/02 12:55:53 AM Reply	Well its very simple... ...if we drill or mine here...all of the SUV drivin liberals will scream about how we're killing the environment...or destroying the habitat of the one legged, cross-eyed, speckled newt. ANWR could replace Saudi Oil for nearly 30 years (at current consumption) if fully developed (using 2000 acres...less than 1% of the land and horizontal drilling technology developed by Elf Aquitaine...the former name of my company) The Green River shale deposits need oil to get to about $40 a barrel to become "competitive". If the true objective is to end dependence on foreign oil...[link\|http://www.emdaapg.org/Oil%20Shale.htm\|Green River] is roughly the size of the combined reserves of the entire Middle East. (1.5 trillion barrels). Again...we could end dependence on foreign oil within 5 years (the time to build adequate conversion facilities). It would be more expensive...and it would require the wholesale destruction of the Green River Formation. Noone is willing to do it because it is much more >convenient< to do the damage to someone else's backyard. We're not risking national security. We're being imperialists...basically spending someone else's money knowing we have ours in the bank. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient May 1, 2002, 12:55:53 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,026 by Brandioch 5/1/02 1:09:40 AM Reply	That >IS< risking national security. We're not risking national security. We're being imperialists...basically spending someone else's money knowing we have ours in the bank. I'd agree with you IF the matter was that simple. But it's not. Let's look at the big picture. We're sending money to places like Saudi Arabia. Does the name "Osama bin Laden" ring a bell? Essentially, we're funding people who would be happier if we were all dead (or converted). Instead of developing our own resources, we're sending our troops to be killed fighting their wars. We're not only paying them for the oil, we're giving our lives for their oil. And worse. "Gulf War Syndrome". Like I said, I still remember the embargo. It was a clear example of exactly who was in charge of whom. If they wanted to, they could hit our combat ability. We can't attack if we don't have enough fuel. The good news is that, because of our location, we won't have to defend much. Now, let's look long term. Nukes. The technology isn't getting any more difficult. Iraq was working on it before we attacked in 1990. Eventually, given enough money and time and determination, one of those states will have nukes. Care to talk about national security in those terms?
Post #37,033 by bepatient 5/1/02 3:05:18 AM Reply	Sure... ...I'll discuss National Security on those terms. Do you actually believe that without an enemy in the Middle East we would have no other enemy? Yes we send money to Saudi Arabia for oil. Bin Laden's family wealth came from construction. Maybe you think that without oil we wouldn't make enemies in other areas due to our need for raw material resources to drive the economy? Equally in denial, there could never be a wealthy individual there willing to fund terrorism, could there? And you really should check your figures...because given the need we could certainly strike anywhere and for an extended period with 0 imports from the Middle East. You might not like it since you wouldn't be able to fill it up at the pump while it was happening...or golly...you might be forced to pay the same amount as most other countries pay for gasoline. Remember..to the average European $4/a gallon is a BARGAIN. Nukes...funny...I don't remember buying oil from China or Korea...but China has nukes...some of them even could be pointed at us. Hmmm... You are the one so fond of the question...with minor modification...why do they hate America so much? The Arab states are in line with many others...and we don't buy oil from the others. Also, look at the risk versus return so far...in real military terms...what have been our military losses in the last 2 full scale wars...100 soldiers? Also look at risk factors...are we at any more risk from muslim extremists than we are from blond haired terrorists from Oklahoma? And you miss the even more fundamental issue. The Arab states are more angered by our position with Israel than because of the fact that we buy oil from them. With no Israeli state...I would venture to say that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And what could we possibly be interested in Israel for...we don't buy oil from them...and you seem to think that's the only thing that matters. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,117 by Brandioch 5/1/02 6:17:47 PM Reply	Try that without the "you think". Do you actually believe that without an enemy in the Middle East we would have no other enemy? You mean like China might be? Or some of the old Soviet states? Or maybe a Russia with a new leader? Aside from those, our "enemies" can't even get to us. Unless you believe Canada or Mexico might invade. Or maybe you're concerned about a coffee embargo in South America? Would we send in troops to defend Starbucks' interests in that region? Yes we send money to Saudi Arabia for oil. Bin Laden's family wealth came from construction. Okay, let me put this in simple words for you. We send money for oil. They collect the money. They spend the money on things. Some of these things require a construction company. Now, take out the money for oil and tell me that Osama would have the wealth that he does. Maybe you think that without oil we wouldn't make enemies in other areas due to our need for raw material resources to drive the economy? Maybe. So, why don't you put some facts there instead of your standard questions? Or is it that you don't have any facts so you're hoping I'll fill in the gaps in your knowledge. No. If your position is that we'd have other enemies because of other resources we need, then why don't you put up and identify those "enemies"? And that >IS< your position. I'll even quote it back in your face. Maybe you think that without oil we wouldn't make enemies in other areas due to our need for raw material resources to drive the economy? Equally in denial, there could never be a wealthy individual there willing to fund terrorism, could there? Hmmm, another question from you without any support. Again, I'm not going to enlighten you on world events. If there >IS< such an individual, then why don't you identify him/her? And you really should check your figures...because given the need we could certainly strike anywhere and for an extended period with 0 imports from the Middle East. Really? Then perhaps you can tell me why we didn't do so during the embargo? Ahhh, you're having problems with the definition of "can" in this case. Yes, the deposits MIGHT be there and they MIGHT have the quantities you claim. -BUT- We can't exploit them quickly because we aren't set up to exploit them. That means we'd have to build the infrastructure FIRST and THEN start using them. That period is the period where we're vulnerable. That start of that period is NOT up to us to decide. That means that our NATIONAL SECURITY is controlled by people who MAY be our enemies. Nukes...funny...I don't remember buying oil from China or Korea...but China has nukes...some of them even could be pointed at us. Hmmm... So does Israel. Can you TRY to stay on topic. I was talking about states that DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS but that are OPENLY HOSTILE TO THE US and that we are FUNDING THROUGH OUR PURCHASE OF THEIR OIL. Now, did I spell that out in small enough words for you? And the KEY POINT is whether or not they will ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I say they will and I say that they will use the money we're sending them to do so. Sorry, it doesn't get any simpler than that. You are the one so fond of the question...with minor modification...why do they hate America so much? Yes, I am. AS A JOKE! Or maybe you can't remember back far enough to where Marlowe was using that question as a response to any question on our foreign policy or individual rights. Also, look at the risk versus return so far...in real military terms...what have been our military losses in the last 2 full scale wars...100 soldiers? And 3,000+ civilians. And I'm not just looking at the past. I'm looking at the PROGRESSION. That's why I brought up the nuke issue. Our technology means that we don't have to risk the lives of our troops. Which is why they will strike at our civilians. Also look at risk factors...are we at any more risk from muslim extremists than we are from blond haired terrorists from Oklahoma? Hmmmm, let's see. How many did Tim kill? How many did Osama's people take out? Math? The Arab states are more angered by our position with Israel than because of the fact that we buy oil from them. No. YOU miss the point. The Arab states are more angered by our position with Israel than by the fact that I wear tee-shirts on the weekend. Or do you, for some reason, THINK that I have EVER stated that the Arab states are mad at us for buying their oil? If so, WHY? Our purchases mean that they have modern weapons. With no Israeli state...I would venture to say that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Really? So the WTC attack was because of Israel? I thought it was because our people were on their Holy Land. Isn't that what Osama wants? The US infidels out of Saudi Arabia and the other countries? And what could we possibly be interested in Israel for...we don't buy oil from them...and you seem to think that's the only thing that matters. Okay, this might be a bit much for your mind to handle. We want Israel there because we want to use Israel if the situation over there ever becomes something we can't handle. That's why we send millions of dollars a day over there. That's why they have US military technology. That is why we aren't worried about them having nukes. We want them to be our puppet in that region. And the reason we need a puppet in that region is because of the oil.
