Well, I realized that this has been discussed to death, but a quick glance at the Gay Marrige topic
(http://archive.forums.soldat.pl/topic.php?topic_id=19378&whichpage=10) shows that a few people still wanna talk about things so....
quote:Originally posted by BMF
What war? There is no war. There are bands of insurgents running around. Once we get done with them it's all over. So I don't know what you are talking about, when you say WAR

Support Our Troops
For god's sake, of COURSE there's a war. Or are we paying billions of dollars for a minor skirmish? Face it: the Iraqis are putting up more resistance that we had ever considered, and we need to realize this and do something about it. The way us Americans have handled things has only made the situation worse. Thanks to the prison abuses, near anarchy, frequent pillaging and lack of fresh water and electricity for months in some areas, Iraqis now have wide and varied reasons to hate us.

And how can we support our troops if we're downplaying the fact that a war even EXISTS? War is just a huge [IMAGE]ing farce to pay arms manufacturers and oil companies. Support our troops-bring em home.

Statement retracted after thinking a little more. ^_^

Jello, what point are you trying to make?

quote:Originally posted by The GeologistThe war in Iraq doesn't have a damn thing to do with oil.

Nice words to remember...

Of course, there is a lot of ABC weapons in Iraq, but no oil. Everyone knows it.

I dont even care.. its their war :p

HURRAY HUMAN KIND ATTACKED EACH OTHER AGAIN. WHO [IMAGE]ING CARES? FFS ITS OVER. LET IRAQIS PLAY WITH DIRT ON THE STREET AND AMERICANS EAT THEMSELVES FAT. Sorry, but this really pissed me off.

It's not a war, it's insurgency.

Jello if you say the word "oil" again, I will stop replying to any of your posts. You are a smart guy, get some new material. Or find me proof where US companies pump the oil out of Iraq into USA reservoirs. If you can't find that proof, STOP SAYING THE WORD OIL OUT LOUD YOU LITTLE [IMAGE].

BMF is it impossible that its both a war and an insurgency?
Either way, whats the use in calling it an insurgency besides diminishing the reasons for the resistance? Maybe its even diminishing to the soldiers who fight there? Its not a mere rebellion, far too many ppl have died for it to be regarded as an insurgence. Im not to sure, its just a feeling though that its too big to be called insurgence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

quote:"War is conflict, between relatively large groups of people, which involves physical force inflicted by the use of weapons. Other terms for war include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action. (See Limitations on war below.) War is contrasted with peace, which is usually defined as the absence of war."

I think its pretty easy to fit the situation in Iraq with that definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency

Worthy of reading is the section on Political discourse.

this "war" is folly

i, for one, thinks that the idea of puting saddam in jail, and out of -his- "goverment" (democrecy? where?), is a good reason to go in a war.

i agree, that the way they did it, wasnt the best. but come on.. is your memory really IS that short?
saddam used lethal nerv gas on iranians and kuwaitians (hope i got it right), on the gulf war.

also, he shot "katushot" (rockets) on civil population on israel.
i hope that we all understand/understood that saddam hosein = not good.

do you really think that if saddam (and his fellow dictators on the continent) would destroy israel, then there would be no more violence from them?


(sorry for the irrelevence. just trying to show you what i, as a guy who lives 400km's from his country, thinks about the situation of war.)


in a nutshell: i support it.



(edit: note, that i only considerd the 'cause' of the war.)

Seem's like a war to me... theres 490,000 US troops there. I think thats 100,000 or so more than Vietnam. Although i'm not sure what they're meant to achieve.

Are they trying to sweep up the rebels that remain so they can put a new office in power? Is that even possible?

quote:Originally posted by koil
but come on.. is your memory really IS that short?
saddam used lethal nerv gas on iranians and kuwaitians (hope i got it right), on the gulf war.
I guess the question is, how short is YOUR memory? The U.S. supported Saddam's regime for years simply because he wasn't a communist. He was torturing and killing civillians under U.S. aid. We sent him weapons for god's sake. It was only when he invaded Kuwait that we stepped in. We had no problem with him killing thousands of innocent people untill he began to get too powerful for us to be comfortable with. But you never hear a mention of the atrocities he committed under the support of the Regan administration.

