Gas, the war, and our future... this makes you think!

[Bliz]

This really hits home when one thinks about where we are heading.

This may also offer some insight into the Bush administration, as well as our news media who is all over him at this time.


Why Did America Really Invade Iraq?


The stated reason by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them against Israel, Iraq’s other neighbors, and possibly America. There are some that believe that the real reasons why America invaded Iraq are found in events and policy development that happened before the invasion but which were never revealed to the American public.

Here are two such reasons suggested:

First, to ensure that the dollar remained unchallenged as the world’s reserve currency, so that the U.S. could continue to fund its massive deficits and sustain its economy and its political and military supremacy. What does the dollar have to do with all of this and how does the invasion of Iraq fit into the picture?

It seems that Saddam sealed his fate in September 2000, when he demanded that all Iraqi oil sold under the U.N. Oil for Food Program must be paid for in euros rather than dollars. Saddam’s actions were a direct threat to the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the ability of the U.S. to continue to fund its massive deficits. This is born out by the fact that two months after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food program was terminated and all of the Iraqi euro accounts were switched back to dollars. No longer did the world have the option of buying oil from Iraq and paying for it in euros.

Forcing the Iraqi accounts to convert from euros to dollars cost the Iraqis a great deal of money because the dollar had fallen in value relative to the Euro by some 13%! Not surprisingly, this detail has never been prominently mentioned by the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for the 2003 Iraq war.

The second possible reason for the Iraq war is hinted at in a 1999 speech given by #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney while he was still CEO of Halliburton:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.

If the Vice President of the United States truly believed, as he stated before becoming Vice President, that world oil production was about to peak and go into decline, would this be sufficient motivation for the U.S. to ensure its economic survival by sending its military to Iraq in order to secure control over the second-largest oil and gas reserves on earth?

Who Opposed the War and Why?

The nations who vehemently opposed the war in Iraq were Russia, Germany, France, and China. The real underlying reason was never spoken of by the press or by the Administration. The reason all these nations opposed the war was because they all had contracts to purchase and develop Iraq’s vast oil and gas reserves. American and British oil giants were excluded by Saddam and left out in the cold. It is significant that, after the U.S. conquered Iraq, most of these contracts and agreements with France, Germany, Russia, and China were cancelled and given to U.S. and British Oil companies. To the victor go the spoils.

Saddam had begun the process of excluding American and British oil and gas corporations from acquiring stakes in Iraq’s bountiful hydrocarbons in the spring of 1997. Relief to Iraqis and restored confidence in the durability of the Saddam regime by the international community had already begun to occur after the UN’s Oil for Food scheme was introduced the previous December.

A consortium of Russian companies, led by the state-owned Lukoil, took a 75 percent share (with the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company taking 25 percent) in a joint corporation to develop the West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. This oil field holds 11 billion barrels of oil - a third of the total U.S. oil reserves. Then, China National Petroleum Corporation entered the scene and entered into an agreement to develop the Adhab oil field.

China’s lead was followed by Total Societe Anonyme of France (now TotalFinaElf), which agreed to develop Nahr Omar oil field in the south - almost as bountiful a field as the West Qurna. Then Ranger Oil of Canada secured a $250 million contract for field development and exploration in the Western Desert, followed by India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation and Reliance Petroleum’s signing of a deal to develop the Tuba oil field.

Without exception, almost all of the above contracts to develop, transport, and purchase Iraq’s oil were cancelled and declared null and void by the Bush Administration after the war was over. These same contracts were then awarded to British and American oil giants. It is readily apparent that securing control over the development, sale, transportation, and distribution of these oil and gas reserves for America and Britain was undoubtedly one of the primary reasons for the war in Iraq. This was undoubtedly grounded in the recognition that world oil production would peak sometime between 2006 and 2010.

In July 2003, two major oil companies agreed to buy 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil under the first long-term contracts to be offered by Iraq since the end of the war. BP, PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Cos. each had announced that they expected to ship two million barrels of Basra Light crude per month, starting in August and ending in December. They would load the oil on tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal of Mina al-Bakr. This was a reward for British participation in the invasion and conquering of Iraq.