Post #37,119 by bepatient 5/1/02 6:37:33 PM Reply	Damn you're funny. Ignore the point why don't you? We don't need their oil and they are not our enemy due to oil. The embargo made prices go up to levels roughly 1/3 of what the rest of the world pays. Were we EVER at risk during the embargo of not being able to operate the military. Simply put...no. So we stop buying mideast oil...right now. Better even...we NEVER bought it. But we still support Israel. Would the Muslim world still have enormous oil wealth. Yes. Just not our money. BinLaden woud still be rich. And the powers that be in the region would still consider us the enemy. The rest of your post is pointless. Progression of violence. Claiming they strike at civilians because they can't hurt our military. Pure, argumentative bullshit. The Israeli state was created becuase there was oil there and we needed them to watch it. Riiight. Good one. Tell me another story. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,130 by Brandioch 5/1/02 8:55:08 PM Reply	Why can't you answer simple questions? From my last post. Do you actually believe that without an enemy in the Middle East we would have no other enemy? You mean like China might be? Or some of the old Soviet states? Or maybe a Russia with a new leader? Aside from those, our "enemies" can't even get to us. Unless you believe Canada or Mexico might invade. Or maybe you're concerned about a coffee embargo in South America? Would we send in troops to defend Starbucks' interests in that region? Yet you cannot answer a simple question. Who is our enemy? The rest of your post is pointless. Hey, >YOU< asked questions and and >YOU< could not answer them. How about I put ANOTHER of your questions back in your face? Maybe you think that without oil we wouldn't make enemies in other areas due to our need for raw material resources to drive the economy? (cut out a bit) If your position is that we'd have other enemies because of other resources we need, then why don't you put up and identify those "enemies"? Again, you CAN'T answer that question, can you? You can ASK IT because you THINK it might support your position, but the FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT SUPPORTS MINE. Like I said, we are NOT about to go to war with South America because of some coffee bean embargo. Deal with your ignorance. Again? Sure. Here's ANOTHER of your "questions" back in your face. Equally in denial, there could never be a wealthy individual there willing to fund terrorism, could there? Hmmm, another question from you without any support. Again, I'm not going to enlighten you on world events. If there >IS< such an individual, then why don't you identify him/her? But you CAN'T identify such an individual, can you. If you COULD, you WOULD have. You are pathetic. Let me give you a free clue, that rhetorical question crap only plays well with your idiot friends. In the world where people can quote facts, you lose. Again. Progression of violence. Tell me I'm wrong. Don't make statements without defining your position. TELL ME I'M WRONG. The SUPPORT your statement. Show me that there has not been a progression. Claiming they strike at civilians because they can't hurt our military. 3,000+ dead at the WTC. Or did you forget about that? Gee, maybe you missed it. It was in the papers. Pure, argumentative bullshit. Possibly. But at least I have facts to support my claims. You can't even answer your own questions. The Israeli state was created becuase there was oil there and we needed them to watch it. Cool. Now, why don't you go back through my posts and quote back where I said that. Hmmmm? Oh, ANOTHER strawman from Bill "Strawman" Patient. No, we are SUPPORTING Israel because we want to USE Israel because of Israel's LOCATION. Not that Israel was CREATED for that use. We want to use what is there. That being Israel. Is that too complicated for you? So we stop buying mideast oil...right now. Better even...we NEVER bought it. But we still support Israel. What the FUCK are you talking about? #1. We STILL BUY THE OIL. #2. We have ALWAYS bought the oil. Where do you get off saying that we aren't buying the oil? Where do you get off saying that we have NEVER bought the oil? Bill, you DO know what "oil" is, right? Can we PLEASE limit this discussion to reality? Please? You DO know what "reality" is, right?
Post #37,151 by bepatient 5/1/02 10:57:51 PM Reply	Why do you answer questions with questions? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,203 by Brandioch 5/2/02 12:28:51 PM Reply	To highlight your flaws. You asked if there wouldn't be another wealthy fanatic. I asked you for a name. You decided not to answer that. -------------------------- You asked if there wouldn't be ANOTHER enemy controlling resources. I asked what resources you were refering to. You decide not to answer that. -------------------------- And so it continues. This is your standard "debate" tactic. You ask stupid questions without any knowledge of world events in an attempt to get me to support your position for you. When I ask you for more information (information you cannot provide because, as I have stated, you are ignorant of world events) you run and hide. Or you use allegations as facts. And innuendo. And you have CONSISTENTLY tried to hide behind strawmen. Shall I detail how you confuse fantasy with fact? In your previous post where you said we never bought oil from Arab states but we still supported Israel? Go back to your dreams, Bill. Let the people who have actual knowledge discuss these events.
Post #37,232 by bepatient 5/2/02 3:01:25 PM Reply	If you are going to continue... ...pretending to be stupid... Far be it from me to stop you. Answer to the final point. Do you think we would be having this debate >right now< if Israel did not exist? In the real world they call this >root cause<. Regardless of what is said in 15 minute video snippits. Regardless of what the man at the top says. What is the position that drives the support? WDTHASM? Don't play dumb. The oil is there. If we didn't buy it...someone else would...and in fact...they do. Just as much or more combined purchases than the US. So with or without the US there would be massive amounts of money in the region. Money is not the root cause. Oil is not the root cause. That leaves... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,239 by Brandioch 5/2/02 4:09:43 PM Reply	Can you answer the questions? Are you capable of answering? Do you know what the word "answer" means? Answer to the final point. Do you think we would be having this debate >right now< if Israel did not exist? Thanks, Bill. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, once again, Mr. Patient has demonstrated his inability to recall anything that happened two or more posts earlier. Go back and read the thread, Bill. Something about Saudi's. Why? Because of oil. You said we had more oil than they do. I pointed out the having is not the same as having available for use. I also pointed out that this is a matter of national security. Then you started discussing national security and oil prices and how we didn't lose many people during any of the wars we fought there. Not to mention the questions you asked about mythical wealthy fanatics and mythical resources controlled by "enemy" states. and so on and so forth. So.... Answer to the final point. Do you think we would be having this debate >right now< if Israel did not exist? You mean about our national security being at risk because we're dependant upon oil controlled by states that are NOT overly friendly to the US? Well, that discussion would still be going on. Sorry to burst your bubble. In the real world they call this >root cause<. Good. You've learned a term. And the "root cause" is our addiction to their oil. That's right. There is NOTHING about Israel in that statement. But you won't see it that way, will you? Try reading the thread, for the first time. Regardless of what is said in 15 minute video snippits. Regardless of what the man at the top says. What is the position that drives the support? WDTHASM? And I'm sure that paragraph made some sense to you when you typed it. Don't play dumb. Bill. The problem is on your end. Not mine. You only see it as "dumb" because you can't remember anything two or more posts earlier. Read the thread again, for the first time. The oil is there. Congratulations. You've managed to recognize ONE fact in this reality. If we didn't buy it...someone else would...and in fact...they do. Bzzzzzttttt!!!!!! And there was so much hope that you could manage TWO facts in a ROW. I guess not. You see, Bill, if we didn't buy the oil, they would not pump as much. That means they would not sell as much. That means they would have less money from the sales. You DO understand basic sales, right? You sell X items at Y price and make XY dollars. So, we have X items, minus what we would normally buy (call it Z) which results in........ (X-Z)Y dollars. Now, my point is that.... (X-Z)Y dollars is LESS than XY dollars. Which means fewer dollars for their fanatics. Which sounds to me like a "good thing". Your mileage may vary. Just as much or more combined purchases than the US. (X-Z)Y dollars is LESS than XY dollars. Deal with it. So with or without the US there would be massive amounts of money in the region. (X-Z)Y dollars is LESS than XY dollars. I guess that depends upon how you define "massive amounts of money". I'm saying there will be less money there without our purchases than with our purchases. I'm saying that our national security would not have the hole it does if we did not import the fuel. Less money in that region means less funding for extremist terrorists. Go ahead and argue against that logic. You will, of course not, notice that I am not refering to Israel at all in that statement. Money is not the root cause. Oil is not the root cause. That leaves... Bill, just because YOU say so do not MAKE it so. Oil >IS< the root cause. More specifically, our addiction to their oil. Which means that our money is transfered to them. Which means that their extremists are extremely well funded by our purchases.
Post #37,280 by bepatient 5/2/02 9:13:17 PM Reply	Since you seem incapable... ...of holding a discussion unless it fits your terms and your style... Enjoy yourself. You know my point and will not address it. Thats not my problem. Nor shall I waste any more of anyone else's time trying to explain it to you. You claim a superior intellect. Use it once and a while. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,285 by Brandioch 5/2/02 9:50:06 PM Reply	It's good to see you're staying true to form. I still remember when I could name the environmental companies I worked for and you refused to name the one you worked for. The same M.O. from you each time. And then you run away claiming that I'm the one at fault. Bill, that would work >IF< everyone didn't know that you are incapable of supplying any facts. I told you the companies I worked for, you couldn't do the same. And the same can be seen in this discussion. You just CAN'T support your position with facts. And every time you run away blaming me for your inability to name the company you work for (or provide any other facts to support your position). But, you'll be back on the very next discussion. Right up until I start digging at you for facts. Then you'll run, again. And blame me for your lack of facts. Until the next discussion. And the questions are never that difficult. You do know the name of the company you work for, right? You do know what resources we import, right? You do know what countries we import them from, right? Oh, am I wrong on those points? You can't even answer the questions that you should know the answers to. Because you're afraid that your lies will be revealed. Whatever. Run away. Come back when you've grown up a little.
Post #37,303 by bepatient 5/3/02 1:19:25 AM Reply	Slight variant... I'm much quicker to tell you to go fuck yourself. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,338 by Brandioch 5/3/02 11:37:55 AM Reply	The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all. I'm much quicker to tell you to go fuck yourself. I'll even disagree with that. I'm the one who isn't wasting time trying to work with you. You ALWAYS run when I start digging at you for facts. The ONLY difference is how quickly I start digging. If I wasn't digging, you'd still be happily spewing your lies and fantasies. Prove I'm wrong, Bill. Name the country -or- Name the resource. It can't be THAT hard. Unless you have no idea what you're spouting about. The it will be impossible. But feel free to blame me for your ignorance. "Well, I >WAS< going to tell you but you're mean to me so I'm not going to tell you now." Bill, grow up. There isn't a person on this board who doesn't recognize shit like that for exactly what it is. Particularly when you have no trouble digging up facts when you think I'm wrong. (reference my comments about Ben & Jerry and your cop killer example) If you can't handle an adult discussion, just keep your childish ass out of them. Or grow the fuck up already.