BMF and The Geologist: Do I really mention the Oil Factor that much? Anyways, a few points regarding the oil...
Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world, second only to our friends in Saudi Arabia. We have a trade agreement with the Saudis, allowing us to import oil. But UN sanctions have prevented the US from buying oil from Iraq for a while. Aside from the feeble Oil For Food campaign, little oil was beeing sold to the US in the years since the Gulf War. Is it a mere coincidence that of all the dictators and psychos we invade the one with the second-largest oil reserves in the world?
A few statistics for you BMF: An unusual number of people in the Bush administration have strong connections to the energy industry. Bush himself is a former director of Harken Energy Corperation. Cheney was a cheif executive officer of Halliburton Energy Co. The top 100 officials in the Bush administration have the vast majority of their investments (nearly $150 million) in the traditional energy and natural resource sectors.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A06B27D-719C-45EE-9FD9-C17043C0AD38.htm

I don't think this war is going to end that soon. And why would we support your troops when most of us don't have anything to do with this?

Chakra I don't think there are 490,000 of soldiers in the whole US army. There are about 150,000 US troops in Iraq at the moment. Dude, honestly, did you pull that number out of your ass? I am just wondering.

Jello US supported Saddam and Bin Laden because at the time they had a bigger enemy, Soviet Union. Cold war, Nuclear menace, rings the bell?? Yes, mistakes were made, but the victims of 9/11 are really the victims of the Cold war. USA was reacting and counteracting the spread of communism. We didn't support Saddam for the kicks if you know what I mean. American people paid a huge price in the Cold war, and those who died on Sept 11 are still Cold War victimes.




OH AND YOU LITTLE ASSWIPE, I DONT CARE HOW MANY INTERESTING FACTS YOU QUOTE IN THIS THREAD. I HAVE WATCHED FAREHNEIT 9/11 TOO. GIVE ME A NEWS PAPER ARTICLE WHERE IT SAYS THAT US IS PULLING OIL OUT OF IRAQ.
I DONT GIVE A [IMAGE] ABOUT YOUR COINCIDENCES. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POSITIONS THAT CHENEY OCCUPIED IN THE PAST. WE HAD BEEN IN IRAQ FOR A YEAR AND A HALF NOW.



GIVE ME A LINK TO WEB SITE THAT GIVES STATISTICS ABOOUT HOW MUCH OIL WAS PUMPED FROM IRAQ IN THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. IF YOU CAN'T FIND ONE THEN SHUT YOUR [IMAGE]ING MOUTH ABOUT THE OIL, BECAUSE I HAVENT HEARD OF A DROP OF IRAQI OIL GOING INTO USA RESERVOIRS. I AM STILL PAYING TWO DOLLARS A GALLON


seriously you watch Farenheit 9/11 and you think you are the smart one? There is no oil [IMAGE]ing pumped from Iraq, in fact USA is procecuting Kofi Annan's son for doing that. HAVE YOU MAYBE HEARD OF THE UN OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM? WELL DO YOU THINK USA WILL BE DUMB TO DO THE SAME THING NOW? SO ALL THE EUROPEAN NATIONS WILL JUMP IN AND ACCUSE USA?

Jello you seem like a smart guy sometimes, but you need to stop watching so many liberal news programs, PULL YOU HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, AND MAYBE FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE THINK FOR YOURSELF

I pulled it out of a british newspaper. How was I supposed to know better?

what newspaper. what date. if it is online, send me a link

My mistake. Turns out theres 150,000 US troops there, but theres been around 350,000 there from rotating shifts. On top of british forces and aid-forces it reaches around 490,000 of us foreigners have been a part of this war, just not all at once :)

Daily Mail has a thing for rounding numbers up for the dramatic effect ¬_¬

fair enough

it is always better to post in the excisting topic, than to create a new topic!