U.S. Executive Order #13303

The veracity of these actions appear confirmed by executive order. In May 2003, President George Bush issued Executive Order #13303, which stated:

Any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void with respect to all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products and interests therein.

With this executive order the President granted American oil companies, or individuals who are involved in the production, transportation, or distribution of Iraqi oil, a lifetime exemption from any kind of legal action against them in the United States.

''In other words, if Exxon-Mobil or Chevron-Texaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the U.S.,'' explained Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C.

This action made it impossible for any of the nations who had their contracts nullified by the President to sue to reinstate them because the oil companies to whom they were given are immune from any judicial proceeding against them in the United States! ''Effectively, Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. and British oil corporations,'' Vallette added.

We can more often judge the true motives of nations and leaders not by what they say, but by what they do. Their actions reveal their true motives, not what they say for public consumption.

The Lifeblood of the American Economy

Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy. The U.S. has approximately 5% of the world’s population but consumes over 20% or more of the world’s daily oil production. What will be the consequences if we are rapidly approaching the time when world oil production peaks and the price of oil continues to skyrocket, choking off economic activity and creating massive unemployment?

With nations like China and India growing exponentially, the demand for oil cannot go anywhere but up. Where will the oil production come from to meet the demand of two nations that possess 2.4 billion people, as they seek to purchase new cars, trucks, tractors, and all of the other products that are petroleum based? Continuously increasing oil prices could at some point cause the U.S. economy to shrink to unimaginable levels. Almost everything we use today in our modern life has petroleum as its base: from plastics to fertilizer to gas for your car - they all utilize petroleum as their base. Food production is almost totally dependent upon fuel and fertilizers that are petroleum based.

Is the world really approaching a time when the price of oil will force the price of food to levels unknown in modern history?

The IOB (Iranian Oil Bourse) could accelerate the already existent global trend of shifting foreign currency reserves from dollars to euros. ''Countries could begin the process of switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves and this could bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more. As countries and businesses convert their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property bubble would, without doubt, burst.''

Perhaps this is why we are now preparing our invasion of Iran?...

If oil trades in euros, it is only a matter of time before wheat, soybeans, natural gas, gold, silver, copper, and all of the other major commodities will come to be traded in euros as well. Nations want to protect their own interests, and no nation wants to have its reserves denominated in a currency that is depreciating, but rather in one that is appreciating, or is at least stable.

As nations begin to choose the euro over the dollar, the U.S. Treasury’s ability to finance the U.S. deficit and pay the interest expense on $8 trillion dollars will become increasingly more difficult. We will be forced to make some very hard choices in order to preserve our economy. Among the possibilities are: substantially raising taxes, making major cuts in spending in all areas (including the military), raising interest rates to whatever levels it takes to enable the U.S. Treasury to continue to fund the deficit, or simply by just printing money to fund the deficit, leading to sustained and possible hyperinflation.

These coming events could portend horrific economic consequences for the U.S. economy and for the lifestyle we have come to know and expect.

If this scenario begins to unfold, individuals who have excessive mortgage and credit card debt, or who have loans - personal or business - that float with the prime rate, will have to pay ever increasing interest rates, which at some point leads to massive defaults and bankruptcies. It appears that there could be substantial economic dislocations in America, probably leading to unemployment levels unknown in modern times, which would undoubtedly bring on severe financial distress for millions of Americans. The lifestyle we have enjoyed and have become accustomed to could change dramatically in the coming years.

The Missing Report Card

There is a new Chairman of the Federal Reserve System - regarded by many as the most powerful non-elected official in the world: Ben Benanke. (Under Greenspan’s 18-year tenure, the U.S. dollar’s value was cut in half.) It will be important to watch how he deals with the forthcoming debt dilemmas.