Post #37,354 by bepatient 5/3/02 1:18:16 PM Reply	You seem to want me to repeat myself. There is a distinct difference between having an adult discussion...which would allow for participants to apply thought to a situation and how that situation may change given a new set of circumstances.... And the nitpicky tit for tat bullshit you spew... So I'll repeat myself... Fuck off. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,363 by Brandioch 5/3/02 2:32:24 PM Reply	The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all. There is a distinct difference between having an adult discussion...which would allow for participants to apply thought to a situation and how that situation may change given a new set of circumstances.... And the nitpicky tit for tat bullshit you spew... I asked you a question about something you posted. You run and hide and blame me for your ignorance. You seem quite capable of posting your immature attacks at me. But you seem quite INCAPABLE of answering simple questions. It is not MY fault that you are ignorant. It is not MY fault that you are more cowardly than I (I can post the names of companies I worked for to substantiate my claims, you cannot). In other words, Bill, NONE of your faults are MY fault. You are the person you are because that is who you are. Deal with it.
Post #37,421 by bepatient 5/3/02 10:21:07 PM Reply	This space and your mind = blank You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,425 by Brandioch 5/3/02 11:10:15 PM Reply	The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all. You still can't do it, can you?
Post #37,429 by Another Scott 5/3/02 11:35:34 PM Reply	It's getting tiresome. :-( Perhaps you and BP should post under new pseudonyms when responding to each other. I fear there's too much bad blood between you two to shed any light through your correspondence. Cheers, Scott.
Post #37,439 by bepatient 5/4/02 1:15:02 AM Reply	Yes it is... ...but funny in its own way. For all of his intelligence he can't seem to understand that my choice is simply not to debate in his style. My initial post was rhetorical. Designed to point out several flaws in the position that our problems in the Middle East are all due to oil. (oversimplistic and definitely not root cause...contributory sure...compromising National Security..please...) His response was to as for specific answers to rhetorical questions. (bog) Take the other issue of my company name. It was an unecessary question. But my lack of an answer to that unecessary question (even though with half a brain and a little memory he should have already known it..since there is only 1 french owned oil/chemical conglomerate) incurs a litany of posts much like the ones above. Constant badgering about things completely unrelated to the discussion. But...apologies to the board...I was being a good boy for a while and not entering discussions where right shift was an option. In the immortal words of Firesign Theater... Back to the Shadows again! There will be no further posts made by me in this thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,471 by Brandioch 5/4/02 8:43:49 AM Reply	The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all. My initial post was rhetorical. Designed to point out several flaws in the position that our problems in the Middle East are all due to oil. And the flaw in THAT theory is that you are not able to substantiate ANY of your "rhetorical" questions. Example, I say the moon is made out of rock. You ask if there aren't ANY celestial objects made of cheese. (rhetorical) So I ask you to name ONE that is made of cheese. And THAT is where the discussion is right now. You've asked if another country could control another resource. I've asked what country or what resource. Take the other issue of my company name. It was an unecessary question. Negative. You had made statements that you substatiated by claims of insider knowledge. You also seemed to be claiming that you were a government official interviewing violators AND AT THE SAME TIME a worker in a private company. So, I gave the names of the companies that I had worked for and why I disagreed with your position. That was so that ANYONE could, if interested, verify that I did have the background I claimed. In the field I claimed. While your claim was based upon your claim to secret, revealed wisdom that can not be verified. Verification IS part of any discussion. Constant badgering about things completely unrelated to the discussion. It is related to the discussion. It is an example of your "discussion" method. Simple put, you make claims without substantiation and when pressed for substantiation, you blame your inability to provide facts on me. You have done this before. You did this in this thread. You will do this again. Like I said, I can provide facts and references. You will not/can not. For all of his intelligence he can't seem to understand that my choice is simply not to debate in his style. And my debate style is to support my position with facts and references. Which means that your "debate" style is........?
Post #37,252 by marlowe 5/2/02 5:48:24 PM Reply	Science says you're wasting your time. SETI has turned up a conspicuous lack of evidence of intelligent life on planet Brandioch. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #37,255 by Brandioch 5/2/02 6:01:59 PM Reply	Bill + Marlowe. Hey Marlowe, I have a quote for you regarding your belief that "enemies" should be forced, upon threat of death, to be mine detectors. I'm sure you'll appreciate your philosophical mentor. [link\|http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html\|Here] Do a search on "Bolshevism". Hitler at one time compared the Jews to tuberculosis bacilli which had infected Europe. It was not cruel to shoot them if they would not work or if they could not work. He said: "This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so that they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts who wanted to bring Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?" You know, it might not be accurate, but I feel that any position which offends BOTH Bill and Marlowe just might be worth investigating.
Post #37,248 by Steven A S 5/2/02 5:03:12 PM Reply	Please be realistic If he knew the answers to those questions, we could save the CIA a lot of time and money. But as it stands, they have to keep a constant watch for both because of their answer to his question (he's not the only one asking it) ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton
Post #37,253 by Brandioch 5/2/02 5:54:37 PM Reply	Perhaps you can narrow the field? Suppose we take just ONE of those "questions". Can YOU tell me what resources, other than oil, can be controlled by what nations to threaten our national security? You see, this is what differentiates those who understand world events from those who don't. Those who do understand, know what we import from where and how critical it is to our nation. Go ahead. Tell me what we're importing from where and why they might turn into an enemy. Don't tell me that it MIGHT happen. Don't tell me that the CIA is watching it. Tell me WHAT we're CURRENTLY importing from WHERE and WHY that country might become an ENEMY. I've already gone through similar exercises here when I detailed the existing nuclear powers and their status towards us and what unfriendly states had taken what actions to acquire nuclear capability. You see, >THAT< is what being informed is about. Being able to supply details, facts and specifics to questions. Being uninformed and ignorant is illustrated by "well, some unknown state could control some unknown resource and become an enemy for some unknown reason". Do you need me to make it just a bit clearer for you? Informed == facts Ignorant == unknown If you make a statement based upon unknown materials in the hands of unknown states who have unknown relations with us, you are ignorant. Does ANYONE need me to make this clearer?
Post #37,281 by bepatient 5/2/02 9:20:22 PM Reply	Swing and a miss... ...ignorance (or stupidity...take your pick) is not being able to take facts and extrapolate cohesive thought from them based upon a change in the underlying assumptions. You know..what would happen if...? Informed only requires reading. Ignorance seems to be an art form you've perfected. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,287 by Brandioch 5/2/02 10:03:53 PM Reply	Just tell me the name of the country, Bill. Or the resource we're importing from them. That's all I'm asking. Am I asking too much from you? Informed only requires reading. That's the start, Bill. You might try it sometime. Then you might be able to pick up some FACTS to support your position. ...ignorance (or stupidity...take your pick) is not being able to take facts and extrapolate cohesive thought from them based upon a change in the underlying assumptions. You know..what would happen if...? Bzzzztttttt!!!!! No, Bill. That is called "fantasy". You know..what would happen if...? The US had lost the Revolutionary War? (can anyone tell me the name of that book?) You know..what would happen if...? A giant meteor slammed into the Earth? (A bad movie with poor science. Name it?) You know..what would happen if...? You could genetically engineer a super-intelligent shark? You know..what would happen if...? Bill Patient could understand where fantasy ends and reality begins. Anyone can say "what would happen if". Most children do that. Now, the difference between THAT and "being able to take facts and extrapolate cohesive thought from them" is that you are NOT starting with any FACTS. Your position was that another country could withhold a vital resource. The FACTS you're leaving out are: #1. What country? #2. What resource? #3. Why are they withholding it? To extrapolate from FACTS, you must START with some FACTS. What you are doing is called "fantasy". "Fantasy" does NOT require any facts. Do the reading. Get informed. This will give you the FACTS. THEN you can start to extrapolate. But then I already knew you couldn't tell fantasy from reality. You're fantasy world is so much more comforting to you than the nasty real world, isn't it? In your fantasy world, you're never wrong and you don't need any nasty "facts" to be Right.
Post #37,520 by bepatient 5/4/02 7:47:17 PM Reply	Count China on the following link... ...and understand that we are training military in Asia to deal with terrorists. [link\|http://www.cnr.umn.edu/WPS/cd/ev7.html\|http://www.cnr.umn..../cd/ev7.html] And notice we import 41% of our oil from 3 areas. Only one is a muslim country. A country with reserves less than those of our own. The list of Chinese materials is much more significant...and many of those products we have a 100% import dependence upon. Then tell me all of our problems in the Middle East are about the oil...(that we don't really need) Or can you grasp the true reality...the one that I pointed out in the first post. We are not compromising National Security in exchange for oil...and none of this discussion would be occurring if Israel did not exist. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,525 by Brandioch 5/4/02 8:54:24 PM Reply	And you go down in flames. So, you've managed to name the country (China). China controls part of these critical resources: Mica Graphite Yttrium Fluorspar Tungsten Tin Titanium Barium (Barite) Antimony Magnesium Yes, I can see how our national security is in danger from a Chinese embargo of MICA! Or are we afraid China will cut our access to Yttrium? My my oh my. How will our government operate if we don't have a ready supply of Barium? The list of Chinese materials is much more significant...and many of those products we have a 100% import dependence upon. Ummm, we ARE both looking at the same page. RIGHT? Maybe I'm missing something. Could you tell me which of those materials you view as "much more significant" than oil? Perhaps you would tell me WHY they are "much more significant" than oil? Then tell me all of our problems in the Middle East are about the oil...(that we don't really need) Bill, did you manage to MISS that ALL THE TIMES I SAID IT? Let me say it AGAIN just so you can't miss it this time. OIL is the REASON we have so many PROBLEMS in the Mid-East. Or can you grasp the true reality...the one that I pointed out in the first post. We are not compromising National Security in exchange for oil...and none of this discussion would be occurring if Israel did not exist. You claim that is reality. Yet your supporting material seems to indicate that MICA is more important to this country than OIL is. And I know you are wrong on that.