Look BMF, I've never watched Fareignheight 9-11 or any other Moore film. I try to shy away from obviously biased news sources (liberal or not) because I find them innacurate. The statistics I'm quoting are from MSNBC.com. I'll post a link later-my sister's on the computer that I have the article opened on. I'll also try to find some statistics on Iraq's recent oil exportation, but seriusly can you please conduct yourself in a civilized manner? And I have heard of the Oil For Food program-have you even bothered to read my last post? But what are you trying to say about it? Your bad grammer makes it difficult to understand ("USA WILL BE DUMB TO DO THE SAME THING NOW").

EDIT: Melba, I may be wrong, but I don't there there is a thread about the war. I realize it has been discussed elswhere, like in the election thread, but I figured that making a thread devoted to it would relieve some of the off-topic discussions in other threads.

EDIT #2: Here's the link to the MSNBC article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071521/

The war is a problem, and it's pretty [IMAGE]ed up, but what scares me even more is what Bush is going to do in the next 4 years...

He has no reason to worry about running for re-election...
I mean, the man will ignore the UN and order a pre-emptive strike against a country for having those elusive WMD's, yeah, the ones we still haven't found (by the way, are our nuclear missles Weapons of Mass Liberation or something?), all the while thinking about his next campaign. Who the hell knows what he'll do with no future elections to worry about...

lol @ weapons of mass liberation :)

F*ck argueing...I'm way too tired.

On that note...

FREEDOM FRIES FOREVER!!!

quote:Originally posted by JelloIraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world, second only to our friends in Saudi Arabia.


*ahem*...

Jello I destroyed your argument, and you know it. The fact that you attacked my grammar only goes to prove that you have no more valid points. Could I conduct myself in a more civilized manner? Yes, I could.

But seriously dude, there are only allegations, and no facts. I keep hearing the same stuff for the last maybe twelve months.

Some Random Asshole: LOL BUSH such an idiot ROFL!!11 He wants OIL from Iraq lol HALIBURTON HALIBURTON
Me: Hmm.. Have you heard of any oil being pumped from Iraq recently?
SRA:OMG did you see FARENHEIT 9/11
Me: Yeah, but that movie was pure propaganda
SRA: LOL OIL IN IRAQ!! Bush wants OIL LOL
Me: Well do you have anything else to say besides that? I mean do you have any facts except a bunch of circumstantial bullcrap that goes to prove nothing?
SRA: LOL






But Jello, I don't know what the hell is going on with Saudi Arabia. This country seems to have too much control over too many things. I mean nobody would even go near it. I am not saying I am happy with everything that Bush does, but I think that the war in Iraq is for the right reasons.

Well, then what does prove that your invasion is legitimate? Do you have any facts other than a bunch of circumstantial bullcrap that you heard on tv?
If you're going to say september the 11th, because i know you will, show me proof that what the USA is fighting now has anything to do with it. But oh! All you can do is show me an article, if you manage to find one among the thousands that say that there's no evidence, that is.

The only ones saying bush didnt pump oil out of Iraq, and bush is right, are the americans... I think there were weapons, and I think it is a good thing bush attacked Saddam, but that [IMAGE] (oops i mean bush) is stealing my oil!

Meandor if you want to read my replies in this thread, you are welcome:

http://archive.forums.soldat.pl/topic.php?topic_id=18419&whichpage=9

I am not going to restate it all over again

I honestly don't believe that troops will be pulled out after everything is put in order.But that's just my view.

You mentioned 'liberation', nothing else. Liberation from what? Saddam's now a prisoner, and the people are fighting on their own against the US army. There must be a reason they're fighting for, isn't there?

Meandor the people are fighting against the insurgents as we speak.