Until 1971 the Federal Reserve System, also known as ''the Fed,'' defined the money supply as equal to the sum of currency in circulation (excluding bank vault cash) and demand deposits (checking accounts). This definition of the money supply ignored saving accounts and time deposits (accounts that earned interest but could not be withdrawn without penalty until they matured). Monetary authorities and economists became concerned that estimates of monetary growth could be misleading if those estimates ignored savings accounts and time deposits.

In 1971 the Federal Reserve began publishing measures of broader monetary supplies. The monetary aggregates were given the names M1, M2, and M3. M1 was comparable to the original money supply measure - that is, currency in circulation and demand deposits. M2 equaled M1 plus accounts such as savings accounts and small time deposits. M3 was an even broader measure, adding in larger time deposits. M3 is, in effect, a primary report card on the Fed and the control of inflation.

However, effective March 23, 2006, the M3 is no longer reported!

It is also significant to note that turnover has been continuing at the top posts of the Federal Reserve: Fed Vice Chairman, Roger Ferguson unexpectedly announced he was stepping down. This on the heels of the resignation of the Philadelphia Fed Regional Bank President Anthony Santomero, which followed resignations of two of the seven Fed Governor spots and six of the twelve Fed Regional Bank President posts over the preceding two years.

What do they see coming?

One World Currency

How could America, and the nations of the world, lose their sovereignty without a shot being fired? Can you imagine the panic that will take place in the markets of the world if the dollar crashes? With 70% of the worlds reserves held in dollars, nations may watch helplessly as their currency reserves evaporate as the value of the dollar plummets. Realize that the U.S. is now the world’s largest debtor.

One solution to the forthcoming ''dollar crisis'' could be the creation of a ''one world currency,'' The leaders of the world will seek to establish a one-world currency. (Already we hear talk, in the hallways of the Bank of International Settlements, of an ''Amero,'' a unified currency for North America.)

To move toward a one-world currency, the world leaders would create and empower a world governing body that would have control over the creation, supply, and distribution of money worldwide. When a nation gives up its control over the printing of its money to someone else, it gives up its sovereignty.

Without taking any sides on the war debate,

Knowing what Saddam has done to put this trend into motion, I can only wonder how many of us would have done the same thing in regard to Iraq if we were President?...

Saddam was not stupid when it came to his strategy to bring down the U.S.

One thing is for sure, we are heading into some very interesting times.

We need to pray for our country, and our President.

[Diamond Tackle]

Originally Posted by Bliz

This really hits home when one thinks about where we are heading.

This may also offer some insight into the Bush administration, as well as our news media who is all over him at this time.


Why Did America Really Invade Iraq?


The stated reason by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them against Israel, Iraq’s other neighbors, and possibly America. There are some that believe that the real reasons why America invaded Iraq are found in events and policy development that happened before the invasion but which were never revealed to the American public.

Here are two such reasons suggested:

First, to ensure that the dollar remained unchallenged as the world’s reserve currency, so that the U.S. could continue to fund its massive deficits and sustain its economy and its political and military supremacy. What does the dollar have to do with all of this and how does the invasion of Iraq fit into the picture?

It seems that Saddam sealed his fate in September 2000, when he demanded that all Iraqi oil sold under the U.N. Oil for Food Program must be paid for in euros rather than dollars. Saddam’s actions were a direct threat to the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the ability of the U.S. to continue to fund its massive deficits. This is born out by the fact that two months after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food program was terminated and all of the Iraqi euro accounts were switched back to dollars. No longer did the world have the option of buying oil from Iraq and paying for it in euros.

Forcing the Iraqi accounts to convert from euros to dollars cost the Iraqis a great deal of money because the dollar had fallen in value relative to the Euro by some 13%! Not surprisingly, this detail has never been prominently mentioned by the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for the 2003 Iraq war.

The second possible reason for the Iraq war is hinted at in a 1999 speech given by #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney while he was still CEO of Halliburton:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.

If the Vice President of the United States truly believed, as he stated before becoming Vice President, that world oil production was about to peak and go into decline, would this be sufficient motivation for the U.S. to ensure its economic survival by sending its military to Iraq in order to secure control over the second-largest oil and gas reserves on earth?