Post #37,531 by bepatient 5/4/02 9:55:15 PM Reply	Ahh.. ...so now you claim to be an expert on the entire manufacturing base of the country? The combined loss of all of those materials would be significant. If you'd bother to read things like the former administration's stance on oil imports you might realize that there are several very interesting developments...most of which revolve around developments that reduce percieved need for mideast oil. Yep...the loss of Saudi oil would really suck. It would cost serious money to fill your SUV. Maybe as much as it would cost to fill it in France. Might even cause a recession until we get our resources in line. We would, however, still have 80% of our imports (unless you think Canada and Venezuela are gonna cut us off too)...and a significantly larger incentive to drill in the ANWR and begin mining shale. But quite frankly..you have your opinion. For the sake of everyone else here...continue to believe you're right. Saudi could cut us off right now...it would pinch...but we'd get over it. The muslim extremist would still hate us. We could remove every American from every country there. The muslim extermist would still hate us. They would still cry for our destruction. But its all about the oil. Yeah...you're right. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,544 by Brandioch 5/5/02 1:14:34 AM Reply	Cry about it. But you know I'm right. Remember, we're talking NATIONAL SECURITY here. And, despite your claims to the contrary, MICA is not critical to NATIONAL SECURITY. Having enough oil/fuel to feed the war machines IS critical to NATIONAL SECURITY. But let's see what Bill "strawman" Patient has to say. Saudi could cut us off right now...it would pinch...but we'd get over it. The muslim extremist would still hate us. Yes. They would. And the FLAW in your position is that I was NOT talking about THEIR policy towards US. I was talking about OUR policy towards THEM. If we don't need their oil, what they think DOES NOT MATTER. To substantiate that statement, I will remind you that there are LOTS of countries that we do NOT import anything from and whom we do NOT care what their opinion of us is. We could remove every American from every country there. The muslim extermist would still hate us. Again, you've reversed my position. It isn't about whether they like us or not. Currently, we have the problem where we MUST have SOME of them liking us. That's because of the oil. If we got off that addiction, we would not CARE if they liked us or not. They would still cry for our destruction. But its all about the oil. That's right. Because we have to have SOME of the people there like us and that affects how we deal with them. Once AGAIN you have REVERSED my position. Bill "strawman" Patient has struck again! If we were off the oil, we would not CARE if they liked us and THAT would alter our foreign policy. Since we DO care whether they like us, we MUST adopt a DIFFERENT foreign policy. You want specifics? I know you don't as they will only serve to crush your pitiful position. Yasser. He's a terrorist. We know this. But we have to treat him as if he was NOT a terrorist so we don't piss off the Arab states. Now, if we didn't care whether we pissed them off, we could/would treat him as a terrorist. >THAT< is how our addiction to their oil affects us. And all the MICA in the world will NEVER have the same affect. No matter what you claim.
Post #37,549 by bepatient 5/5/02 2:27:18 AM Reply	I know of no such thing. And your specific example is just as pitiful. Yasser...we treat him differently because of the political situation with ISRAEL. Without whom...none of this matters..oil or not. We import oil from them because its cheap and easy. Our war machines can run without Saudi oil. In fact...right now 80% of them already do. The US has proven oil reserves far in excess of those of Saudi Arabia. We change our position with in the region and alter foreign policy in the region because of ISRAEL. If it were just oil it would be much simpler. You...the most wise...should be able to see that...instead you use an "specific" designed to "crush my pitiful position"...which <bog> actually supports it. The air must be thinning on Planet Brandioch. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,551 by Ashton 5/5/02 4:07:12 AM Reply	Well... since t'was I who uttered the [oil] generalization first.. waaay back up there: I'll concede that - of course! - it isn't just about oil. OTOH we do like: cheap; especially cheap nice clean Saudi sweet crude with lots less junk in it we have to refine out, at a co$t. And we do like keeping our own stuff in the ground, safe for when (not if, IMhO) we finally piss-off too many present suppiers / or they piss us off. We like it so much - we have next to be dragged kicking&screaming to even begin any serious development of alternatives (or at least the lip-service to that beginning). I might even concede a bit of Yttrium re the China package: you can't build YAG lasers w/o it for one. Don't pretend to an encyclop\ufffddic knowledge of all our uses and sources for the (111? now) elements.. but Erbium, Neodymium, Yt and lots of Rare Earths will find increasing demand as we exponentially seek new weapons and other uses along our techno- hi-speed dash into the unknown. (This in a culture in which fewer and fewer have the foggiest what The Periodic Chart might be about) - Hah! transistorized boxes to ameliorate general dumbth? Is that our plan? Still, back to M.E. - whatever 'favors' we have done for Israel all along obviously are a mix of - partly idealism re its SOLE democratic status amidst fiefdoms - but also as our surrogate presence, thus buffer. Need we debate the fine admixture of a dash of honest principle + Corporations-full of Machiavellian scheming which IS - so-called International Diplomacy (?) Still too - among the least believable of many National pretenses must be - that the Saudis "are our friends"! It is certainly not clear to the mass of Muricans what that quid is.. for which we offer so much quo: EXCEPT for the highly visible [oil]. And that, mixed with Israel and insoluble One True Religions at perpetual war -- and now explosions on sacred US soil -- is a conundrum which shall soon need much better explanation and justification IMO, if this Admin hopes to stick around beyond the remaining 2 yrs, 8 mos and a few days. Beyond..? - hmmm another impeachment possible, yet? If we want a thread to get some teeth into, why not take on: what shall We do when China (either from fearfulness of the old men / Old Guard.. of 'progress' away from their core dogma, or other new reasons) DECIDES it is time to take back Taiwan and convert it to a cash cow a la HK -AND- the Taiwanese DECIDE not to go gently into that good night? And add THAT to the fuzziness above, of our Middle East overall position -- for a Real Problem set to get teeth into. Ashton One-front wars are so boring, when you can stumble into Two, don't you think? And we bought that capacity, too - prescience?
Post #37,559 by Brandioch 5/5/02 11:45:03 AM Reply	We won't complain about Taiwan. China represents too big of a market to alienate. Look at their government and actions, yet we STILL do the "Most-Favored-Nation" status.
Post #37,558 by Brandioch 5/5/02 11:40:48 AM Reply	There's a LOT you don't know, Bill. International politics being a prime example. Yasser...we treat him differently because of the political situation with ISRAEL. Israel wants him DEAD. Saudi Arabia wants him ALIVE. We don't want him declared a "terrorist" because we've said it is okay to bomb and kill terrorists. If he's dead, Saudi Arabia is unhappy. If we support his death, Saudi Arabia is unhappy as US. And we want them to be happy with us otherwise the oil is in jeopardy. But I'll be happy to hear what your fantasy regarding Yasser and Israel is and why we're supporting Israel by claiming he isn't a terrorist. Go ahead. Tell me a story. This one should be REAL good. Almost as good as THIS one: The US has proven oil reserves far in excess of those of Saudi Arabia. But we do NOT have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to EXPLOIT them. Without the infrastructure, they are "there" but they are not "available". Do I really have to explain this to you? Okay, you're dieing in the desert. You'd survive if you could get water. There's lots of water. But it is 100m underground. Now, you'd survive IF you had a pumping station already setup. Since you don't, you die. Just like our national security. Go ahead, Bill. Tell me again that the oil is "there". Just keep skipping over the fact that we don't have the infrastructure. Or is that too complex for your binary point of view?