Well BMF, I suppose it boils down to how you interpret basic facts, like the ones I mentioned before. We went to war explicitly to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. None were found, and it has come to light that much of the information Bush used to make the decision about the WMDs was false and they knew it. So we must look for an alterior motive. And I was attacking your grammer cause I had no clue what you were talking about. How can I reply to something I don't understand? And thank you for calming down a little too. And for god's sake, none of this is coming from Fareignheight 9-11, I've never seen it, for the third time so shut the hell up about it.

quote:Originally posted by BMF:
Me: Well do you have anything else to say besides that? I mean do you have any facts except a bunch of circumstantial bullcrap that goes to prove nothing?

I'd ask you the same question regarding the "right reasons" regarding the war.

quote:Originally posted by JelloWell BMF, I suppose it boils down to how you interpret basic facts, like the ones I mentioned before. We went to war explicitly to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. None were found, and it has come to light that much of the information Bush used to make the decision about the WMDs was false and they knew it. So we must look for an alterior motive. And I was attacking your grammer cause I had no clue what you were talking about. How can I reply to something I don't understand? And thank you for calming down a little too. And for god's sake, none of this is coming from Fareignheight 9-11, I've never seen it, for the third time so shut the hell up about it.
Yes, BMF has a tendency to get very, and unnecessarily, aggressive in discussions, which as a result, turn into arguments. I love how he tries to divert the argument by 'putting words into peoples mouths' and generally treating everybody else like idiots.

The last time I had an argument with BMF (About Iraq, Bush, Terrorism, etc..) was in a thread about the ways to deal with terrorism. After a while, he finally saw my point of view, and agreed with most of the points I was making.

We were arguing about different things. But on a fundamental level I do not agree with you. I will restate my position on the invasion of Iraq tomorrow. I am too damn tired today, on the road for 7 hours.

quote:Originally posted by BMFMeandor the people are fighting against the insurgents as we speak.

Do you know how many of them are there? Do you know how many are fighting against the insurgents, and how many are helping them? You don't, and never will. Because you can't get this kind of info anywhere. (if you do, it's biased)

quote:Originally posted by Jello
BMF and The Geologist: Do I really mention the Oil Factor that much? Anyways, a few points regarding the oil...
Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world, second only to our friends in Saudi Arabia. We have a trade agreement with the Saudis, allowing us to import oil. But UN sanctions have prevented the US from buying oil from Iraq for a while. Aside from the feeble Oil For Food campaign, little oil was beeing sold to the US in the years since the Gulf War. Is it a mere coincidence that of all the dictators and psychos we invade the one with the second-largest oil reserves in the world?

quote:Originally posted by RhombusThe only ones saying bush didnt pump oil out of Iraq, and bush is right, are the americans... I think there were weapons, and I think it is a good thing bush attacked Saddam, but that [IMAGE] (oops i mean bush) is stealing my oil!


I posted these two quotes together because parts of them relate to one another. After quite a bit of thought, I've finally decided to post a responce to these claims of "Bush stealing the oil in Iraq" and other falsehoods. It was wrong of me to say that the "war" could have nothing at all to do with oil...a little clarification is in order. There is the potential for a US benefit from this conflict, but this potential is far from enough to justify the start of this "war".

Jello- Yes, Iraq sits atop one of the largest reserves of oil in the world...and yes, UN actions have prevented sales of oil in Iraq in the past. The US is a nation dependant on the importation of oil; without these imports, the US wouldn't last long at all even with the reserves within US. So it's logical that they'd go after Iraq to get more of what they need, right? Partially...but not completly. When you speak of the Oil for Food issue, you're talking about a program that, aside from being corrupt, exchanged oil for weapons (to groups like the PLO) and not for food. But do these things really create any red flags that the US is stealing oil? Hardly...the situation is exactly what you called it, one of coincidence. Even if all the struggle and conflict were set up in some attemmpt to "steal" oil from Iraq, or get oil at some sort of benefit, there are plenty of reasons why this simply wouldn't happen.

