Printable View
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Quote:
Ironically, Foley, who is 52 and single, could be found to have violated a law that he helped to write as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/...essman_e_mails
It is ironic. I was amused to hear that the FBI is attempting to contact the pages to see whether they would be willing to cooperate with a probe. I could hardly believe that the paper would say that. That's all that Foley wanted anyways, and I find it really hard to believe that any writer would overlook that.
Yes,
Foley is going to go down big time.
Besides being sick / wrong / whatever, how could someone be so friggin stupid?
That's a fair question. The man wasn't an idiot to have gotten there. He could not possibly have assumed that this would never come out. Therefore, I would say that these e-mails were a thoroughly irrational act. An act based on desire without the regulation of reason. Very odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Christ the republicans are going to get their arses handed to them in these upcoming elections.
:lol: Its all falling into place...Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Now that Foley has resigned, his seat is up for grabs.
One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Why on earth do the Republicans keep blaming the Democrats for this?
Oh, slightly off-topic; this morning on Hannity & Colmes (comes on at 7am here), I heard Oliver North actually blaming Clinton for what's going on in North Korea when Rummy was on the board of the company that sold the light water reactors to North Korea. *sigh* Makes me just lose all hope.
I just hope the next president has an IQ higher than his age (unlike the current President)
:p Good one!Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
The deal was the US will build them reactors for energy and they agreed to not build nukes with the leftovers. Clinton was stupid enough to believe Korea would hold up their end of the bargian. Don't throw stones man. It is the same deal Europe is offering to Iran. It'll be the same situation in 5 years with those jerkoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Of course the Republicans will blame the Democrats. They never seem to be on the same page.
I hate it when someone has to explain my jokes.Quote:
One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations.
It is very hard to avoid making light of this topic, as serious as it is. By the way, this is his password:
C:<enter>###
What must be totally tough, though, is that the republican selected to stand in for him can't replace his name on the ballot, so he has the unenviable task of convincing people to vote for Foley. That's gotta hurt, but it sounds like he's been pretty philosophic about it.
We can only hope that whoever wins, doesn't take a page from Foley's book.
Well, the Bush administration also cut off contact with North Korea very early on, so it would be difficult for them to verify, let alone negotiate, if North Korea wasn't holding up their end of the bargain. So, shame on them. Then again, what the hell were we doing helping NK build reactors in the first place? I guess we figured if they're going to build them anyway, might as well let us watch?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
And why did we invade Iraq when North Korea is a much bigger threat? I'm not trying to start a fight, these are just rhetorical questions. :duck:
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Korea? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
I might be off but I still have a feeling Iraq was chosen based on it's relative location to Iran, Syria, and Israel. I read in the newspaper that Kim Jong Il authorized underground testing on the first page.Quote:
And why did we invade Iraq when North Korea is a much bigger threat? I'm not trying to start a fight, these are just rhetorical questions. :duck:
We're hearing here in Blighty that he waived inspections requirements for North Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Couldn't have anything to do with oil, could it? Nyuk nyuk! :DQuote:
I might be off but I still have a feeling Iraq was chosen based on it's relative location to Iran, Syria, and Israel. I read in the newspaper that Kim Jong Il authorized underground testing on the first page.
The inspections were required by the UN and implemented and enforced by the IAEA. Bush has no say in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...ons/index.html
Yes It has everything to do with oil. If Iran and Syria got into a rocket throwing contest with Israel the oil flow would stop. It is my guess that having a significant number of US and/or Israli troops on their western and eastern borders will make Iran and Syria think twice about starting anything.Quote:
Couldn't have anything to do with oil, could it? Nyuk nyuk! :D
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But shouldn't it be
C<Page Down><Enter>:###
:eek2:
Ah, I was wondering why we were in Iraq. All along it was a noble and well crafted move by Bush ( being the cunning statesman that he is ) to maintain peace in the middle east. I feel ashamed to have doubted him. :blush: His masterstroke of genius is undoubtedly one of the pivotal points of this century. Of course, he is too modest to take credit for this noble action and tried to throw us off course with reasons like Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ties to Al-Quieda etc. Thank you MasterBlaster for seeing through this....Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
You're giving Bush way too much credit in your lame ass attempt to get me riled up. The last 4 presidents have had the exact same plan to contain Iran, only it used to involve Saddam on the West and an funding an Afghan war on the east to keep Iran in check. Is it a coincedence? Who knows, All I know is WMD's and terrorists were nothing but an excuse to get congress to fund a war that the republicans and democrats in the oval office have been trying to get started since 1980. Any way, when is your ban up so I can call you an asshat to your face? :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
I don't think the Bush administration has been trying to hide the reason we went into Iraq: namely to try to bring democracy to the Middle East one country at a time.
