O.T. from Afganistan

In article <W2I%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
> > an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then
> you
> > probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed WMD's
> > and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon be
> > unleashed along the eastern seaboard.
> >
> > The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want
> to
> > discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at
> Saudi
> > Arabia first and foremost.
> >
> > You and I will never know what the truth was behind 9/11 as the key
> players
> > in the White House, Pentagon, CIA, and FBI refuse to testify in front of
> > the commission of inquiry and have stonewalled it pretty much ever step of
> > the way.
> >
>
> See, the thing is that no matter what the administration does, they will be
> wrong. What would your criticism be if we attacked Saudi Arabia? Oh let me
> guess, we would never attack Saudi Arabia because we use their oil! So we
> are attacked by our biggest supplier of oil and we pick on a couple weak
> targets to retalliate. Right.
>
> Frank
>

In mp's world, it's even better than that. Rather than using 9/11 to
attack Saudi Arabia and grab the richest oil fields in the region, we
decided to attack Afghanistan first (a country with no, read that, no
oil exports worthy of mention), then Iraq, a country with a
deteriorating oil production infrastructure. Yet, the attack on Iraq
was "all about oil". But an attack on Saudi wouldn't have been?

> Faster than you can think a B-1, supersonic, 1000' over our heads,
> blasts the sound barrier and it feels like God just hit you in the
> head with a hammer". He then stands it straight up with 4 white
> trails of flame coming out and disappears. Cost of gas for that:
> Probably $50,000
>
> Hearing damage: For certain
> Bunch of ragheads thinking twice about shooting at us: Priceless


This must be part of the mis-guided battle to win the hearts and minds of
the local population.

> no, no All those friendly yokels who were shooting at those eeevil
> invaders.
>
> it seems mp is one of those who would have preferred the rolling over
> and soiling ourselves response to the attacks of 9/11 and the refusal of
> the Taliban to eliminate its support of the terrorists and their camps.

You're making the assumption that the Taliban in the end refused to hand
over Bin Laden, and that if they did, that would have prevented the
invasion. Even if the Taliban cooperated 100% with US demands, it's very
unlikely that would have made any difference to an aggressive administration
hell-bent on war. The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then you
probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed WMD's
and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon be
unleashed along the eastern seaboard.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want to
discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at Saudi
Arabia first and foremost.

You and I will never know what the truth was behind 9/11 as the key players
in the White House, Pentagon, CIA, and FBI refuse to testify in front of
the commission of inquiry and have stonewalled it pretty much ever step of
the way.

> >You're making the assumption that the Taliban in the end refused to hand
> >over Bin Laden,
>
> No "assumption" there -- it's a matter of historical *fact*. President
Bush
> demanded that they hand over the terrorists, and the Taliban explicitly
and
> publicly refused, referring to them as "guests in our country".

Yes, they initially rejected US demands, but at the last minute they were
willing to roll over.

> >The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
> >an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then
you
> >probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed
WMD's
> >and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon
be
> >unleashed along the eastern seaboard.
>
> Hellooooooo! Earth calling mp! Iraq *admitted* having WMDs. Where have you
> been??

Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly of
the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe France.
But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
WMD's, Iraq never had any.

When Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the
gang were talking about Iraq possessing WMD's and the "iminent threat" from
Iraq, they weren't referring to the mid 80's and early 90's. They were
talking about the present.

> >The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want
to
> >discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at
Saudi
> >Arabia first and foremost.
>
> For once, you and I agree on something. For years, I've been telling
anyone
> who will listen that the Saudis are *not* our friends. Business
associates,
> yes. Friends and allies, not even close.

Imagine that, we agree on something.

> See, the thing is that no matter what the administration does, they will
be
> wrong.

Not necessarily.

> What would your criticism be if we attacked Saudi Arabia?

You finally pointed your weapons in the right direction.

> Oh let me
> guess, we would never attack Saudi Arabia because we use their oil!

Something like that. The US is too dependant on Saudi oil, and the Bush
family has close financial ties with the Bin Ladens. For the time being, the
Saudis can, and are, doing pretty much what they want to do.