1) Iraq is a member of the OPEC nations, and the purpose of the OPEC ogranization is to help ensure a fair sale of oil and other hydrocarbon based products. The economies of the OPEC nations depend on this money, and they're not about to let it slip through their fingers. As things are currently, the US already imports most of its oil from OPEC nations such as Venezuela. At the end of this conflict, the oil reserves in Iraq still belong to Iraq, even if UN restrictions are lifted. The US can't simply march in there and claim these lands or the oil in them for themselves, and at best can only hope to gain one more trading partner.

2) The international community has been and will continue keeping its eye on Iraq. The other OPEC nations would neither be partial nor obligated to give the US any sort of bargin after this conflict is over and done with.

3)Even if you look at the potential for what Iraq could produce and sell to the US, the current important from other nations outweighs these numbers considerably, to the point that one wonders if it would even be worth it to create a "war" just for the trouble of getting another drop in the bucket in terms of oil imports. If you don't like my lack of sitation of any sites or news sources, it's because I don't rely on the news for my information; I talk to people in the oil industry (mainly family members) as well as some of their business associates who conduct deals worldwide in places like Russia and the Middle East. Then again, you can always look at the OPEC homepage like I have a few times now.

4) There is always exploration for new reserves going on...both within and around US borders. How logical is it to start a "war" for the sake of gaining some oil imports, when you stand to discover more of your own reserves? The OPEC nations supply roughly half of the international demand for oil, leaving ~50% to either be discovered or supplied by other nations. Iraq produces a small portion of this, much less than nations with which the US is already trading.

5) Oil pipelines in Iraq are being blown up and ruined constantly. This means millions of dollars down the crapper, even for one pipeline destroyed. Call me crazy, but if you were putting the lives of your citizens at risk to capatilize on oil, then I would hope that you would be smart enough to protect the resource over which this whole conflict was supposedly started. What? There's plenty of unprotected pipelines in Iraq? Coincidence strikes again...

Another thing, Jello, as well as Rhombus...unless you know that not all oil companies are involved with Iraq, and not all oil companies (in fact, most oil companies) aren't pulling a profit out of Iraq, then please don't make stupid statements about the "oil companies" as if they were one ambiguous mass. Not all oil companies work with or are involved with the government and the Bush administration. So do a little more research before you make such bold statements. As for the claims of weapons companies getting a profit, well...I don't have as much knowledge in that field. But looking at what happened with the whole Oil for Food thing, it wouldn't suprise me if there was a little money moving about. Note that this isn't a discussion of the problems of the energy industry of Haliburton or any of that crap.

This is, in part, a distiction between the actions of a government, and the actions of the companies within the nation that government runs. Listen to any credible news source (not mainstream American news, like NBC or the like) and you'll hear plenty about Haliburton overspending in Iraq and various charges of against companies associated with government spending. Any strong nation will do what it needs to in order to secure the resources it needs, but in this case the means far outweight the ends in terms of effectiveness and need.

While I don't care to go into a history lesson, surely there are cases of the US taking actions against corrupt dictators in nations in which oil wasn't an issue. Noth Korea for example? And if you wonder why we would attack Iraq and not North Korea, just think about the pros and cons of attacking a nation with as much military capability as North Korea, or going after a smaller dictator like Saddam. The US has had a fairly long standing history of going to the ends of the earth to fight/police organizations or indivuduals it finds to be potentially dangerous. I doubt they'd stop that anytime soon.

Rhombus- I find it amusing how you think Bush is stealing your oil if you live in the Neatherlands. Anyhow, please try and form some kind of arguement instead of just accusing Bush of "stealing your oil". Assuming you read this far, you should see why I don't believe your claims about your precious oil being stolen.

I will translate what Geologist said to all the liberals here. Because I know that liberals tend not to read things over 5 lines long..

