You guys have a great James Bond villain in the works here. Is there anything else you want to tack onto the conspiracy theory. I'm sure I can link the Bush family to that whole JFK/aliens/remoteviewing/matrix/911 thing.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 3,815
- 0
- 0
The need to go to war with Iraq has little to nothing to do with the intentions of Bush and his administration's before 9/11. Iraq has been a threat since Bush ever came into office; most people with knowledge about the situation already know that.
In 2000: Here
In 1998: Another
In 2001 before 9/11 Yet Another
In 2000: Some more
Even before the first Gulf War in 1990: More
But yea the only reason we're at war is because Bush wants the oil, and revenge for his daddy, and because of 9/11, and a conspiracy by the US government to take over the world...
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Your thread crap had absolutely nothing to do with the context of what I posted from todays USA Today about the war effort.
You jumped to the alarmist theory of Nuclear Bombs.
Where are they? I haven't seen anything about them laying around in the dessert since 1990 to the present.
All that's been found is trash, after the 'Sky-is-Falling' hype is stripped away.
By the way - why post links that requied a password or registration, it's a hinderance.
You jumped to the alarmist theory of Nuclear Bombs.
Where are they? I haven't seen anything about them laying around in the dessert since 1990 to the present.
All that's been found is trash, after the 'Sky-is-Falling' hype is stripped away.
By the way - why post links that requied a password or registration, it's a hinderance.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
If South Africa suddenly decided that Lesotho belonged to them (hell, it's right in the middle of the country, how could it not belong to them?) and invaded, we wouldn't have lifted a finger. We DID care about Kuwait because it's an oil producing nation. There's no doubt this war is about oil. This isn't even a new war, it's just a continuation of the decade old war that was about oil. But it's not a war for oil in the way that some people think it is. Some simple-minded peaceniks think we're invading Iraq and after it's over we're going to start pumping all of the oil in Iraq into huge containers stamped with USA in huge red, white and blue letters. It's not that simple. The war isn't about Iraqi oil, it's about all oil in the middle east.
The reason we didn't stand for Iraq invading Kuwait wasn't even necessarily about that action directly, it's about stability. The world wouldn't have noticed a big change in oil production if Iraqs invastion of Kuwait had been allowed. But allowing Saddam to keep Kuwait might have given him the idea that the world was OK with his quest for power, and he could have gone for larger prey, perhaps Saudi. An Iraq/Saudi war could have cause the region to destabilize to the point that the flow of oil would be disrupted enough to cause a worldwide depression.
Bottom line - we are too dependent on oil. The only long term answer to the middle east problem is alternative fuel sources.
This is my theory anyway.
The reason we didn't stand for Iraq invading Kuwait wasn't even necessarily about that action directly, it's about stability. The world wouldn't have noticed a big change in oil production if Iraqs invastion of Kuwait had been allowed. But allowing Saddam to keep Kuwait might have given him the idea that the world was OK with his quest for power, and he could have gone for larger prey, perhaps Saudi. An Iraq/Saudi war could have cause the region to destabilize to the point that the flow of oil would be disrupted enough to cause a worldwide depression.
Bottom line - we are too dependent on oil. The only long term answer to the middle east problem is alternative fuel sources.
This is my theory anyway.
I think you can add to stability, Bober, the notion of control. Do we want, for example, China to be able to fuel a war machine with it? There are all kinds of preemptives.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote in part by Bobberfett
Bottom line - we are too dependent on oil. The only long term answer to the middle east problem is alternative fuel sources.
This is my theory anyway.[/quote]
I think an alternative to fossil fuel consuming technology has been available for some time but put down by the powers at work...
Nuke power is much better than oil or coal burners... breathing a few rads is no differn't than a few whatever burnt oil produces.
Bottom line - we are too dependent on oil. The only long term answer to the middle east problem is alternative fuel sources.
This is my theory anyway.[/quote]
I think an alternative to fossil fuel consuming technology has been available for some time but put down by the powers at work...