Who Opposed the War and Why?

The nations who vehemently opposed the war in Iraq were Russia, Germany, France, and China. The real underlying reason was never spoken of by the press or by the Administration. The reason all these nations opposed the war was because they all had contracts to purchase and develop Iraq’s vast oil and gas reserves. American and British oil giants were excluded by Saddam and left out in the cold. It is significant that, after the U.S. conquered Iraq, most of these contracts and agreements with France, Germany, Russia, and China were cancelled and given to U.S. and British Oil companies. To the victor go the spoils.

Saddam had begun the process of excluding American and British oil and gas corporations from acquiring stakes in Iraq’s bountiful hydrocarbons in the spring of 1997. Relief to Iraqis and restored confidence in the durability of the Saddam regime by the international community had already begun to occur after the UN’s Oil for Food scheme was introduced the previous December.

A consortium of Russian companies, led by the state-owned Lukoil, took a 75 percent share (with the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company taking 25 percent) in a joint corporation to develop the West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. This oil field holds 11 billion barrels of oil - a third of the total U.S. oil reserves. Then, China National Petroleum Corporation entered the scene and entered into an agreement to develop the Adhab oil field.

China’s lead was followed by Total Societe Anonyme of France (now TotalFinaElf), which agreed to develop Nahr Omar oil field in the south - almost as bountiful a field as the West Qurna. Then Ranger Oil of Canada secured a $250 million contract for field development and exploration in the Western Desert, followed by India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation and Reliance Petroleum’s signing of a deal to develop the Tuba oil field.

Without exception, almost all of the above contracts to develop, transport, and purchase Iraq’s oil were cancelled and declared null and void by the Bush Administration after the war was over. These same contracts were then awarded to British and American oil giants. It is readily apparent that securing control over the development, sale, transportation, and distribution of these oil and gas reserves for America and Britain was undoubtedly one of the primary reasons for the war in Iraq. This was undoubtedly grounded in the recognition that world oil production would peak sometime between 2006 and 2010.

In July 2003, two major oil companies agreed to buy 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil under the first long-term contracts to be offered by Iraq since the end of the war. BP, PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Cos. each had announced that they expected to ship two million barrels of Basra Light crude per month, starting in August and ending in December. They would load the oil on tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal of Mina al-Bakr. This was a reward for British participation in the invasion and conquering of Iraq.

U.S. Executive Order #13303

The veracity of these actions appear confirmed by executive order. In May 2003, President George Bush issued Executive Order #13303, which stated:

Any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void with respect to all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products and interests therein.

With this executive order the President granted American oil companies, or individuals who are involved in the production, transportation, or distribution of Iraqi oil, a lifetime exemption from any kind of legal action against them in the United States.

''In other words, if Exxon-Mobil or Chevron-Texaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the U.S.,'' explained Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C.

This action made it impossible for any of the nations who had their contracts nullified by the President to sue to reinstate them because the oil companies to whom they were given are immune from any judicial proceeding against them in the United States! ''Effectively, Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. and British oil corporations,'' Vallette added.

We can more often judge the true motives of nations and leaders not by what they say, but by what they do. Their actions reveal their true motives, not what they say for public consumption.

The Lifeblood of the American Economy

Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy. The U.S. has approximately 5% of the world’s population but consumes over 20% or more of the world’s daily oil production. What will be the consequences if we are rapidly approaching the time when world oil production peaks and the price of oil continues to skyrocket, choking off economic activity and creating massive unemployment?

With nations like China and India growing exponentially, the demand for oil cannot go anywhere but up. Where will the oil production come from to meet the demand of two nations that possess 2.4 billion people, as they seek to purchase new cars, trucks, tractors, and all of the other products that are petroleum based? Continuously increasing oil prices could at some point cause the U.S. economy to shrink to unimaginable levels. Almost everything we use today in our modern life has petroleum as its base: from plastics to fertilizer to gas for your car - they all utilize petroleum as their base. Food production is almost totally dependent upon fuel and fertilizers that are petroleum based.