When asked why we chose Iraq and not Syria or Iran; then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated that we could have gone into any of those countries but we had the clearest legal path into Iraq since they had violated UN resolutions and had fired on our aircraft often.
Oil does have a lot to do with it since we wouldn't be so concerned with what was happening over there if the oil wasn't there.
Exactly. This has been the neo-con concept since Gulf War I, and it wasn't such a bad idea. What bothered me is that they tried to come up with all kinds of other reasons to go to war with Iraq, including WMD, ties to 9/11 (publicly denied by Bush, but alluded to repeatedly by Cheney and others, and still believed to be true by the majority of Fox viewers), and ties to al Queda.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
They had a sound, and forward thinking, concept, but chickened out when it came to standing on those principles. Basically, they had their heads in a dark space, over their choice, but it was entirely understandable. When Wolfowitz (or however you spell that) stated that Iraq had no history of sectarian conflict, he wasn't lying to America, he was lying to himself. Iraq was the low hanging fruit, and they grabbed at it, while convincing themselves that it was also the ripe fruit. Reality has now set in, and we're in a mess, but not because their general thesis was wrong, just the execution.
The only reason why we care about trying to get long-term stability in the region is because of oil. If there was no oil over there, we'd be just as happy letting them rot, as we do with all of Africa, and most of S. America.
OK; I haven't been keeping up with this story so I'll take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Let's hope so; the last thing we need is to take over another hostile middle eastern nation. My (perhaps naive) hope is that someday we'll be energy independent, at which point we can flip the middle east the bird and leave them to it. :)Quote:
Yes It has everything to do with oil. If Iran and Syria got into a rocket throwing contest with Israel the oil flow would stop. It is my guess that having a significant number of US and/or Israli troops on their western and eastern borders will make Iran and Syria think twice about starting anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Your whole statement is interesting. It looks like the US has been trying to start this war since the 1980's (according to you). Surely, that is a really bad thing? Is it any wonder why the US is seen as the bad guy by a large chunk of the world?
As for installing democracy in the middle east, as was stated many times before this war began, people have to want democracy, you can't thrust it upon them.
People can chose democracy when they have a comfortable existence, involving food on their table, drinking water, personal safety and in this day and age electricty. Until those things are met, the majority of the population will have other things to worry about than whether they can vote one corrupt politician in over another.
Look at Pakistan, since it became a democracy each successive leader has driven the country further and further into poverty. Most of the Pakistanis I spoke to there are over the moon that Musharef siezed power of the country in a coup. He is slowly trying to bring the country back from brink. They actively do not want democracy back until they have food and drinking water and in many cases to have the religous zealots who run some of the more tribal areas removed from power.
I can see the same situation in Iraq, These zealots wield so much power, that come election day, the religous zealots instruct their people that they must vote for the candidate that they endorse. Invariably this is another zealot. Bang, instantly you have a democratically elected fundamental Islamic government who reintroduce shia law.
But it's okay, because it's a democracy eh? In fairness, I am being unfair by using the word fundamentalist, as there are many fundamentalist Muslims out there who are not what most of us associate with the word (i.e. no Burkhas, beatings etc., just a fundamental belief in god). But hopefully you get my point. This is exactly the situation (election wise) that existed in Ireland 100 years ago. When the priest would stand in the pulpit and tell the people what he wanted them to do. Trust me, no matter what your personal misgivings where, you did as the priest instructed, because it was a command from God.
I do not think that the middle east is ready for democracy, and it is upmost foolishness and arrogance of the west to force it upon them. All we do is weaken ourselves and strengthen our enemies.