Nuke power is much better than oil or coal burners... breathing a few rads is no differn't than a few whatever burnt oil produces.
I think an alternative to fossil fuel consuming technology has been available for some time but put down by the powers at work...
Nuke power is much better than oil or coal burners... breathing a few rads is no differn't than a few whatever burnt oil produces.[/quote]
The enviromentalists have kept us from opening more nuke plants.
I don't think it's just environmentalists, its nursing mothers and parents of all kinds. Nuclear physics isn't rocket science, it's rocket science's rocket science. People, almost everybody, doesn't understand it, can't see it and fear what they can't see or understand. Radioactivity is the boogy man. It gets in your milk and under your bed. It kills you with cancer. It's a huge psychological hurdle.
The good news is that the French rely on it heavily. They are obviously a far more advanced group of Homo sapeins than we are, no? God I hate those Euroweenies.
The good news is that the French rely on it heavily. They are obviously a far more advanced group of Homo sapeins than we are, no? God I hate those Euroweenies.
wait what about the
Wait what about the well publized account of Toyota truck driven around by Saddam Fedayeen to attack our army or to ambush our army rear or the supply line? Are they made in US or Japan? does that mean Japan or us secretly support Saddam? Maybe it's about money, you know when it comes to money a lot of companies on earth would sell their soul to Satan just to show 10% profit increase, just go ask Enron
Wait what about the well publized account of Toyota truck driven around by Saddam Fedayeen to attack our army or to ambush our army rear or the supply line? Are they made in US or Japan? does that mean Japan or us secretly support Saddam? Maybe it's about money, you know when it comes to money a lot of companies on earth would sell their soul to Satan just to show 10% profit increase, just go ask Enron
Originally posted by: cpumaster
wait what about the
Wait what about the well publized account of Toyota truck driven around by Saddam Fedayeen to attack our army or to ambush our army rear or the supply line? Are they made in US or Japan? does that mean Japan or us secretly support Saddam? Maybe it's about money, you know when it comes to money a lot of companies on earth would sell their soul to Satan just to show 10% profit increase, just go ask Enron
The toyota was not a restricted import item, the Rolands are.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't think it's just environmentalists, its nursing mothers and parents of all kinds. Nuclear physics isn't rocket science, it's rocket science's rocket science. People, almost everybody, doesn't understand it, can't see it and fear what they can't see or understand. Radioactivity is the boogy man. It gets in your milk and under your bed. It kills you with cancer. It's a huge psychological hurdle.
The good news is that the French rely on it heavily. They are obviously a far more advanced group of Homo sapeins than we are, no? God I hate those Euroweenies.
My wife won't eat food prepared in a microwave... some research freinds up at UCSD told her about 15 years ago that you eat the rays that get caught in the food.... And they add to the flavor... I can't get her beyond that... partly my fault cuz I told her they were brilliant!
Such is life...
Re: French use of nuke.... yeah but look what it does to the street lights... turns them yellow... imagine what it would do to your carpet...
actually one of the past UN inspector an ex-US marine Scott Ritter said that back after the GWI, most of Iraq WMDs are destroyed, also he mentioned one of the reasons US pulled out the inspector is because we don't want all the WMD to be destroyed in order to keep the UN sanction on Iraq and in long run might cause Saddam to fall (that doesn't work), of course after US pulled the inspectors, they tried to kill Saddam using the Tomahawk, and Saddam thinking that the UN inspectors are spies for US banned them from coming back,
well, until George Bush become president and he ain't going for no BS, taking the matter into our hand, with or without UN approval of course Saddam might have developed newer and better technique to avoid detection now, but still, WMDs ain't no picnic to hide, we talked about WMD being hidden like it's just toys that can be carried behind our jacket and burried under the dirt whenever we wanted...it has to be done carefully (otherwise your might be victim) and probably need a lot of preparation and special material. BTW, that's one way how the UN inspector went to track the WMD, by checking out the receipts and inventory record of chemical companies that have sold stuff to Iraq and from the satellite photos & information from our trusted friend, the CIA
anyway, I digress, Saddam in the last UN inspectors report has declared that he has destroyed all his WMD, of course nobody belief him, that's why they made him took the inspectors to the destruction sites and has to be confirmed by photo from our satellite spies, as far as the last reports from HAns Blix, I think he said he couldn't find anymore WMD in Iraq that was on our suspected list...of course Bush went by the rationale of "What if there is any that we never suspected Saddam has? what about that? We must attack them, can't risk that of course"
Bush logic probably goes like this: Saddam is a smart brutal dictator and he has been in power for quite long, therefore he must have some secret WMDs to keep him in power
of course I'm just simplifiying things, and btw oil probably has a lot to do with it....