USA cannot "pump the oil" out of Iraq without causing a world-wide outrage.

It is not economically good for the USA to start a war for the oil. USA lost billions of dollars in this war already. No oil sales will ever cover that.

There are vast supplies of oil on the USA territory that had not even been touched.

Scientists are working around the clock to produce new energy sources. In 10-15 years from now the demand for oil in US will dramatically drop.

BOTTOM LINE for those who cannot think for themselves: it is NOT profitable for USA to invade Iraq for the sake of Oil.

quote:Originally posted by koili, for one, thinks that the idea of puting saddam in jail, and out of -his- "goverment" (democrecy? where?), is a good reason to go in a war.

i agree, that the way they did it, wasnt the best. but come on.. is your memory really IS that short?
saddam used lethal nerv gas on iranians and kuwaitians (hope i got it right), on the gulf war. very recently, US forces have admitted to using napalm on insurgents in fallujah. as well as admitting to its use on several occasion during march and april of 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0805-01.htm

id rather be nerve gassed than be burn't to death. while they are both horrible ways to die. if we use napalm then what are we but their reflection and who are we to judge and strike them down.

quote:Originally posted by RhombusI think there were weapons, and I think it is a good thing bush attacked Saddam


then where the fuk were they? wouldnt you think if he DID have them he would have used them while USA was invading his country? they knew there was no weapons, yet they continued their campaign anyway. even if it isnt for the oil, there must be an ulterior motive for Bush's invasion on Iraq.

also, how did the hunt for Osama Bin Laden turn into the hunt for Saddam Hussein? USA couldn't have been too keen on Osama if they gave up as soon as it got hard. i think that anyone so blind as to believe Bush's war on Iraq to be righteous and justified must be American, because the rest of the world knows its a load of [IMAGE].

quote:Originally posted by BMFBut Jello, I don't know what the hell is going on with Saudi Arabia. This country seems to have too much control over too many things.

and America doesnt? what does the USA need with those millions of nuclear warheads? if America was really in it for the liberation of the peoples in the Middle East, they'd go bomb Israel. but that's not gonna happen because Israel would be able to put up a fight. America is like a bully and always picks on the weaker countries. Afghanistan is no threat to USA. they have second-hand b-grade arms and their army is not much more than a large militia, as opposed to the glory-hungry patriots with a billion dollar budget at their disposal. Bush is in it for power and to settle a vendetta started by his farther more than ten years ago.

quote:Originally posted by BMF
Scientists are working around the clock to produce new energy sources. In 10-15 years from now the demand for oil in US will dramatically drop.


Sure, like they're going to integrate a cheaper energy source before energetic companies haven't made all the money they can out of petrol? They could probably have it by now that technology, wasn't it that they'd lose money because of it.

Hey asshole, you want to know why USA needs a million of nuclear warheads? Well there was this little thing a while back, CALLED THE COLD WAR. And during the Cold war United States PROTECTED THE WHOLE WORLD AGAINST SOVIET MENACE. I know you already forgot about that, because it was soooo long ago!! But yea that happened, and they were in an arms race against Soviets. And that's when they built so many nuclear missles.

JESUS CHRIST YOU ARE REALLY DUMB

Anyway... USA is a huge bully, let me tell you what else they did all right? Well after liberating Europe and Asia in WWII they engaged in a 50 year long battle against the Soviet Union to save the free world. BOOO BAD USA BAD. Then in the beginning of the nineties USA invaded a small country of Kuwait. They stopped Iraqi army from killing thousands of innocent civilians. OMG WAHT BULLIES. All right, later in the decade USA bombed the crap out of Bosnia, OMG BULLIES LOL LOL. Yeah and they stopped the Genocide that has been going on there for several years. The criminal Milocevic is under trial right now.