Good guy or bad guy is irrelevant. Bottom line is, if the oil stops flowing right now the worlds economy piesses in the tub. Instead of a couple handfulls of third world countries and a few hundred thousand dead in a war, you end up with an entire planet of starving or dead people. Does fighting and financing wars to keep the oil flowing make the US, EU, Russia, China and India the bad guys? It's a moral dilema that no one can answer correctly. Unfortunatly, it's a global economy now and every country depends on each other to survive. As an example, How would Europe do without imported food? If the big transport ships run out of fuel, I doubt you'll see people swiming across the atlantic with backpacks full of grains to feed everyone. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Unfortunately, the US has gotten itself into a position where it is dependent on foreign oil. Britain became a net importer of oil a few months ago for the first time in decades. Canada exports most of it's oil to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Few other big nations are as dependent. I think that Europe is (or can be) probably self sufficient on food (does anyone have any facts on this), it is one of the arguments why the government keeps paying farmers not to grow crops... so that in a crunch the countries cannot be held to ransom over food.
So the argument that it is about oil does not justify taking it by force. Become if not self-sufficient, at least less reliant on middle eastern oil. Of course, this doesn't excuse Canada for hiking the price of oil up everytime something goes wrong in the middle east.... that's blatant gouging.... but that's a another discussion entirely.
So yes, the US is very reliant on middle eastern oil. Does that justify killing tens of thousands of people to get it? No. Is the rest of the world reliant on oil, yes, but not neccessarily middle eastern oil.
Now, you could argue that the world depends on the US economy, but whilst that was true 5 years ago, it is not so true now. I have noticed that countries have quickly weaned themselves off the US dollar. Before 5 years ago every contract we were asked to bid on was required to be in US dollars. Now, every single one of them requires the price in Euro's.
So, I disagree that fighting to control the oil is in the interests of humanity. Face facts, you voted in an individual who is either an idiot or completely immoral (I'm not sure which), and he promptly went to war for self serving political, short sighted reasons. I'm afraid to say, the moment he invaded Iraq, he handed Al-Queida their biggest victory ever. No amount of trying to come up with excuses or reasons for the invasion will ever change that.
World good? I don't think so. :(
Dude you are so far from reality that it is almost amusing. Commerce is driven by Oil. Period, end of discussion. When the world reverts to coal burning ships, steam powered railroad engines and the horse and buggy to deliver goods then you may have a point. Until humans can move billions of tons of traded goods every day without the oil generated power then the global economy is dependant on the middle east. England may buy canadian Oil for it's own purpose, but the food and goods coming into it May be arriving via mideast oil or south american or canadian or who knows? The Middle east is the worlds largest Oil provider so odds are that the tanker is burning saudi/Iraqi/Iranian/XXXistan sweet crude diesel. You do have a point about the available farm lands that the government is essentially paying for. So is every one in europe going to show up at the farm every day and pick their own vegetables? How will you ship the produce? how will you plow the field? Ever seen a combine that runs on liquid bullsheit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
BTW, I never tried to pawn this off as "World Good". I think the situation sucks as much as the next guy. I would be the happiest man alive if I was responsible for growing my own food, making my own consumer goods and generating my own fuel. For the most part I do, but due to overpopulation and the current society structure there are some things we have to depend on trade to get just to survive. In fact, In a few months I will be producing my own Bio diesel out of recycled material [seriously].
Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough. The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil. The middle east is Self Sufficient on Oil. Large chunks of Europe are all self sufficient. World trade will not halt because the West does not control the middle east. Canada is constantly ramping up production at an alarming rate, and is still be outstripped by the consumption in the US (great for Canada - not so great for the US). The US's consumption per capita is massive compared to the rest of the world. I think this needs to be brought under control. If the US was self sufficient (or at very least just dependent on Canada and Alaska), then that would go a long way towards the economy being independent. At present the US is giving tons of money to governments that are openly hostile to it. How can that be a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
BTW good for you for the bio-degradable diesel! :thumb:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
As someone who lives in the UK and sees little except foreign food in the supermarkets, I'm not sure we could. Remember that even in a mild climate like the UK, you can only grow food certain times of the year. You COULD grow food in winter, but only if you want to eat cabbage and turnips the whole time.
I don't think there is any way that Europe could realistically feed itself.