to the argument of money from oil in Iraq will not go to US government, that is half right, half wrong. Not to the government, but to the personal in charge in government. oil sales went to US or other country oil companies, they contribute to the official-in-charge election campaign fund or personal fund (you never know), and that's your money trail connection (Remember follow the money trail). of course don't forget the taxes uncle Sam receives from the increase oil sales
well, until George Bush become president and he ain't going for no BS, taking the matter into our hand, with or without UN approval
of course Saddam might have developed newer and better technique to avoid detection now, but still, WMDs ain't no picnic to hide, we talked about WMD being hidden like it's just toys that can be carried behind our jacket and burried under the dirt whenever we wanted...it has to be done carefully (otherwise your might be victim) and probably need a lot of preparation and special material. BTW, that's one way how the UN inspector went to track the WMD, by checking out the receipts and inventory record of chemical companies that have sold stuff to Iraq and from the satellite photos & information from our trusted friend, the CIA anyway, I digress, Saddam in the last UN inspectors report has declared that he has destroyed all his WMD, of course nobody belief him, that's why they made him took the inspectors to the destruction sites and has to be confirmed by photo from our satellite spies, as far as the last reports from HAns Blix, I think he said he couldn't find anymore WMD in Iraq that was on our suspected list...of course Bush went by the rationale of "What if there is any that we never suspected Saddam has? what about that? We must attack them, can't risk that of course"
Bush logic probably goes like this: Saddam is a smart brutal dictator and he has been in power for quite long, therefore he must have some secret WMDs to keep him in power
of course I'm just simplifiying things, and btw oil probably has a lot to do with it....
to the argument of money from oil in Iraq will not go to US government, that is half right, half wrong. Not to the government, but to the personal in charge in government. oil sales went to US or other country oil companies, they contribute to the official-in-charge election campaign fund or personal fund (you never know), and that's your money trail connection (Remember follow the money trail). of course don't forget the taxes uncle Sam receives from the increase oil sales
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't think it's just environmentalists, its nursing mothers and parents of all kinds. Nuclear physics isn't rocket science, it's rocket science's rocket science. People, almost everybody, doesn't understand it, can't see it and fear what they can't see or understand. Radioactivity is the boogy man. It gets in your milk and under your bed. It kills you with cancer. It's a huge psychological hurdle.
The good news is that the French rely on it heavily. They are obviously a far more advanced group of Homo sapeins than we are, no? God I hate those Euroweenies.
My wife won't eat food prepared in a microwave... some research freinds up at UCSD told her about 15 years ago that you eat the rays that get caught in the food.... And they add to the flavor... I can't get her beyond that... partly my fault cuz I told her they were brilliant!
Such is life...
Re: French use of nuke.... yeah but look what it does to the street lights... turns them yellow... imagine what it would do to your carpet...
I'm already said this before. I'm fully in favor of blowing up every freaking coal plant in the US and replacing it with clean, cheap nuclear power.
Except the environmentalists are too busy convincing people that nuclear power is dangerous because of a few isolated incidents that could have easily been prevented. There hasn't been a nuclear accident in the States since Three Mile Island, and there are dozens in operation.
