shropshire 0 #201 January 3, 2007 That tends to by true... but having control over the oil does not automatically imply increased supply. These oil barrons aren't daft (?) they know that it will run out eventually and so will manipulate the release. There is no shortage at the pumps at the moment, so the current supply, would appear to be in balance. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #202 January 3, 2007 >That tends to by true... but having control over the oil does not >automatically imply increased supply. Right - but it does imply CONTROL of the supply. Think about it in military terms. Our military runs on fossil fuels. If a US interest has access to oil fields in Iraq, then we will be able to leverage that if we ever go to war with the Arab world and lose many of our current sources of oil. Or economic terms when the crunch comes. Bush (or whoever the president is) will give a rousing patriotic speech against a blue backdrop that says "oil for peace" while he rails against the "economic terrorists" who are trying to "destroy our country" by restricting the amount of oil that they export. We will then annex those oil fields - not because we're evil greedy people, of course, but to ensure a supply of oil for peaceful purposes and keep it out of the hands of the evil islamic terrorists. I think that most people realize now that the cheap oil is going to run out - and are preparing for that day. It was one of the aspects of control of the Middle East that PNAC discussed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #203 January 3, 2007 Well shit, Dummy Me, I figured CNN did the back ground research and quoted the right number, OOPS! In the CNN Story the Elder Lady in graying hair and glasses said "nearly 67%" of the military opposed the Presidents handling of the war in Iraq. Actual numbers from the Military Time Poll Posted in the Army Times dated 8 January-42% disapprove, up from 2005's number of 25%. The 67% number is of CIVILIANS polled, posted right under the Military number so I suppose it was an "honest" mistake and not meant in any way to mislead the CNN watching public. But if you add the no opinion numbers it is up to 52%, nearly 67% right? Then add the declined to answer numbers and BAM! you have 64% and that is close enough, aye? The previous post was to fix my wrong and poke a little fun at myself while doing it. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #204 January 4, 2007 QuoteIf you can't see the difference between these 2 peeople One was born, the other was elected...TWICE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #205 January 4, 2007 QuoteSidestepping the legal technicalities of this story, it seems like this soldier is being required to serve well beyond what most people would consider reasonable. The military is abusing it's legal right to require enlistee's to serve additional tours. No, he signed for 8 and they are asking him to uphold his part. You may not like it, but it is legal and in black and white. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #206 January 4, 2007 QuoteMy point is that he served two tours and was honorably discharged. You are not actually discharged until your 8 years is up....That is most other peoples points. He signed for 8 and did only 4. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #207 January 4, 2007 Quotewell, legally capable to enter into a contract with the military. Adult is debatable, since you would think an adult could decide for himself if he can have a beer. But, now we are down to a semantics discussion. PS. your imaginary comment makes it clear that you are either incapable of reading or learning, or incapable of admitting you didn't know something. No, my "imaginary" comment is debunking your claim that buying a bottle of booze is a "legally binding contract".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #208 January 4, 2007 I had figured it was the incapable of admitting part, turns out it is the incapable of reading and learning part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #209 January 4, 2007 QuoteI had figured it was the incapable of admitting part, turns out it is the incapable of reading and learning part. Nice PA... thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