Uh...not for much longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
What does your company do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
I probably shouldn't tell you this incase there's any animal rights people on this website, but they design, build and test ejector seat systems for jet trainers, fighters etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Not even close. Both countries depend on food and supplies coming from The US, Mexico, East Aisia..... All of which are shipping those goods via mideast oil. Also, over the weekend, while researching Diesel fuel, I came across the reason that the price of Diesel fuel in the US is now higher than regular unleaded gasoline. Five years ago it was not. The US is trading it's diesel fuel in exchange for the UK's regular gasoline. The reason behind it is the higher percentage of diesel cars in the UK compared to the US. So In fact, The UK is burning mideast fuel on it's highways. Not trying to nitpick, Just trying to emphasize that the US is not the only country that will be SOL if the mideast oil stops flowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
Thnx, I'm still trying to get it to work out financially and setting up my materials sources. There are also a bunch of Tax and Code laws that I need to sort out. The actual making of the fuel is a pretty simple process. Any Europeans driving the new diesel Hondas with an opinion on them would be welcomed. They haven't been released to market here yet and I would prefer to buy a honda if possible. I've always been impressed with the drivability compared to price on Hondas.Quote:
BTW good for you for the bio-degradable diesel! :thumb:
Are you honestly trying to tell me that Canada, the second largest country in the world, with the massive prairies filled with wheat, with the abundant fruit orchards of British Columbia, with the meagre population of 35 million, cannot feed itself? Alberta alone is 3 times the size of the UK and it's pretty much all wheat and beef. :ehh: I would argue that that is a pretty dubious fact.... Infact, the only thing that's more abundant than food is oil (which is promptly sold at a huge premium to the States).Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I also fail to see the UK burning mid-east fuel thing as well. Let's get this straight. The UK produces lots of gasoline from the North Sea. They are getting their diesel from the US (according to you), and somehow this equates to them burning middle eastern fuel?
But, like Suzzi, I do applaud you for the bio-diesel stuff.
A quick check on the CIA world factbook shows that Canada keeps 225 square metres of land farmed per person. More than enough to feed a person for a year.... and when you consider that this accounts for just 5% of the country's land (a chunk of the other 95% being the cattle praries etc.) I think I'll rest my case on this point.
Yes, and the annual penguin harvest in Canada is a rare treat.
So you're trying to tell me that canada only exports goods. They don't depend on trade for anything? Whatever, Your numbers are extremely misleading. 95% of the country is not cattle land. 80% of the land you speak of is covered in freaking snow most of the year. Trust me, it is better to make Iced Cream after the milk has been removed from the cow. The majority of canadians live within only a few hundred miles of the US border. Then there are the canadian "bush" people(not the president), but that is a different threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
How can you fail to see it. They are trading a huge ammount of US refined mideast fuel for eupopean refined unleaded gasoline. They are doing this to keep the diesel in the UK affordable and regular unleaded gasoline in the US affordable. This is my point. Some how or another, If it runs on oil based products, no matter where in the world or who a particular country buys their oil from. Odds are it is tied to mideast oil. This has nothing to do with government decisions, It has to do wiith their simply being more mideast oil on the market. Another example. UK Shipping company sends a boat to china to pick up 115,000 dead weight tonnage of freight. They stop in Shanghai for fuel. They are now burning Mideast Oil, Are they not? :confused:Quote:
I also fail to see the UK burning mid-east fuel thing as well. Let's get this straight. The UK produces lots of gasoline from the North Sea. They are getting their diesel from the US (according to you), and somehow this equates to them burning middle eastern fuel?
I never said they only export goods, the original discussion was whether a country is dependent on imports to survive (if the middle east cut off their oil would they be able to survive). I have quite clearly shown that Canada does not need imports to feed itself. This is quite different from importing other types of food as a luxury.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
As for the second part of the statement, this is unfortunately a typical US view of Canada. Yes, a massive amount live in the south, almost all centred around the Trans-Canada railroad, but this does not mean that the rest of the land is uninhabitable. Yes, maybe 50% of Canada is snowbound, but that still leaves a very large area which is very arrable. Heck, I was just up in Edmonton (that's some 350 miles north of the US border I believe and it wa sin the mid 30's (Celcius). But that's all besides the point. At present the figures stand at 225 sq metres of crops per person (not including cattle etc.).
and without any extra expansion, that's enough to feed every Canadian.
Why would they ship middle eastern fuel to the US just to ship it to UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Wouldn't it make much more sense for them to be shipping South American or Canadian fuel to the UK..... given that they are your largest suppliers..... or do they specifically seperate out the middle eastern stuff from your pipelines so that it doesn't contaminate your principles :p The second example is valid, as is the case of a middle eastern tanker stopping in Canada and now burning Canadian oil? But I fail to see the relevance. I believe you are confusing the world of supply and demand with the world of the oil cartels. Supply is deliberately restricted to keep the costs up. Canada could supply all of the US's oil requirements if it really wanted to. Why doesn't it? I would guess that they're happy for OPEC to be the bad guys and keep the supply restricted so that they get a good return on their oil. They would be mad to make the States independent of OPEC. What's oil these days $80 a barrel? Do you really think it costs Canada any more to produce a barrel of oil today than it did 5 years ago?