Is the world really approaching a time when the price of oil will force the price of food to levels unknown in modern history?

The IOB (Iranian Oil Bourse) could accelerate the already existent global trend of shifting foreign currency reserves from dollars to euros. ''Countries could begin the process of switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves and this could bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more. As countries and businesses convert their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property bubble would, without doubt, burst.''

Perhaps this is why we are now preparing our invasion of Iran?...

If oil trades in euros, it is only a matter of time before wheat, soybeans, natural gas, gold, silver, copper, and all of the other major commodities will come to be traded in euros as well. Nations want to protect their own interests, and no nation wants to have its reserves denominated in a currency that is depreciating, but rather in one that is appreciating, or is at least stable.

As nations begin to choose the euro over the dollar, the U.S. Treasury’s ability to finance the U.S. deficit and pay the interest expense on $8 trillion dollars will become increasingly more difficult. We will be forced to make some very hard choices in order to preserve our economy. Among the possibilities are: substantially raising taxes, making major cuts in spending in all areas (including the military), raising interest rates to whatever levels it takes to enable the U.S. Treasury to continue to fund the deficit, or simply by just printing money to fund the deficit, leading to sustained and possible hyperinflation.

These coming events could portend horrific economic consequences for the U.S. economy and for the lifestyle we have come to know and expect.

If this scenario begins to unfold, individuals who have excessive mortgage and credit card debt, or who have loans - personal or business - that float with the prime rate, will have to pay ever increasing interest rates, which at some point leads to massive defaults and bankruptcies. It appears that there could be substantial economic dislocations in America, probably leading to unemployment levels unknown in modern times, which would undoubtedly bring on severe financial distress for millions of Americans. The lifestyle we have enjoyed and have become accustomed to could change dramatically in the coming years.

The Missing Report Card

There is a new Chairman of the Federal Reserve System - regarded by many as the most powerful non-elected official in the world: Ben Benanke. (Under Greenspan’s 18-year tenure, the U.S. dollar’s value was cut in half.) It will be important to watch how he deals with the forthcoming debt dilemmas.

Until 1971 the Federal Reserve System, also known as ''the Fed,'' defined the money supply as equal to the sum of currency in circulation (excluding bank vault cash) and demand deposits (checking accounts). This definition of the money supply ignored saving accounts and time deposits (accounts that earned interest but could not be withdrawn without penalty until they matured). Monetary authorities and economists became concerned that estimates of monetary growth could be misleading if those estimates ignored savings accounts and time deposits.

In 1971 the Federal Reserve began publishing measures of broader monetary supplies. The monetary aggregates were given the names M1, M2, and M3. M1 was comparable to the original money supply measure - that is, currency in circulation and demand deposits. M2 equaled M1 plus accounts such as savings accounts and small time deposits. M3 was an even broader measure, adding in larger time deposits. M3 is, in effect, a primary report card on the Fed and the control of inflation.

However, effective March 23, 2006, the M3 is no longer reported!

It is also significant to note that turnover has been continuing at the top posts of the Federal Reserve: Fed Vice Chairman, Roger Ferguson unexpectedly announced he was stepping down. This on the heels of the resignation of the Philadelphia Fed Regional Bank President Anthony Santomero, which followed resignations of two of the seven Fed Governor spots and six of the twelve Fed Regional Bank President posts over the preceding two years.

What do they see coming?

One World Currency

How could America, and the nations of the world, lose their sovereignty without a shot being fired? Can you imagine the panic that will take place in the markets of the world if the dollar crashes? With 70% of the worlds reserves held in dollars, nations may watch helplessly as their currency reserves evaporate as the value of the dollar plummets. Realize that the U.S. is now the world’s largest debtor.

One solution to the forthcoming ''dollar crisis'' could be the creation of a ''one world currency,'' The leaders of the world will seek to establish a one-world currency. (Already we hear talk, in the hallways of the Bank of International Settlements, of an ''Amero,'' a unified currency for North America.)