And about Afghanistan, have you heard maybe of September 11?? Something, anything?? Well 3,000 USA civilians died, and Afghanistan's goverment supported Osama bin Laden and harbored him. USA went in there and replaced the government that was also horrible and brutal and murdered thousands of it's own people. Now they had elections a month ago or so and elected their own president. For the first time in 30 years the civil war in that country is over.

Oh and Iraq, yeah USA are total bullies. I mean Saddam killed how many, 1,300,000 of his own people? Why bother right?

So dude the next time you call USA Bullies, ask yourself this question. Are you really this stupid, or it's just the heat?

Meandor by "they" you mean who? The research is done by private companies. You see USA as a large force that is trying to take over the world. In reality USA is not trying to take over anything, USA businessmen are just trying to make some money. Bush does not wake up in the morning, and ask himself, Jeeez who should I take over today. McDonalds executive does not wake up in the morning and ask himself, which countries frail culture should I ruin today by building a fast food restaurant.

Meandor USA is a country full of hard working individuals. And it so happens that a large group of hard working individuals always make a big effect on the world. If you country was not busy changing governments every year or so, maybe you guys would do something productive. And change the world. But since you are busy, USA is doing most of the work

EDIT Meandor you mean petrol industry wants to make money by taking the Iraqi oil? I don't understand what you are saying. I just gave you like 5 reasons why USA would not take oil out of Iraq. Dude, are you really really stupid. Or are you just blinded? I don't know how to talk to you, because you seem to read my replies, but you do not comprehend anything

BMF you nuts? Quote me where i mention USA pumping oil or making money out of Iraq, or me saying that USA wants to take over the world. You're mixing up stuff here.
Anyway, i was just saying that most research on new energetic form is financed by the companies that manage energy. That's why i don't think they will replace petrol with anything else soon.

I disagree with you here. Companies that produce gas work around the clock on making new enegry sources. Recently there was a first Hydrogen gas station opened in Washington DC, new cars are going to run on Hydrogen instead of gasoline.

I know that for a fact, because I am an aspiring Chemical engineer, and I know quite a bit about companies like Exxon, or Infinium, or others. They all work hard to discover new sources of energy, because the first company to discover it, will make billions. People are tried over here of being dependant on gas.

Energy companies do not actually make any effort at discovering new sources. They buy the patents of every new source of energy so they can earn as much money as they can from oil and gas and then they will turn to another energy.
Hidrogen is a pathetic fuel, it destroys ozone layer. That is why these type of companies are using it before a new convention prohibits it.

HYDROGEN is a clean burning abundant resource palloco. it doesnt harm the environment at all, thats the whole reason we're trying to develop hydrogen fuel cells for hydrogen powered cars.

researchers are coming up with new cleaner ways to create energy all the time, but the petroleum industries buy the idea and never use it. they probably will. once all the oil has been used.

and to BMF, the master of a witty retort (are you stupid stupid stupid?), did you know that your amazing country spends billions on nuclear arms every year? now who the [IMAGE] does your USA continue to manufacture these vast weapons of mass destruction arsenals when our good friend could be using that money to pay for food, shelter etc for underdeveloped countries?

the USA needs a war roughly every 10-15 years now to keep its economy afloat. they spend billions on their wars, but they get money for making and using their weapons. so even if theyre not in it for the oil, theyre rakin it in just the same.

BMF i cant believe how conditioned you are to the propaganda fed to you by your FOX television and your President Bush. i find it laughable that you would call Meandor blinded, when you yourself live in that comfy little media-made bubble of yours you call reality.

btw im not saying that Saddam was a fukin angel, but you cant say that he definately has weapons of mass destruction when NO traces of ANY were found. and im happy to be an ally of US, because if Australia wasnt we'd probably get stamped as the enemy too. just look at all the propaganda about France after they pulled out. also dikhead, i have heard of the World Trade centre episode. it just so happens that there were OTHER people that died. non-americans believe it or not. but im guessin you dont give a fuk about them aye.

broken gerbil, I am Russian not American. I want to see where did you get that information about USA building new nuclear arms. I want to see some numbers, give a link to a web site where you found that information.