Dude, look at my location underneath my avatar. I can throw a rock and hit Canada from here. 50% is practically uninhabitable and another 25% is so damn cold 9 months out of the year that cow's commit suicide when they hear they're getting sent north. I never said that they couldn't produce enough food to survive if they had to. I just said that your numbers were very misleading. Go back to Edmonton in a month or two and see what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Whatever, I'll end with this, which was my point to begin with. If any one doesn't believe that the sudden loss of 25% of the worlds oil will have catastrophic economical effects on every globalized country then they are a head smacking retard. :wave:
So you're ejecting monkeys at approximately 15 G's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
Christ... you got any video of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, it sure isn't penguins.
This is exactly why Iran isn’t a smoldering crater right now. Even though the US and a majority of Europe get no oil from Iran taking what they produce off the market would send the price of oil everywhere skyrocketing. Its simple supply and demand, there is someone out there that buys Iranian oil (China) and they are not going to all of a sudden no longer need it, they are going to try and get it somewhere else. This is turn will make oil less available for everyone else thus driving the price of oil well over 100 bucks a barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Also the current price of a barrel of oil is around $60. Oil prices went into free fall because world supply is at an all time high. OPEC seeing this has decided to slow production by 1 million barrels a day which will likely slow the fall of oil prices. Oil is down almost $20 a barrel from its highs, it likely would have dropped another $10 or so had OPEC not taken any action.
X
This has to be the perfect post :thumb: It starts off with indignation that you should know all about Canada because you live near it, then go on to make the most hillariouslly stereotypical statement about Canada, bbbbbrrrrr. Good job there's igloos up there - eh? :p And beyond all this, you still fail to make your point. You said that Canada was reliant on foreign food imports. I categorically proved that they were not..... so, were you wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
What tune are you whistling now, you change it so regularly that I'm having difficulty keeping up.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I believe that nobody has denied that losing 25% of the worlds oil supply would affect trade, however, that gap could be filled by higher production from other nations and better use of the oil. As has been pointed out, this isn't a question of us using up all the available oil as it is produced. This is a question of the cartels restricting the supply of oil to suit the market to keep price's high. Canada is as complicit as the middle-east.
Your original statment implied that wrold economies would crumble if it wasn't for middle eastern oil. Countries would starve (I seem to remember some swimming to the uk with backpacks of food comment), the end of the world is nigh sort of thing. Do you deny that this statement is incorrect now? Or have you changed your tune to "It'll effect the world economy?". Yes, but so would cokecola if it went bankrupt......
All of this I believe came from an original Suzzi comment that the US would do well to wean itself off oil. As someone who is looking into making their own diesel, I would think that you would be able to agree with this statement. Per capita the US uses way more oil than any other country on earth. The reasons aren't hard to see. Most of the US cities I have lived in are full of big cars with one person in them. Cars are used to go everywhere..... I remember slagging our neighbours because they would drive down to work in seperate cars. Come home. Drive out to get a video etc. Then get on the treadmill in the evening..... it's just so damn cheap and convenient. The US would not grind to a halt if it's population had to use more econmical cars, or carpool or just walk every now and again.
Look at Brazil. All the gas there is cut with fuel alchohol that they grow themselves. Don't get me wrong, Canada is just as bad, but Canada (as has been stated) is not reliant on foreign oil.