To move toward a one-world currency, the world leaders would create and empower a world governing body that would have control over the creation, supply, and distribution of money worldwide. When a nation gives up its control over the printing of its money to someone else, it gives up its sovereignty.

Without taking any sides on the war debate,

Knowing what Saddam has done to put this trend into motion, I can only wonder how many of us would have done the same thing in regard to Iraq if we were President?...

Saddam was not stupid when it came to his strategy to bring down the U.S.

One thing is for sure, we are heading into some very interesting times.

We need to pray for our country, and our President.

Did you write this yourself ??
or cut and paste it from HERE :

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2006/640/

Maybe you should give the author Chuck Missler proper credit for his work.

[Bliz]

Cut and pasted it Tinman.

Just removed the faith references as to appease those on the site who take offense to it.

The points Chuck mentions are certainly worth looking at...

Makes you think!

[spence]

I'd agree with a good percentage of it as written. Most of the issues discussed are very real dangers to our future way of life.

Are we so arrogant to believe that the USA can't fall?

All the warning signs are there for a collapse of our great society yet we continue to dig a deeper hole...

It doesn't mean it's inevitable, it does mean we have to think.

Today there is little thinking...just people shrugging off what they don't want to deal with.

-spence

[Diamond Tackle]

Makes me think you guys have too much time on your hands.
Keep predicting the collapse of our society and how its all OUT fault and your wish may come true.
Its certainly not the fault of those poor freedom fighters that strap bombs to themselves and want to kill all the infidels like you and me.

Bliz, If you QUOTE someone, its just common sense(and your legal obligation) to give that person credit, You learn that in like what 7th grade?
I got you LOVE PM by the way , right back at you.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Bliz

Cut and pasted it Tinman.

Just removed the faith references as to appease those on the site who take offense to it.

The points Chuck mentions are certainly worth looking at...

Makes you think!

Ahhh gotta appease the Athiests now aye? Now you offend me for censoring someones article to make it all PC to fit your taste. Thats so lame. If someone reads an article and sees the word God or whatever and gets all pissed then to bad. get over it. You dont censor someones writing to make it fit your agenda and taste Your one of of those hardcore PC folks i guess who freaks out when then see the word God and is afraid they might offend someone if they say the wrong thing. Dude chill out, a religious referance wont harm you or anyone!

[spence]

I don't think Bliz's intent was to censor the religion, but rather to let the topics stand on their own...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Tinman

Keep predicting the collapse of our society and how its all OUR fault and your wish may come true.
Its certainly not the fault of those poor freedom fighters that strap bombs to themselves and want to kill all the infidels like you and me.

So you think there are no long term consequences to energy dependence or fiscal imbalance?

This appears to be "head in the sand" sort of thinking.

Problems do often correct themselves, but given the dramatic changes to our world the old solutions may not longer be applicable.

Why are you so afraid of "ideas"?

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

My God (there I said It) If anyone ever needed to chill out.......

Originally Posted by Skip N

Ahhh gotta appease the Athiests now aye? Now you offend me for censoring someones article to make it all PC to fit your taste. Thats so lame. If someone reads an article and sees the word God or whatever and gets all pissed then to bad. get over it. You dont censor someones writing to make it fit your agenda and taste Your one of of those hardcore PC folks i guess who freaks out when then see the word God and is afraid they might offend someone if they say the wrong thing. Dude chill out, a religious referance wont harm you or anyone!

[Diamond Tackle]

Im just afraid of your ideas spence.oke:

"So you think there are no long term consequences to energy dependence or fiscal imbalance?"

In a few years we will no longer be dependent on foreing energy, this is just a speedbump IMO. CHINA will then be dependent on foreign energy. Longterm for us I think solar,Hydro,nuclear(or as bush likes to pronouce it "nuclar", see I have a sense of humor) and other non follsil fuels will make up the difference in the demand that exceeds the supply at this time. As to the fiscal imbalance, i will leave that to the beancounters in power, as much as we dont like the sound of 7 trill dollars, im sure they are more qualified than you or I to make the #s work. I would rather be alive and broke, than rich under 6 feet of dirt. See how easy that is ?