Post #37,560 by bepatient 5/5/02 11:48:17 AM Reply	A perfect display of your cluelessness.... ...without Israel there is no Yasser. And >I"m< the one clueless about international politics >bog<. No reason to even bring him up. He's an old guy in Palestine that likes Corn Flakes and Hummus. Root cause analysis...look it up...you need to...really. And on your desert example...I think I might be able to survive...although I'd be a little inconvenienced when I noticed that instead of being full to the rim...my canteen is only 80% full. I might even not mind that thirst at all if I knew that when I was done crossing...I would find out that I'm at the shore of the largest source of fresh water on the planet. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,568 by Brandioch 5/5/02 12:46:37 PM Reply	WTF? A perfect display of your cluelessness.... ...without Israel there is no Yasser. Root cause analysis...look it up...you need to...really. Been done. Resulted in "oil" as the root cause. From your posts, it seems that "Israel" is the root cause that you came up with. Very strange, that. Allow me to quote myself from my previous post: But I'll be happy to hear what your fantasy regarding Yasser and Israel is and why we're supporting Israel by claiming he isn't a terrorist. Go ahead. Tell me a story. This one should be REAL good. So, you see Israel as the problem because if there was no Israel, then there would be no Yasser and our foreign policy wouldn't require that we support petty dictators and oppressive regimes like the Taliban (hosted in Texas in 1997). Bill, do you have ANY grasp on reality? And on your desert example...I think I might be able to survive...although I'd be a little inconvenienced when I noticed that instead of being full to the rim...my canteen is only 80% full. Ah, don't forget that your brother is driving a water tanker over the dune in 10 minutes. Ah, but if he's late, too bad. Unless you think you can dig 100m on one canteen of water? I might even not mind that thirst at all if I knew that when I was done crossing...I would find out that I'm at the shore of the largest source of fresh water on the planet. Hmmm, I said: Okay, you're dieing in the desert. You'd survive if you could get water. There's lots of water. But it is 100m underground. But you don't understand that, do you? You're operating under the exact same delusion you are in real life. You think that oil will magically appear when needed. Without any time invested in building the infrastructure to get to it. Bill, magic and miracles only happen in your fantasy world. The real world requires time and effort to get to those resources.
Post #37,569 by bepatient 5/5/02 1:27:31 PM Reply	Re: WTF? (planet are you on) Example given by you of being in the desert with NO water is garbage. 80% of our oil comes from outside the middle east. AND...as YOU are so fond to point out...some of our EXCESS goes to Japan...which means we could reduce IMMEDIATELY to even less than 20% Saudi Oil. You seem to be trying to convince someone that ALL of our oil comes from Saudi...which is...quite frankly...bullshit. What do the Taliban have to do with oil? Do we now import it fram Afghanistan too? Funny...that place looks like they would really like to have oil to export...it would solve alot of problems that could be solved with money. So stick with the program...is this about supporting oppressive regimes that support terrorism? Or is this a debate about the root cause of all of that... You dove in in support of a stance that its "all about oil"... It isn't. Except on Planet Brandioch. Even the guy you jumped in on admits the same. By the way...do you happen to know what Fluospar is used for. Everyone south of you will be very interested in it in about a month..Texas, Arizona and Florida would be very unfriendly without it. One of those 100% non strategic materials on the previous list. One for whcih there is no current substitute. Ah...who am I kidding..you know everything. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,573 by Brandioch 5/5/02 2:51:49 PM Reply	It's called "Earth". You might want to visit sometime. You seem to be trying to convince someone that ALL of our oil comes from Saudi...which is...quite frankly...bullshit. Thank you, Bill "strawman" Patient. No. I never said that all of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia. What do the Taliban have to do with oil? Like I said, you are ignorant of world events. [link\|http://www.rememberjohn.com/Oilbarons.html\|Bill's Ignorance is vast] Do we now import it fram Afghanistan too? No. Funny...that place looks like they would really like to have oil to export...it would solve alot of problems that could be solved with money. Bill "strawman" Patient. So stick with the program...is this about supporting oppressive regimes that support terrorism? Or is this a debate about the root cause of all of that... And why do you separate them? What is the root cause of our support of dictators in the mid-east? Answer: Oil. You dove in in support of a stance that its "all about oil"... Yes. And I just said it again. As opposed to >YOU< who seems to imply that the "root cause" of our supporting dictators in the mid-east is....Israel's existance? Yes, you said that if Israel DID NOT EXIST, then we would not have a problem with Yasser. By the way...do you happen to know what Fluospar is used for. Everyone south of you will be very interested in it in about a month..Texas, Arizona and Florida would be very unfriendly without it. Bill "strawman" Patient has a problem with links and supporting documentation. But I had already established that. Bill "strawman" Patient does NOT "debate" in my style. Read this post. My "style" is to provide links and references to my claims. Bill's is to "ask" questions hoping that I will get tired of running down his allegations and give up. Bill "Strawman" Patient, why don't you tell me what >YOU< think the importance of "Fluospar" is? And why are you switching from the MICA discussion earlier? Are you ready to admit that you were wrong about the strategic importance of Chinese mica? So, in these last few posts, I have established that: #1. Bill has no idea what the importance of Afghanistan is with regard to oil. #2. Bill thinks Israel's existance is the "root cause" of our supporting dictatorships in the mid-east. #3. Bill cannot admit when he is wrong regarding the strategic importance of Chinese mica. Now, I shall switch to Bill's "style" of "debate". Bill, you're wrong. Why don't you tell me why you are wrong?
Post #37,580 by a6l6e6x 5/5/02 5:23:51 PM Reply	Re: Price of crude oil. [link\|http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm\|Oil Price History and Analysis.] In 1972 the price of crude oil was about $3.00 and by the end of 1974 the price of oil had quadrupled to $12.00. So, what happened to cause such a turn of events? The Yom Kippur War started with an attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt on October 5, 1973. The United States and many countries in the western world showed strong support for Israel. As a result of this support Arab exporting nations imposed an embargo on the nations supporting Israel. Arab nations curtailed production by 5 million barrels per day (MMBPD) about 1 MMBPD was made up by increased production on other countries. The net loss of 4 MMBPD extended through March of 1974 and represented 7 percent of the free-world production. There's a clue here about relevance of Israel to oil prices. Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #37,593 by Brandioch 5/5/02 8:38:46 PM Reply	That's a "clue"? Ummm, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. This isn't about Israel. This is about keeping the Arab states happy. As a result of this support Arab exporting nations imposed an embargo on the nations supporting Israel. We supported something/someone they didn't want us to support and did not support something/someone they did want us to support. In other words, we made them unhappy. We made them unhappy because of our support of something/someone they didn't want us to support. They are unhappy because we did not support something/someone they wanted us to support. So they hit back via oil. The same thing with Yasser. If we support Israel, they are unhappy. If we don't support Yasser, they are unhappy.
Post #37,604 by bepatient 5/6/02 12:00:53 AM Reply	Wow...thats deep... ...you supply "facts"...that we're wanting to build a pipeline to supply oil to Pakistan? Pardon me...but wtf does that have to do with US oil supply? (remember...you seem to harp on US National Security). And we wouldn't have any interest in keeping Pakistan happy would we? Seeing as they have nukes and all and were quite keen on using them on India there for a while. (Maybe our interest in that region isn't oil???) And you are the one saying that NONE of the materials on that China list is nearly as important as oil...yet you have NO CLUE as to what most of them are actually used to make. Sure seems like a sweeping statement to make when you have no idea what you're talking about, doesn't it? So...let me see... Its all about the oil. Yasser Arafat...would we wouldn't even know the man's name without Israel. Afghanistan...they have no oil...but they live between the mideast and Pakistan...so we want to build a pipeline to supply the Pakistani's oil...somehow that will keep our tanks from having fuel in a crisis. So pipeline building is somehow vital to National Security now. Interesting. We know have tanks that run on pipelines? Cool...that little piece of tech must have slipped past me. Never mind that Saudi oil is the minority of what we import. Even though you phrase your counter argument to sound as if we would have no oil without Saudi oil. You know..our tanks can't move without oil...right? Good thing we get most of it from ourselves, Canada and Venezuela, isn't it? And if the screaming weenies would quit about ANWR already..we could have all of Saudi's oil replaced before 2010. Your welcome to come to reality any time. Reality, though, seems to be a bit more complicated than you would like to admit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,607 by Brandioch 5/6/02 1:05:50 AM Reply	Do you not know how to read? Wow...thats deep... ...you supply "facts"...that we're wanting to build a pipeline to supply oil to Pakistan? Pardon me...but wtf does that have to do with US oil supply? (remember...you seem to harp on US National Security). Hmmm, You put "facts" in quotation marks. Do you not believe that such was the case? Did I not provide support for my claims of US oil companies hosting the Taliban in Texas in 1997? I said that it happened. You questioned it. I provided support for my statement. And your counter to my support was to question more? Whatever. That is ALL you CAN do as I have just proven my point with references. And you are the one saying that NONE of the materials on that China list is nearly as important as oil...yet you have NO CLUE as to what most of them are actually used to make. Sure seems like a sweeping statement to make when you have no idea what you're talking about, doesn't it? Again, whatever. Unlike YOU, I do not have to avoid answering questions. When I make a statement (Taliban in Texas in 1997 discussing oil deals) I can support it. With facts. With references. That are easily confirmed. All you can do is "ask" questions and make general statements which you refuse to support. You asked whether another country could control another resource and I asked WHAT resource and WHICH country. You, eventually, said "China" and gave a list of imports from various countries. Fine. I'll work with that. China exports mica to the US. Since that was the country and mica was on your list, I chose that one. Now you're crying about ANOTHER material? AND you're claiming that I don't know what they're used for? Bill, you named "China" and gave me a list of imports. If you didn't know enough about the world situation, you COULD have been more specific. But, in support of my earlier statement, you do NOT know enough about what's happening in the world. So I chose mica from China. Gee, Bill. It seems that Chinese mica is NOT of strategic importance to our national security. I gave you EVERY opportunity to tell me which country and what resource. You failed. Again and again and again. Now you're blaming ME for not telling YOU which imports are critical? You said "China" and you gave a list containing mica. And I proved my point using the criteria YOU provided. Now you want to change the criteria. Whatever. You were wrong on Afghanistan and oil. You were wrong on Chinese mica. You were wrong time and time and time again. But, despite all those instances, in your mind, you're still right. Bill, there's a name for someone who continues to believe what he wants to believe even when facts contrary to his belief are presented. Religious nutcase. And it's nice to see that you've fallen back into your old "debate style" of skipping any links or references to support your position.