Look at the countries you buy oil from. Venezula? Saudi? These countries are barely on friendly terms with you, yet they're very happy to take your money. If you could shrug off that yoke around your necks, then suddenly you would be in a far better position to decide what your foreign policy was going to be. Maybe you wouldn't have to start so many wars? Maybe you wouldn't have to give two hoots about what Venezula said about you to the world? Hell, maybe you might even be able to control the price of oil yourselves, rather than let OPEC set it... for those of you who don't know OPEC consists of (Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Venezuela)..... see many friendly faces there? Yet they have such a grip on your economy. :ehh:
Er, actually you did. The conversation went something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
Er, looks to me like you are arguing that Canada and the UK are both dependent on foreign countries for food and oil.......Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
So, in true FOX TV fashion, let's hear your sound bites again
andQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Now all I need is the anchor woman to make some witty aside to the anchor man and then both smile at the camera as we cut to adverts (for the new Ford Oil Guzzler F-9000, now with second engine for that extra street cred!) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
*THUNDERING APPLAUSE*
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
I still don't see where I said that canada couldn't produce enough food to survive? I said they are not self sufficient. Their economy depends on imports and exports, just like every other globalized country in the world. How hard of a concept is that for you to grasp? I believe I said that the UK could not be self sufficient and even If I didn't, I'll stand by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Or I can blame all the worlds problems on the US because It's the in thing to do instead of realizing that the country you live in regardless of where your are has the exact same problems.Quote:
Now all I need is the anchor woman to make some witty aside to the anchor man and then both smile at the camera as we cut to adverts (for the new Ford Oil Guzzler F-9000, now with second engine for that extra street cred!) :)
Right about where you said that Canada depends on foreign food. If you want, I can come over and draw a big circle around it on yuor screen with felt tip marker pens.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
That's right. We're all being trendy by blaming all the worlds problems on the US? :ehh: For one thing, we are discussing how to free up the US economy from it's dependence on the middle east. What has this to do with the worlds problems? This is beginning to sound like paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Secondly, most people do not blame the worlds problems on the US. Most people do blame the US for the mess in Iraq, and for warmongering like nobody has seen since the 1930's, but you can hardly balme them for that can you? Oh, that wasn't us, they tricked us into attacking..... :p
But again, not really relevant to the conversation (mind you none of this is relevant to the original thread :) ). So, stating that the US should wean itself of middle eastern oil is wrong because.....?
Me:I can butcher my own meat If I wanted to. I Don't I Depend on a butcher to do it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Canada: I can grow my own food if I wanted to, I Don't I Depend on someone else do the farming. Then I buy it from them because it is affordable that way
Please take a class on "Reading Comprehension" Then start over at the begining of this thread. Thank You.
....Because it will not solve anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
The world needs to ween itself off of oil. A fixed amount of Oil is necessary to keep the global economy moving. Suddenly removing 25% of that Oil completley without replacing it with another power source will crash that economy. It is not a US problem, It is a global problem.
Ha ha ha :p You are trying very unsuccessfully to squirm out of this. Do you depend on the butcher in the first example? No you do not. Because if he stops butchering for you, you can go to another butcher or do it yourself. You can infact be independent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Is Canada dependent on foreign food, no, it can (and does) grow enough to feed it's population.
You could argue, oh, I didn't mean it like that, but a few posts previously youe were saying that the world would be starving to death..... Face facts, you are quite simply wrong. Now be a man and admit it :p
You are obviously failing to grasp what I am saying. Yes, I agree the world does need to wean itself of the current oil consumption levels. Yes, suddenly removing 25% of the worlds oil supply would be bad for the economy. Would it result in millions around the world starving to death? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
It is also a global problem, but for the US it's far worse, as they are by far the biggest users of the stuff and are far more dependent on it than many other countries.
The US needs to wean itself off the Oil, not for the sake of the world, but for the sake of it's own foreign policy. Until it does that, then it is going to be funding the very people who stand to oppose it. How can I say it any slower or clearer...?
Oh, and while I'm here, actually, I look at Canada and I don't see the same problems. Funny, they don't hold people indefinetly without trial, they don't kidnap and torture dissidents, they don't actively attack other countries on a regular basis, they don't interfere in other nations internal politics (beyond what is normal), they don't openly try and assassinate other world leaders, they don't actively develop new nuclear "battlefield" weapons while swearing to the world that they're not going to use them........ and Canadians don't live in fear that they are going to be attacked because for some reason the rest of the world views them as a pariah. Why else do Americans sew Canadian flags on their backpacks when they go travelling?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Luckily it's easy to identify the Americans still. All you need is a little American Flag (made in China) and a box of matches. Next thing you know they'll all be running around screaming "Terrorist Alert Fushia. Code Fuisha, I repeat, Code Fuisha. Flag burning in progress" and hiding under tables lest the big bad terrorists get them. :p
Sure Canada is under threat of attack, but we don't let it effect our life or our liberties. As soon as you do that, the terrorists have won. And unforunatly my friend, when I look at the States I see that terrorism has indeed achieved what it set out to do. :(
But none of this has anything to do with the thread, I was just clarify the mistaken view you hold that the rest of the world has the same problems as the US. We don't. Sure, we have plenty of other problems, but that's the fun of the world mosaic. Now if only we hadn't run out of maple syrup.... :wave:
I am not trying to squirm out of anything. I was trying to clarify my use of the word dependant. In the case of an individual butcher, yes you can go to another or learn to cut your own. If 25% of the butchers(Oil) are suddenly removed from the marketplace then there is no one to take up the slack. Sure a few(like canada) "could" do it themselvs but most wouldn't even know where to find a cow, let alone to make a steak out of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...001/export.htm
Then what does it do with the 30% of the food it imports? Do they just import it then throw it away?Quote:
Is Canada dependent on foreign food, no, it can (and does) grow enough to feed it's population.