Who pays USA for making and using the weapons? Do you even read what you just typed in? Do you ever use your head? WHO IS PAYING USA FOR BUILDING AND USING THE WEAPONS? One bomb is like $100k, how can you make money on a damn war? ARE YOU PAYING FOR IT? If not give me a link where it says how much money USA made out of Iraqi war. Right now I know that the war cost over 200 billion dollars.

Your response is just silly. What do you want USA to do about others who died in WTC? WE WENT TO WAR BECAUSE OF THAT!! You are mildly retarded man, read what you post.



Gerbil before you make your next post, please answer these questions for me:
1) How much money did USA make on Iraqi war so far
2) How many nuclear warheads were manufactured in USA say the last 5 years

If you don't answer these questions that means that whatever you post is complete gibberish. And i'll just ignore your future posts. Acutally it is better if you don't answer these questions at all. I am tired of arguing with you

palloco hydrogen fuel is the future. I can't believe you don't know that, what do they teach you guys over there in Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons#Declared_nuclear_states_in_order_of_total_number_of_warheads

thats only in 2002, so USA would have more by now. although i have found differing sites that claim that russia has more nuclear arms than USA, and a few that say USA has closer to 70000 nuclear arms at their disposal.

america doesnt actually make 'money', but its economy grows whenever they are involved in a war. the US government has billion dollar contracts with weapons manufacturers and factories. the factories make and sell the arms to the US government for the war. the factories make [IMAGE] loads, and so put some back into the American economy.

i'd like to see links to all the information you've used. by the way calling me dumb, stupid, retarded, etc isnt very constructive criticism. instead of insulting me why dont you use that energy into coming up with something other then american propaganda.

Now we are having a civilized discussion.

That link you provided does not give the info I was looking for. You specifically said that USA keeps building more and more nuclear warheads. I am sure they are building some, especially since Russia just successfully launched a new generation of ICBMs.

By the way since you were too lazy to Google it, I did it for you. Here is an interesting link you may want to look at.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma00norris
The production of Nuclear Warheads had been constantly dropping since 1974. So much for that point huh? You wanted the facts, so don't you feel silly now?


And do you really think that the economy benefits from a war? I don't believe so. I think that having an enemy like "communism" or "radical muslim extremists" is helpful for the economy. It organizes the people into one movement. But a single war taken out of historical context is disasterous for economy. USA cannot benefit from the war, but yes some companies can and will. However the reason why USA is in Iraq is a noble one. And people here in American realize. Nobody here in USA wants to be in Iraq. Don't you understand it. Nobody wants to go out there and "conquer" Iraq. I mean if USA wanted to conquer somebody it would be Canada. People in USA understand that they are trying to build democracy in the Middle east, because radical Muslims had become a problem for USA. Ever since Sept. 11. Some want to get the hell out of Iraq, others want to see a democracy built there. But nobody wants to STAY in Iraq!! Jesus, USA is not a "hyper" power, they are just trying to do the right thing.

quote:I know that for a fact, because I am an aspiring Chemical engineer, and I know quite a bit about companies like Exxon, or Infinium, or others. They all work hard to discover new sources of energy, because the first company to discover it, will make billions. People are tried over here of being dependant on gas.

Well actually all these huge compaines that have researched into finding a new resource instead of using natrual gases from the earth, they are being paid off by all these oil compaines to not output their ideas or else the oil companies will go bankrupt, at the university here, they used one litre of oil and you can get from here Saskatchewan to Vancouver with only 1 litre of gas thats like 6.00 now if this happened Oil would be completely useless and many of the compaines go bankrupt.

BMF, they teach me that they cannot show me everything. They can teach me just the basics of this science, therefore we have to learn by ourselves.
http://www.theozonehole.com/hydrogeneconomy.htm