Post #37,608 by bepatient 5/6/02 1:46:45 AM Reply	I don't mean to pry... ...but it seems like you're trying to make a point about US energy dependence by bringing in a "fact" about building a pipeline to supply Pakistan. Doesn't that seem just a bit like.....a stretch? I'm fine being a zealot in your eyes if it means that I understand that a combined list of material would have an equally disastrous effect on the economy of the US. (maybe because I happen to know what they're used for...unlike someone who thinks its all about oil) ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that we have 80% of our oil requirements already sourced outside of the mideast and the capability and approval (nearly) to develop independence from that oil in under 10 years. Now can we get back to the point please. You say all of our problems in the region are due to oil. You use Yasser Arafat as an example. Hmmm...I don't remember him as an oil baron. I remeber him being a principle enemy of Israel due to a fight for an independent land. One that we took away from them some 60 years back. I don't remember us building vast oil fields when we did that though. Funny that...I remember us creating the State of Israel. But its all about the oil. Yep. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,619 by Brandioch 5/6/02 11:13:51 AM Reply	I'll even give you the format, Bill "strawman" Patient. "xxxxx is the country controlling resource yyyyyy which is important to national security because of (a detailed analysis follows explaining what that resource is used in, specifically, and why that product is important to national security). The link to support this statement is (here)." There, that isn't hard, is it? Well, for Bill "strawman" Patient, it is impossible. Something about a mental block against admitting he is ignorant of anything outside of his fantasy world. I don't mean to pry... ...but it seems like you're trying to make a point about US energy dependence by bringing in a "fact" about building a pipeline to supply Pakistan. The point, which I am not surprised you don't recall as it was stated earlier and I have already established that you memory is even weaker than your grasp on reality (I will also postulate that these two facts are related. Your memory loses any facts that don't fit your fantasy which allows you to maintain your fantasy.) is the US foreign policy in the mid-east is primarily based upon our addiction to their oil. That is why we are willing to host oppressive dictatorships and the like. As we did in 1997 when we hosted the Taliban in Texas so we could get an agreement to pipe oil across their lands. #1. We dealt with the Taliban in 1997. #2. We dealt with them to get a pipeline across their country. #3. This pipeline was to carry oil. #4. This is the same Taliban that is "evil" today. #5. We knew how they treated their women in 1997 (the same as they treated them in 2001). There, nicely wrapped up and numbered in easily verifiable, digestible nuggets. Therefore, I have substantiated my position that our ADDICTION to their OIL is the ROOT of our FOREIGN POLICY in the MID-EAST. Doesn't that seem just a bit like.....a stretch? No, Bill "strawman" Patient. It doesn't. Because I can supply example after example after example. The best you can do is that if Israel didn't exist, then we wouldn't be supporting them and risking the oil flow. Which, if you will notice, gets back to oil. You use Yasser Arafat as an example. Hmmm...I don't remember him as an oil baron. And I never said he was. Just as I never said that Afghanistan had oil fields. Bill "strawman" Patient strikes AGAIN. To support my statement, I will reference the oil embargo. Israel was at war. Israel does not supply us with oil. We supported Israel in that war and, as punishment, Saudi Arabial cut back on our oil. There, we lost oil from Saudi Arabia because of something we did that didn't involve Saudi Arabia. Keep going, Bill "strawman" Patient. At this point, I'm just establishing your M.O. and ignorance. I'm fine being a zealot in your eyes if it means that I understand that a combined list of material would have an equally disastrous effect on the economy of the US. But you have NOT shown that you understand that. You have shown that such is your fantasy. That's the difference between SAYING something and providing links and references. And, if you will read back through this thread, you will find that you have stated that NOT providing such IS your "debate style". (maybe because I happen to know what they're used for...unlike someone who thinks its all about oil) And the link/reference you have provided is WHERE? That's right. You did NOT provide such. Once again, you are refusing to provide substantiation for your claims. Which is, you have admitted, your "debate style". For my part, I'm not going to go digging for references that such is NOT the case for EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL YOU LISTED. I'm going to refute your claim by demonstrating that ONE of materials you listed is NOT critical to the US. That material being MICA. There. You made a statement, broad and unfocused, and I treated it as if it were focused and accurate and then I refuted it. I asked you what country controlled what resource that was critical to our national security. You, in a round about way, claimed that Chinese mica was. I refuted that. You lose. Just as I have demonstrated that you do not understand the politics of the mid-east. You lose, again. I have also established what your "debate style" is. You lose a third time.
Post #37,626 by bepatient 5/6/02 11:53:34 AM 5/6/02 12:01:57 PM Reply	Wow..thats deep sir. I forgot my hip waders. You can call me strawman all you like...I'm not the one claiming that US supply of oil is somehow effected by a pipeline to supply Pakistan. I'm not the one claiming that Yasser Arafat would be a factor without the existance of Israel. I'm not the one claiming that relations in the mideast are as simple as stating "its all about the oil". I'm not the one falsely claiming that our tanks and other military hardware will stop running without Saudi oil. I'm not the one ignoring the equally disastrous economic effects of a simultaneous assault against housing, chemicals, electronics, aluminum and steel production, aerospace (commercial/military aircraft and weapons), automotive and commercial and residential refrigeration. In economic terms...both and oil embargo and a loss of these materials result in material shortages and cost-push inflation. The government, however, (and that includes the military) would remain largely unaffected due to strategic reserves. And you think favored nations for China is becasue we want to sell >them< something...and chide me about >my< knowledge of international relations. Wow. Thats good. Feel free to recap your idiotic arguments again at this point. Everyone will need to be told again that supplying Pakistan with oil is risking our ability to keep the M1A1s running. Oops...forgot one thing... Follow the logic... US foreign policy in the mid-east is primarily based upon our addiction to their oil. //snip// #2. We dealt with them to get a pipeline across their country. #3. This pipeline was to carry oil. To who??? Pakistan. Ok...">our< addiction"...pretend your hooked on heroin(maybe not far off considering these logical leaps)...how does getting someone >else< a fix keep you from DTs? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient May 6, 2002, 12:01:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,652 by Brandioch 5/6/02 2:51:02 PM Reply	Strawman strikes again. You can call me strawman all you like...I'm not the one claiming that US supply of oil is somehow effected by a pipeline to supply Pakistan. You IMPLY that you don't use strawmen, and IN THE SAME SENTENCE, you retreat to a strawman. It's pathological with you, isn't it?
Post #37,654 by mmoffitt 5/6/02 2:57:59 PM Reply	Simple Question. If Israel is our real buddy in the region, then why is Saudi Arabia called, officially, our buddy if its not about the oil? I mean, if you're correct and oil isn't corrupting our policy in the region, why would we support such an oppressive regime as the one that exists in Saudi Arabia? They do not share our values, they have as an atrocious a human rights record as you can find, they are overtly hostile towards our pal Israel. Yet, Saudi Arabia remains our buddy (I heard Dubya gushing over them as recently as last week). And its not about oil? Tell me, exactly what is it that causes us to support the Saudi regime if its not their oil?
Post #37,669 by rsf 5/6/02 4:57:04 PM Reply	Simple Answer, perhaps Oil is always going to play a part in US policy towards Saudi Arabia but I think right now our intentions towards Iraq are playing a much bigger role in the White House. It's no secret that W, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. are setting their sights on a US/Iraq war before the next presidential election. In order to engage in such a war, the Pentagon is probably pushing foreign policy in the direction of keeping Saudi Arabia's rulers on our side so that we can use their land for staging attacks. I suspect that in the formulation of our current foreign policy there is a machivellian belief that if we can uninstall Saddam, we can install a friendly secular government that will be more open to us with their oil and which can then effectively neutralize Saudi Arabia's economic influence over us. Ray
Post #37,676 by Brandioch 5/6/02 5:16:30 PM Reply	But isn't that still about the oil? I suspect that in the formulation of our current foreign policy there is a machivellian belief that if we can uninstall Saddam, we can install a friendly secular government that will be more open to us with their oil and which can then effectively neutralize Saudi Arabia's economic influence over us. So, our goal might be to establish another government, with oil reserves, that is friendlier to us than Saudi Arabia? And the reason to do this would be to neutralize Saudi Arabia's hold over us which is based upon oil? This is why I say that it always comes back to oil in the mid-east.