Coal contains far more cancer-causing potential than nuclear, and makes huge contributions to the C02 release.
Would you believe that if we shut down all the coal plants and ran Nuclear, we'd actually MEET the Kyoto protocols?
Wishful thinking, I guess.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote by Machfive
I'm already said this before. I'm fully in favor of blowing up every freaking coal plant in the US and replacing it with clean, cheap nuclear power.
Except the environmentalists are too busy convincing people that nuclear power is dangerous because of a few isolated incidents that could have easily been prevented. There hasn't been a nuclear accident in the States since Three Mile Island, and there are dozens in operation.
Coal contains far more cancer-causing potential than nuclear, and makes huge contributions to the C02 release.
Would you believe that if we shut down all the coal plants and ran Nuclear, we'd actually MEET the Kyoto protocols?
Wishful thinking, I guess.[/quote]
Tree huggers have a valid point IF the option exists to live the way they propose (often inferred). My way of going camping is to make reservations at Harrah's in Laughlin or Vegas. In the wild the lion must turn to eating Rice Krispies if the gazell are all consumed. So there is a trade off... If we go to nuke fuel all that is disturbed is the disposal site (I suggest the ocean trench system and let it meld with the magma) and if an accident occurs. Insure the system is safe, unlike San Onofre where that plant is built on an earthquake fault. Solar, Hydro, and Hydrogen fuel technology are viable too.
I'm already said this before. I'm fully in favor of blowing up every freaking coal plant in the US and replacing it with clean, cheap nuclear power.
Except the environmentalists are too busy convincing people that nuclear power is dangerous because of a few isolated incidents that could have easily been prevented. There hasn't been a nuclear accident in the States since Three Mile Island, and there are dozens in operation.
Coal contains far more cancer-causing potential than nuclear, and makes huge contributions to the C02 release.
Would you believe that if we shut down all the coal plants and ran Nuclear, we'd actually MEET the Kyoto protocols?
Wishful thinking, I guess.[/quote]
Tree huggers have a valid point IF the option exists to live the way they propose (often inferred). My way of going camping is to make reservations at Harrah's in Laughlin or Vegas. In the wild the lion must turn to eating Rice Krispies if the gazell are all consumed. So there is a trade off... If we go to nuke fuel all that is disturbed is the disposal site (I suggest the ocean trench system and let it meld with the magma) and if an accident occurs. Insure the system is safe, unlike San Onofre where that plant is built on an earthquake fault. Solar, Hydro, and Hydrogen fuel technology are viable too.
yeah I agree, nuke power plant is actually far cleaner and more efficient than the coal, but nuke just have that nasty image in many people minds and you know the phrase that perception is reality? well in this case the environmentalists know (maybe some don't, not all green are bright you know ) that but they need people support so they just play that to the public.
of course there is actually one drawback to the nuke power plant, the spent fuel, how to store and transport them. Of course coal has some nastier side output too, mainly CO2 but they are cheap to dispose and left no immediate side-effect except to environment (compare to swimming in a pool that store spent uranium fuel rod).
maybe someday we could just make the uranium fuel rod safe enough to dispose in the toilet
) that but they need people support so they just play that to the public. of course there is actually one drawback to the nuke power plant, the spent fuel, how to store and transport them. Of course coal has some nastier side output too, mainly CO2 but they are cheap to dispose and left no immediate side-effect except to environment (compare to swimming in a pool that store spent uranium fuel rod).
maybe someday we could just make the uranium fuel rod safe enough to dispose in the toilet
Originally posted by: cpumaster
yeah I agree, nuke power plant is actually far cleaner and more efficient than the coal, but nuke just have that nasty image in many people minds and you know the phrase that perception is reality? well in this case the environmentalists know (maybe some don't, not all green are bright you know
of course there is actually one drawback to the nuke power plant, the spent fuel, how to store and transport them. Of course coal has some nastier side output too, mainly CO2 but they are cheap to dispose and left no immediate side-effect except to environment (compare to swimming in a pool that store spent uranium fuel rod).
maybe someday we could just make the uranium fuel rod safe enough to dispose in the toilet
Actually this is where environuts and peaceniks kick in again. Spent fuel rods can be reprocessed in a breeder reacter to create more usable fuel and less waste. However this process create weapons grade plutonium in the process.....