"This appears to be "head in the sand" sort of thinking."

Nahh, just a little faith in the people we elected and the troops that are fighting for your freedoms overseas.
Thre only head in the sand thinking I see, is from people that think we can just simply walk away from this mess and all the problems will all just go away.

"Problems do often correct themselves, but given the dramatic changes to our world the old solutions may not longer be applicable."

SO why dont you put on that thinking cap of yours and come up with some viable solutions, and then get them to the right people via proper channels, rather than playing monday morning quarterback here with us who are " so afraid of "ideas"?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Tinman

In a few years we will no longer be dependent on foreing energy, this is just a speedbump IMO.

while i am not disagreing with you, Massachusetts just voted down a wind farm that could have provided alot of juice to the grid.. the reason- "it will look ugly and ruin my ocean view" shesh

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

My God (there I said It) If anyone ever needed to chill out.......

Good for you! I just didn't understand why Bliz needed to remove all referances to religion from that article. To me thats more offensive than anything! Let the article stand on its own for "gods" sake. Sorry Bliz if that God word offended you or anyone else, accually no i'm not, deal with it!

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Nebe

while i am not disagreing with you, Massachusetts just voted down a wind farm that could have provided alot of juice to the grid.. the reason- "it will look ugly and ruin my ocean view" shesh

I told ya the Kennedys sucked Nebe!

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Skip N

I told ya the Kennedys sucked Nebe!

didnt you get the memo? they all suck, and some suck more than others.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Tinman

In a few years we will no longer be dependent on foreing energy, this is just a speedbump IMO. CHINA will then be dependent on foreign energy. Longterm for us I think solar,Hydro,nuclear(or as bush likes to pronouce it "nuclar", see I have a sense of humor) and other non follsil fuels will make up the difference in the demand that exceeds the supply at this time.

In a few years? I'm not sure where you get your optimism...

We're probably about 15-20 years behind the curve in developing alternate sources of energy that can have a meaningful impact on our energy demands. While there are some options, I've yet to see anything that's going to solve the problem.

We know that the energy industry is in no rush to progress. Fossil fuels contain a huge amount of cheap energy. What's the incentive for industry to bear the tremendous cost to move?

There isn't one...

Yes, industry will eventually shift...but what's the national security and economic impact if there's a crunch in 5 -10 years like most experts predict, and the solution for the masses is still years off?

As to the fiscal imbalance, i will leave that to the beancounters in power, as much as we dont like the sound of 7 trill dollars, im sure they are more qualified than you or I to make the #s work.

But the beancounters in Congress have SOLD YOU OUT to corporate interests focused on shareholder value...not your children.

Thre only head in the sand thinking I see, is from people that think we can just simply walk away from this mess and all the problems will all just go away.

Why so black and white?

If you don't agree with the current course than you stand for nothing?

That's patently absurd.

SO why dont you put on that thinking cap of yours and come up with some viable solutions, and then get them to the right people via proper channels, rather than playing monday morning quarterback here with us who are " so afraid of "ideas"?

I'm trying to vote in those I think will help as well as educate others on what the problems are, so they can vote as well.

-spence

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Nebe

didnt you get the memo? they all suck, and some suck more than others.

have to agree with ya on that one

[Nebe]

but unfortunately skip, we disagree on which politicians suck more than others.

and for the record, i would rather hunt with #^&#^&#^&#^&, then drive with Ted

[The Dad Fisherman]

You do realize i was talking about you when I said "if Anyone ever needed to chill out" ....not Bliz

I don't think Bliz took it out because it offended him....I think he took it out so nobody would get all in his face about it......but it didn't work.

Originally Posted by Skip N

Good for you! I just didn't understand why Bliz needed to remove all referances to religion from that article. To me thats more offensive than anything! Let the article stand on its own for "gods" sake. Sorry Bliz if that God word offended you or anyone else, accually no i'm not, deal with it!