Post #37,677 by bepatient 5/6/02 5:20:59 PM Reply	Simple answer... ...the are the largest and most moderate (officially) nation in the muslim MidEast...and pretty much the only one left to be friends with. We're pretty good friends with Kuwait...but they're not all that bid nor influential. Who else is there...Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt? Israel is not a muslim nation. Or should we not attempt to have an ally...or at least >good< diplomatic relations with at least one muslim nation in the Mideast? Don't get me wrong...I'm not claiming that oil plays no part in the equation...not at all...Just disputing the position that its "all about oil". That is a tired argument and a vast oversimplification of the problem. My position is simple. Israel is a larger influence and the root cause of more of our problems in the region. Israel, sworn enemy to every Muslim state and principle benefactor of US aid in the region. So far...this position has been disputed by 1) Claiming our stance on Yasser Arafat is influenced by oil. My response...Arafat is an old guy eating Hummus and pita that we have never even heard of...if not for Israel. 2) Claiming that we supported the Taliban because of our need for oil. My response...if >we< needed it...then why the hell is Pakistan getting it? Interesting that neither make any sense in context...yet I am strawman. The context you ask? It all started very simply... If we have more than they do, why are we risking national security by being so dependant upon their's? Theirs is cheaper and the libruls don't like us drilling at home. And...btw...we're not risking National Security. , I still remember the embargo. It was a clear example of exactly who was in charge of whom. If they wanted to, they could hit our combat ability How..we import less than 20% of our oil form the region and send some of ours other places. They can hit is in the pocket...but they can't stop the tanks. Now, let's look long term. Nukes. The technology isn't getting any more difficult. Iraq was working on it before we attacked in 1990. Eventually, given enough money and time and determination, one of those states will have nukes. 2 problems here. 1) They would still have money even if >we< didn't buy their oil and they would still hate us. Pakistan has nukes...we don't buy oil from them. Korea has them...again no oil. China has nukes...we send them an awful lot of money...but not for oil. Unless your position is that the US is the only country that buys oil. Then...I'd have to say that not all of the money they have is ours. But >I< am strawman. And then we've spent the past dozen or so posts degenerating from there...about having other enemies that can damage our strategic position as much or more than Saudi could by cutting off supply of strategic materials. To which I get a desert scenario where I have no water...but I'd have 80% of my water in real life...yadda yadda. All of which is simply been caused by me not ignoring the idiot in the first place. Any takers on the response time and tenor pool?? :-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,693 by Brandioch 5/6/02 9:17:44 PM Reply	Ummm, that wasn't "simple". So, we're friends with Kuwait. But Kuwait isn't "all that bid nor influential." And we're friends with Israel. But Israel isn't a "muslim nation." So, we have to be friends with someone who #1. Is Muslim -and- #2. Is influential. I notice that you left out Uzbekistan. You remember Uzbekistan? They were the first to let us deploy our warplanes in their country during "Eduring Freedom". They are Muslim AND influential. My position is simple. Israel is a larger influence and the root cause of more of our problems in the region. Israel, sworn enemy to every Muslim state and principle benefactor of US aid in the region. But WHY is it the principle benefactor of US aid in the region? Why do we send MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A DAY to Israel? I am not familiar with ANY other country that receives that level of aid. Contrast that with the dollars sent to African nations. Israel is sucking down BIG dollars in support. But WHY are we supporting them? They aren't Muslim and, if we dropped our support, they wouldn't be influential (they wouldn't be there!).
Post #37,698 by bepatient 5/6/02 10:14:42 PM Reply	But you seem to be. Or are you going to tell me that we are now importing oil from Israel? Maybe just that the only reason we supported the creation of the Israeli state was because of Saudi oil? But wait..we send millions of dollars in aid to Israel...and they don't have oil...and we send very little aid to the rest of the region...but they >do< have oil. If its "all about the oil" then wouldn't that support be the other way...with all of the aid going to those countries that supply us oil? Could you please make up your mind? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,725 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:19:27 AM Reply	The country is Uzbekistan. Or are you going to tell me that we are now importing oil from Israel? I've never said we were. I've never implied we were. I've specifically staed that we were not. Yet you want to try to make that my position. Bill "Strawman" Patient, same as ever. I've given you the name of an Islamic state that is friendly to us and is no small player. Uzbekistan. When the facts contradict your positon, ignore the facts and hide behind a strawman. How do you reconcile Uzbekistan with your previous post about Saudi Arabia being the only friendly Muslim country (aside from Kuwait who is too insignificant to matter) being our only "ally" there (aside from Israel who, while significant, is not Muslim)? They're a reformed Soviet style state with near 100% literacy. They are as close to "friendly" as we have over there. They also have far fewer Islamic extremists than Saudi Arabia has. This is what "informed" means. This is why you have to hide behind strawmen and I can provide facts, references and names to support my position. You left Uzbekistan off your list of Arab countries. Yet they were the first to let us land our warplanes in their country. You seem to believe Israel's existance is the root cause. Why don't you tell me what Israel/Usbekistan relations are like? The reason you have NOT heard of Uzbekistan is that the Right Wing Rags you get all of your "information" from do not find it useful. Uzbekistan. If its "all about the oil" then wouldn't that support be the other way...with all of the aid going to those countries that supply us oil? No, it wouldn't. And I have already explained why. Strawman, again, Bill? Why would I expect you to change now? The people with the oil are not our friends. We need someone over there who will act as our puppet in a military fashion. That is Israel. We have Israel dependant upon us for military parts and Israel is dependant upon its military for its existance. We give Israel millions of dollars a day in aid and Israel does things like bomb nuclear reactors of potential enemies. If Israel was not there, there would be at least ONE weapons grade reactor in Iraq. Iraq wants more oil resources (they invaded Kuwait for them). Iraq hates the US. If Iraq grabbed the oil, it would cut off the supply to the US. This is an example of why the US funds Israel so the US will have access to oil in the Mid-East. I don't think you'll bother to respond to anything I've said about Uzbekistan. I understand this is new information to you;.
Post #37,744 by bepatient 5/7/02 9:05:21 AM Reply	Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. The CIA says "Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a non-convertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization" Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. End of thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,763 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:11:58 AM Reply	Like I said, "strawman". Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. No. This is a fact that refutes your position that Israel's existance is the root cause. Uzbekistan meets the criteria that you claim only Saudi Arabia met AND they are friendly with Israel. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. So you claim. Yet you have not offered anything to refute my position. Correction, you offered a theory that I destroyed when I informed you of Uzbekistan. Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) What are you talking about? Are there other criteria that are attempting to specify now? If so, could you clearly specify them? #1. Islamic #2. Significant #3. ? #4. ? #5. ? Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. Like I said before, when hit with facts, you run. Otherwise, as in the Ben & Jerry cop killer thread, you will continue to post.
Post #37,769 by bepatient 5/7/02 11:50:29 AM Reply	Reading ability? Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,771 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 11:53:18 AM Reply	You concede? Not in this thread but about being able to fly charter when the majors were "grounded"? Sorry, just had to get that in ;-) I just want to see you write it: "Okay, I was wrong."
Post #37,799 by bepatient 5/7/02 2:20:35 PM Reply	Dude...sure...why not. even though I chartered 2 Gulfstream IV's that were back before the first commercial flight left Philadelphia. But its not worth fighting about. Okay...I was wrong. I'm having a Rodney King moment. Take advantage of it. Feel better now? nudge nudge ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,806 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 2:48:57 PM Reply	Saved to File, Burned on CD. Thanks
Post #37,813 by bepatient 5/7/02 3:20:21 PM Reply	Anytime ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,802 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:37:59 PM Reply	Protocol and courtesy. #1. Congratulations.... ...you've just changed direction AGAIN to try and discover a real argument. #2. The Pakistani pipeline thing didn't work..the Yasser thing didn't work...lets go to Uzbekistan. #3. The CIA says "Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a non-convertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization" #4. Plus...while it may be a nice place to land a plane...it is landlocked and a little off the beaten trail. Sort of like saying make friends in North Dakoda to get you closer to Texas. (Read..wouldn't Oklahoma be a >little< closer?) THEN you say: Look. I agree to disagree. You don't sit well with that...I don't care. Oh, poor baby. Looks like I didn't let you get away with introducing more criteria before you ran. Let me explain the courtesy of this to you, Bill "strawman" Patient. When you "agree to disagree" you do NOT try to refute previous points. If you are trying to refute previous points, the discussion is continuing. But, why am I surprised that you don't understand basic courtesy. After all, the strawman is your favorite "discussion" technique. Grow up.