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: cpumaster
yeah I agree, nuke power plant is actually far cleaner and more efficient than the coal, but nuke just have that nasty image in many people minds and you know the phrase that perception is reality? well in this case the environmentalists know (maybe some don't, not all green are bright you know
of course there is actually one drawback to the nuke power plant, the spent fuel, how to store and transport them. Of course coal has some nastier side output too, mainly CO2 but they are cheap to dispose and left no immediate side-effect except to environment (compare to swimming in a pool that store spent uranium fuel rod).
maybe someday we could just make the uranium fuel rod safe enough to dispose in the toilet
Actually this is where environuts and peaceniks kick in again. Spent fuel rods can be reprocessed in a breeder reacter to create more usable fuel and less waste. However this process create weapons grade plutonium in the process.....
Send the spent fuel toward the sun. I understand there is a lot of that nuke stuff going on there anyhow. OK. I know there is a risk of the transport vehicle failing to do as designed but, that can be remedied by a first strike consideration (Just Kidding).
how much does it cost to send something to the sun? Isn't it cheaper to just send them to India or Pakistan? I heard they are actually looking to buy some spend fuel rod to be "processed" there and we could make some money
of course we might risked turning the world into a sun afterward, but hey for cheaper electric bill it's worth it right?
of course we might risked turning the world into a sun afterward, but hey for cheaper electric bill it's worth it right?
anyone opposed to the war, are you happy to pay if gas price goes up to 5 times more than now?
Anyone remember the oil shock in '70s? (OPEC?)
Anyone remember the oil shock in '70s? (OPEC?)
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I'd take a bus... the nearest stop is but a hundred yards away and goes right to where I want to go... and we have a Coaster too...
You all can pay the gas price.... and fight the war... if you want... I'll choose my mode of transport when you're done.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: cpumaster
how much does it cost to send something to the sun? Isn't it cheaper to just send them to India or Pakistan? I heard they are actually looking to buy some spend fuel rod to be "processed" there and we could make some money
of course we might risked turning the world into a sun afterward, but hey for cheaper electric bill it's worth it right?
After all the electric issues out here last year and before... I'd opt for stopping the earths spin and keep california pointed toward the sun. They are in the dark most of the time anyway over there in the mid east..
My monthly electric bill was up to $500 plus during the summer... Fry the Enron Fastows...
well if we agree to war because it will lower our gas price, we should take over Saudi Arabia then, no.1 oil producer in the world....
of course people won't like it if gas price went up 5 times, but is that the reason you base your support for war? That's like saying you rather have some of our young soldiers die or spill their blood if you could get cheap gas price....
of course people won't like it if gas price went up 5 times, but is that the reason you base your support for war? That's like saying you rather have some of our young soldiers die or spill their blood if you could get cheap gas price....
Holy crap. if my electric bill was 500 I would personally be out killing. I really wouldn't care who.
Originally posted by: cpumaster
how much does it cost to send something to the sun? Isn't it cheaper to just send them to India or Pakistan? I heard they are actually looking to buy some spend fuel rod to be "processed" there and we could make some money
of course we might risked turning the world into a sun afterward, but hey for cheaper electric bill it's worth it right?
It costs approx. $20,000 per 1 pound to put it into orbit. Getting to the sun would incur a slightly higher cost. The risk of disaster if a shuttle full of this material was intercepted by a missle or had an accident during take off, combined with the cost, makes "sending the used fuel rods" to the sun an impractical idea.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter