Ex-Rep Foley's contradiction.

[Xcoder]

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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.

[moeur]

Yes,

Foley is going to go down big time.

[demotivater]

Besides being sick / wrong / whatever, how could someone be so friggin stupid?

[Shaggy Hiker]

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.

[nemaroller]

Christ the republicans are going to get their arses handed to them in these upcoming elections.

[crptcblade]

Foley is going to go down big time.

Its all falling into place...

[moeur]

Now that Foley has resigned, his seat is up for grabs.

[demotivater]

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.

[disruptivehair]

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.

[Valleysboy1978]

I just hope the next president has an IQ higher than his age (unlike the current President)

[Ex-FB]

One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations.

Good one!

[MasterBlaster]

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.

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.

Of course the Republicans will blame the Democrats. They never seem to be on the same page.

[moeur]

One could say his seat has been up for grabs for quite a while in light of these revalations.

I hate it when someone has to explain my jokes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

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.

[disruptivehair]

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.

Of course the Republicans will blame the Democrats. They never seem to be on the same page.

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?

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.

[MasterBlaster]

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?

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Korea?

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.

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.

[disruptivehair]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Korea?

We're hearing here in Blighty that he waived inspections requirements for North Korea.

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.

Couldn't have anything to do with oil, could it? Nyuk nyuk!

[MasterBlaster]

We're hearing here in Blighty that he waived inspections requirements for North Korea.

The inspections were required by the UN and implemented and enforced by the IAEA. Bush has no say in the matter.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...ons/index.html

Couldn't have anything to do with oil, could it? Nyuk nyuk!

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.

[Suzzi]

By the way, this is his password:

C:<enter>###

But shouldn't it be
C<Page Down><Enter>:###

[Suzzi]

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.

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. 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....

[MasterBlaster]

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. 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....

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?

[moeur]

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.

[Shaggy Hiker]

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.

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.

[disruptivehair]

The inspections were required by the UN and implemented and enforced by the IAEA. Bush has no say in the matter.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...ons/index.html

OK; I haven't been keeping up with this story so I'll take your word for it.

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.

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.

[Ex-FB]

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?

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.

[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?

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.

[Suzzi]

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.

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.

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.

[MasterBlaster]

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.

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?

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].

[Suzzi]

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?

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?

BTW good for you for the bio-degradable diesel!

[disruptivehair]

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.

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.

[disruptivehair]

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.

Uh...not for much longer.

[Ex-FB]

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.

What does your company do?

[Suzzi]

What does your company do?

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.

[MasterBlaster]

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough. The UK is self sufficient on Oil, Canada is self sufficient on Oil.

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.

BTW good for you for the bio-degradable diesel!

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.

[Ex-FB]

Not even close. Both countries depend on food and supplies coming from The US, Mexico, East Aisia..... 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.

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. 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).

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.

[Ex-FB]

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.

[Suzzi]

Yes, and the annual penguin harvest in Canada is a rare treat.

[MasterBlaster]

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.

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 thread

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?

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?

[Ex-FB]

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 thread

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.

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.

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?

Why would they ship middle eastern fuel to the US just to ship it to UK?
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 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?