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You do realize i was talking about you when I said "if Anyone ever needed to chill out" ....not Bliz

I don't think Bliz took it out because it offended him....I think he took it out so nobody would get all in his face about it......but it didn't work.

Your right, Bliz did not take the relgion out of the article because he was anti religion, he was worried some of the anti religion folks on here might see the religion in the article and disregard the whole article becuase of that. I misunderstood his intensions and i was wrong.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Nebe

and for the record, i would rather hunt with #^&#^&#^&#^&, then drive with Ted

Your coming around Nebe!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Your right, Bliz did not take the relgion out of the article because he was anti religion, he was worried some of the anti religion folks on here might see the religion in the article and disregard the whole article becuase of that. I misunderstood his intensions and i was wrong.

You're almost there...

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Skip N

I misunderstood his intensions and i was wrong.

......OH MY GOD....This must be the Year I get that 50.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

......OH MY GOD....This must be the Year I get that 50.

I dont know, Me admitting i was wrong may be better than a 50!

[Nebe]

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Roberts.shtml

just for the record, i dont read this publication, i just found this article and was surprised by the #'s

[seabass]

Very Interesting, Skip, where does this pro- Bush attitude stem from, show me the weapons of mass destruction, show Osama, please show me something that will make me feel like the man isn't a Napolean complex, power hungry, greedy , murderous man, I want to believe. Please put up these links so I can sleep good and be proud of these politicians.

[Nebe]

sleep tight seabass
http://www.cal-tv.net/imaginethis.html

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by seabass

Very Interesting, Skip, where does this pro- Bush attitude stem from, show me the weapons of mass destruction, show Osama, please show me something that will make me feel like the man isn't a Napolean complex, power hungry, greedy , murderous man, I want to believe. Please put up these links so I can sleep good and be proud of these politicians.

Show Osama? Werent you the guy who thought Bush carried out 9/11? So why would you care about Osama anyway, in your mind he did nothing and is innocent.

And do you really want to get into the WMD issue yet again? Its a known FACT that Saddam used them on his own people. But i'm sure in your little world that never happend right? You just like to ignore that little fact because it doesnt fit your agenda of "Bush Lied" about WMD's. I guess Saddam never had those WMDS and murdered his own people right buddy?

Just go back and live in your Bush is just like Hitler world and leave us the hell alone. Although i would like to know who Bush Murdered just for the sake of killing them. I wish you only had some hatred toward the true enemys in this world, you know those nice al queada guys you prob have no problem with. The real enemy is Al queada and radical Islam. It would be nice if you had a litte hatred towards them. But you only hate Bush.

[Flaptail]

As bad as Saddam was, it might have been more fortuitous for the United States Government to "deal with the devil" in order to obatain and maintain the "lifeblood" of our economy and way of life. I am sure we could have done that and done it without the knowledge of the general public of whom 80% don't have a clue anyway as to the form and function of international/global politics.

Personally after reading this it comes out even clearer how our President is a f%ck up. You scratch my back I will scratch yours should never be dismissed as a viable option when it comes to keeping our country's best interests at the fore.

Getting the desired result in business or politics is not always pretty but if the desired result nevertheless is achieved for the betterment of the general population, this being us rather than them, than you have to go for. Ideals sometimes have to take a back seat.

A mob boss could have gotten it done better. Nothing personal strictly business.

George W. blew it.

[Joe]

Now we got Iran, and we are faced with limited military options and the 100% certainty of impending sanctions that will only drive up the price of oil more.

What do we do? Nuke Iran because we're low on options because we're overextended in Iraq? Then we will see state-sponsored terrorism in this country.

When (not if) the UN imposes sanctions against Iran, we will see a quick spike to $5 at the pump. We may see $6.

[Raven]

but that sounds overly pesimistic...( 5-6 dpg) because iran only exports 14%
of our oil to us...and they have virtually no gasoline refineries so we can starve them for gas essentially, when they pull some crap...

what that 14 % translates to gas increases here is anyone's guess.

but Iran is NOT afraid of the USA and we need to make them afraid.
with them...it's no more MR nice GUY anymore.