Post #37,811 by bepatient 5/7/02 3:17:07 PM Reply	You follow neither. I had already refuted those points. (Your acceptance of that notwithstanding) And courtesy??? Ending this thread is a courtesy to 295 other registered users who, I'm certain, gave up on this thread about about 50% of its current level of right-shift. I neither claim victory nor admit defeat...just endeavor to stop here with the realization that we will not now, nor ever come to terms. You have your view. I have mine. It is very apparent to all...never the twain shall meet. So take a Zanax already. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,818 by Brandioch 5/7/02 3:48:55 PM Reply	And when it falls to ME to explain courtesy...... You follow neither. Ah, but I do follow protocol for debates. And I am courteous. I just don't waste it on people who would not recognize it. (Bill "Strawman" Patient being a prime example) I believe you said you were ending this thread. What was that I said about you living in a fantasy world? How many posts AFTER "End of Thread" will a thread end? Hmmmmm? I had already refuted those points. (Your acceptance of that notwithstanding) Like I said, your fantasy world. So, if you've already refuted them and you want to agree to disagree and you're ending this thread..... How many posts ago was that? You have your view. I have mine. It is very apparent to all...never the twain shall meet. That would be a good point to end this on. So take a Zanax already. Oooooh. But you couldn't resist that "last" personal attack, could you? Face facts, "Strawman". The criteria you gave could be met by more countries than you named. And some of those countries are beter allies than Saudi Arabia. Like I said, your ignorance is vast. But, being ignorant of the situation over there doesn't stop you from having the correct opinion, does it? I don't waste courtesy on those who won't recognize it. The least you could do is follow protocol. But why do that if you don't have basic courtesy?
Post #37,823 by bepatient 5/7/02 4:08:25 PM Reply	Pardon me.. ...but I don't believe any of my responses since that EOT post have had anything to do with the prior subject being discussed. The continuation of that, my friend, has been all your doing. Telling you to chill (Take a Zanax already) was not a personal attack. I've made a few of those, as have you...but that wasn't one of them. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,843 by Brandioch 5/7/02 5:31:39 PM Reply	So, you admit you know nothing about the mid-east. ...but I don't believe any of my responses since that EOT post have had anything to do with the prior subject being discussed. And we've already established that we're not best buds. So why are you continuing this past the "End of Thread" you announced? Hmmmm............
Post #37,875 by bepatient 5/8/02 12:04:12 AM Reply	Funny You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #60,257 by pwhysall 10/30/02 2:15:45 PM Reply	This thread is eternal, immortal and knows where you live. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #37,758 by Arkadiy 5/7/02 10:35:47 AM Reply	Re: The country is Uzbekistan. ...is neither very muslim nor very influential. The regime there is a secular dictatorship that barely pays a lip service to Islam. Their leader Islam Karimov, former Secretary of Communist Party, is beyond atheism, much like Saddam Hussein. They aren't powerful because they are still in the shadow of Russia, and they have to fight muslim uprisings, which they do with habitual communist cruelty. I am more ashamed of our "friendship" with Uzbekistan than of that with the Saudis.
Post #37,762 by mmoffitt 5/7/02 11:10:29 AM Reply	Perhaps, tovarish, only because you know them better.
Post #37,765 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:30:13 AM Reply	Da.
Post #37,708 by a6l6e6x 5/6/02 11:29:17 PM Reply	Ex-Prez Carter: US aid to Israel ~ $10/million / day! Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #37,729 by Ashton 5/7/02 3:18:53 AM Reply	How much a day is a surrogate 'US Presence' worth? After all - Billy alone could fund that project for 10-15 years (if we don't count his fortune increasing from interest & investments - an almost certainty with that massive a power base from which to manipulate [everyone around]). What would have been the political/$$ cost - had the US had to take out that Iraqi nascent reactor [or.. and especially - the Next One] ?? Ashton
Post #37,776 by boxley 5/7/02 12:19:04 PM Reply	you forgot our good friends, Turkey secular muslim nation TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,803 by Brandioch 5/7/02 2:44:42 PM Reply	With lots of support for us too. The Mid-East is NOT populat The Mid-East is NOT populated, 100%, by rampaging fundamentalist terrorists. And I think we could make a LOT more progress towards lasting peace over there if we focused on the supporting the countries who were interested in peace (not the peace of destroying Israel). There is no reason why Muslims and Jews cannot live together peacefully. But first, we have to stop supporting those who use that conflict to build their political/economic bases. (Yasser being the best example of such)
Post #37,826 by boxley 5/7/02 4:27:41 PM Reply	Well the issue of how the current situation got started has nothing to do with either oil or Israel, sure the Israelis were hated BUT during the cold war circa 1948 we determined that the "Secular" Arabs were going socialist/communists and funded the fundamentalists and fuedalists to takeover. Nasser was overthrown at our behest as well as the Syrian Government, The Shaw was pushed on Iran etc. Now when we could use secular socialist nations over there we have a hodgepodge of lunie dictatorships and Fundie Islamic Republics. thanks, Bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,834 by Ashton 5/7/02 4:46:22 PM Reply	Do you mean to say that, what goes around comes around? :-\ufffd
Post #37,837 by boxley 5/7/02 4:54:04 PM Reply	no, what comes around goes around Our foreign Policy is always short sighted. We need to plan for generations out not until the next administration. Historical incapability is our major flaw. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,846 by Ashton 5/7/02 5:39:48 PM Reply	Thou sayest. I agree(est). Sad, ain't it..every time too.
Post #37,866 by Brandioch 5/7/02 8:55:49 PM Reply	Yup. We need to plan for generations out not until the next administration. Sometimes it doesn't even make it through the current administration. The US needs to clearly define what behaviours we will support and which we will not. Then >WE< have to follow those rules in our own dealings. No more overthrowing governments. No more funding local wars.
Post #37,869 by Ashton 5/7/02 9:56:25 PM Reply	Yabut.. ________Can That be Good for Bizness ?? and - is there any Other final litmus test we ever employ, before we launch any new operation in or outside our borders? Civics Students Want to Know. ie. Could any US Pres get elected on that platform? - what with all that Evil in the world which.. only We could ever fix, because nobody knows more than We know, has bigger guns, is as rich (or ummm, can stop us?). I think We'd have to lose something Big once.. before the above fine thought would prove to be more than mere blab for sheepish effect. (??) Love to be proven wrong, of course - but.. taking most bets. We're on a Roll ----> (do tanks 'roll' or 'conveyor' along? in that Field Artillery song)
Post #37,562 by Another Scott 5/5/02 12:02:18 PM 5/6/02 10:04:06 PM Reply	Mica is a strategic mineral. {edit: fixed typo in title. Sorry } [link\|http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:liV3X-9VnBQC:minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/mica/440499.pdf+mica+strategic+insulation&hl=en\|USGS page (HTML view)]: The value of mica is in its unique physical properties. The crystalline structure of mica forms mineral layers that can be split or delaminated into thin sheets. These sheets are flexible, elastic, platy, transparent to opaque, resilient, reflective, refractive, dielectric, chemically inert, insulating, lightweight, and hydrophilic. Mica also is stable when exposed to electricity, light, moisture, and extreme temperatures. Based on its greater abundance and superior electrical properties, muscovite is the principal mica used by industry. Phlogopite remains stable at higher temperatures and is used in applications where a combination of high-heat stability and electrical properties is required. Muscovite and phlogopite are used in sheet and ground forms. [...] Essentially all sheet mica used in the United States was imported, primarily from India. [...] Sheet Mica.- Sheet mica is used principally in the electronic and electrical industries. Its usefulness in these applications is derived from its unique electrical and thermal insulating properties and its mechanical properties, which allow it to be cut, punched, stamped, and machined to close tolerances. The largest use of block mica is as an electrical insulator in electronic equipment. High-quality block mica is processed to line the gauge glasses of high-pressure steam boilers because of its transparency, flexibility, and resistance to heat and chemical attack. Other uses include diaphragms for oxygen-breathing equipment, marker dials for navigation compasses, optical filters, retardation plates in helium-neon lasers, pyrometers, thermal regulators, and stove and kerosene heater windows. Specialized applications for sheet mica are found in aerospace components in ground- and air-launched missile systems, optical instrumentation, laser devices, medical electronics for radiation treatment, and radar systems. If India cut off sheet mica exports to the US, and the stockpile ran out, the US military would have difficulty. Similarly, if Saudi Arabia cut off oil exports to the US, and the stockpile ran out, the US military would have difficulty. Similar pages exist for the other materials on BP's list. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott May 6, 2002, 10:04:06 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,567 by Brandioch 5/5/02 12:33:52 PM Reply	We also have "strategic" helium reserves. How would cutting off the supply of MICA affect our national security? Compare/contrast. With oil/fuel, we can't move our war machines. Without MICA, we can't build new things. So, the difference is, having war machines that will not move -or- having no spare parts once the existing spare parts were gone after the machines had been damaged. In other words, we lose the oil, 25% of the country shuts down. Almost immediately. Including 25% of the military. (am I the only one here that remembers the oil embargo?) We lose the mica, some of the manufacturing shuts down. Eventually. 0% of the military (until AFTER we see combat and AFTER the current spare parts are used).
Post #37,570 by bepatient 5/5/02 1:36:04 PM Reply	You keep forgetting... ...that we don't import 100% of our oil. We import less than 50%...less than half of that 50% comes from the middle east. If they cut us off we still have oil. Alot of it. And we could get more pretty quickly...since we already know where it is and know how to get at it. The engineering drawings for the rigs are already finished. We're waiting for the order...which should come soon. Its good business for us...owning the patents on horizontal drilling rigs is VERY profitable. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,574 by Brandioch 5/5/02 2:52:31 PM Reply	You keep claiming that. I haven't forgotten it. In fact, I seem to be better informed about oil reserves and international affairs than you are. You know why we will not be able to use those reserves you keep claiming are available. You just don't want to admit it.

Welcome to IWETHEY!