You have presented no facts, All you have done is try to counter what I have said with exagerated half truths and twisting my quotes out of context.Quote:
You could argue, oh, I didn't mean it like that, but a few posts previously youe were saying that the world would be starving to death..... Face facts, you are quite simply wrong. Now be a man and admit it :p
Every forecast I have read that states the impact of the sudden removal of 25% of the worlds oil supply is an economic disaster for everyone with a trade driven economy. That includes Canada.
No, the animal rights people seem to think that monkeys are too cute and friendly. No, we use hamsters. They're cheaper, easier to clean up and have pretty much the same BMI as a human.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Of course, I do get a pang of guilt when I look into their furry little faces on the video feed, their little cheeks twitching away, and then I flick the switch and woosh, they're flattened out, going ballistic.
I honestly think that most of them enjoy it. A pretty high percentage survive no problems at all. They scurry around in their cages on the later launches, eager to begin.
We don't do it out of choice, but many companies and governments won't take our product unless there's been a live fire test.
Please, stop it, I'm laughing so hard :pQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Okay, let's take a look at that link you posted...
Okay, let's take it very slowly.Quote:
Canada's exports of processed food products exceed imports by about 30%. In 2003, Canada exported $16.8 billion worth of processed food products and imported $12.6 billion.
The food processing industry accounts for about 4% of Canada's merchandise trade essentially the same as it was in 1995. Canada has always been a major food exporter.
Importing is when a country (like C-a-n-a-d-a) buys goods from another country (like the U-S) and brings them into the country. We say that canada is i-m-p-o-r-t-i-n-g them. Does that make sense.
Now when a country (like C-a-n-a-d-a) sells goods to another country, we say that Canada is e-x-p-o-r-t-i-n-g them. Okay, does that make sense so far?
When a countries exports of food exceed their imports, they are producing enough to feed all of their people and then some.
Hey, what do you know, I thought I couldn't say it any clearer, but yet again I managed to out do myself.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the link you just posted, absolutely prove my point (and I would say disprove yours but I know you will have changed your tune again by the next post.... let me guess, you weren't saying that Canada couldn't be self-sufficient, just that if there was a crop blight and an earthquake then maybe Canada would have to import some food to survive......)..... of course, you could argue that these figures are based on monetary value and not quantity of food, but hang on, that doesn't work either does it, because Canada is exporting wheat, which is a dietry staple and very cheap, and I'm betting that a lot of the food it is importing is luxury food (chcoalte etc.) - so Canada would still survive. ;) Maybe, maybe you mean that because Canada imports less food than it exports, that there is some sort of accounting trick going on, sort of smoke and mirrors, ...... I am curious to see what you are changing your tune to now... but I know i won't be dissapointed :)
I know what an import and export is, I'm suprised you do considering you cannot grasp a simple economic model. I have not changed my tune yet. You are trying to change my tune. Canada's E-C-O-N-O-M-Y depends on those exports. Those exports depend 25% on M-I-D-E-A-S-T O-I-L to reach their destination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Not true. It depends on what is being imported and exported. It may or may not be true in the case of canada but still that is not always and not usually the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Last I remember Canada is still a part of NATO and Canadian troops are active in fighting “the war on terror” inside of Afghanistan. They are just as responsible for rounding up suspected terrorists as the US is, therefore Canada should just be equally culpable in your eyes. Canada kidnaps dissidents and hands them over to the US to be tortured and detained forever! Canada sure is evil, a willing partner to torture, tisk tisk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
X