> So we
> are attacked by our biggest supplier of oil and we pick on a couple weak
> targets to retalliate. Right.

It's not so much retaliation. That part is obvious. The excuses used to
justify attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty lame and don't hold
up under scrutiny. They're mostly strategic moves about oil and oil
politics. Not only securing future supplies of oil, but controlling what
other countries have access to that oil.

> > The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you
want to
> > discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at
Saudi
> > Arabia first and foremost.
>
> You're right of course. The only answer to the problem is to nuke
> the entire Mid-East until the sand boils. No more
> Irna/Iraq/Isreali/etc problems. I'd even bet that the N Koreans
> crap so hard that they start negotiating in earnest. Besides, we
> can break up the boiled sand afterwards and sell it as
> commemorative night lights. Whatcha think?

You'd have to sell the 8mpg SUV and buy a bike.

> When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will soon follow.

Geez. Are you suggesting gay military tactics?

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > See, the thing is that no matter what the administration does, they will
> be
> > wrong.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> > What would your criticism be if we attacked Saudi Arabia?
>
> You finally pointed your weapons in the right direction.
>
> > Oh let me
> > guess, we would never attack Saudi Arabia because we use their oil!
>
> Something like that. The US is too dependant on Saudi oil, and the Bush
> family has close financial ties with the Bin Ladens. For the time being, the
> Saudis can, and are, doing pretty much what they want to do.
>

...and every proposal made by the Bush administration to reduce our dependence
on foriegn oil was welcomed with open hands by the opposition?

If we rule out oil exploration and drilling in the US, then where do we turn?
Alternative fuels? The Bush adoin was blased for not doing enough even in
the face of the largest proposed increase in funding ever for that purpose.

Bottom line... President Bush can do no right.

> > So we
> > are attacked by our biggest supplier of oil and we pick on a couple weak
> > targets to retalliate. Right.
>
> It's not so much retaliation. That part is obvious. The excuses used to
> justify attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty lame and don't hold
> up under scrutiny. They're mostly strategic moves about oil and oil
> politics. Not only securing future supplies of oil, but controlling what
> other countries have access to that oil.
>
>

> >Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly
of
> >the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe France.
> >But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
> >destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
> >concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
> >WMD's, Iraq never had any.
>
> Assumptions again. "We haven't found them yet" is not the same as "they
never
> had them."

If any remnants of the mid 80's stock of chemical and biological agents are
ever found, they will be next to useless as they have a very short shelf
life, perhaps a year or two of activity at the most. Multiple rounds of
weapons inspectors since about '92 to present have not turned up any further
evidence of the earlier stockpile of biological or chemical agents, nor of
any resources either in raw materials or production equipment that would
allow the Iraqi's to resume production.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, Iraq didn't even have a reactor.
Any suggestion that they could produce nuclear weaponry and were close to it
is laughable at best. It's true that "We haven't found them yet", but lets
be realistic.

The only countries who have WMD's in the middle east are Israel (with
100-200 nuclear warheads), Pakistan and India (who might have 6-10 nuclear
warheads each). If WMD's are indeed a reason to attack and invade a country,
those are the ones you should be going after. Maybe North Korea too, just
for fun. That'll never happen though. Once a country has nuclear capability
they're pretty much safe from US military aggression. One can see why some
of these smaller, more vulnerable nations want to arm themselves with
nuclear weapons.

> ...and every proposal made by the Bush administration to reduce our
dependence
> on foriegn oil was welcomed with open hands by the opposition?

I'm not familiar with any proposals by the Bush admin to reduce dependency
or foreign oil, whatever they may be. I do know that the Bush admin did not
support legislation to force car companies to increase gas mileage, which
would go a long way to reducing dependency or foreign oil.

> If we rule out oil exploration and drilling in the US, then where do we
turn?
> Alternative fuels? The Bush adoin was blased for not doing enough even in
> the face of the largest proposed increase in funding ever for that
purpose.

I haven't seen any evidence that suggests the Bush admin is even remotely
interested in reducing oil consumption. It would be contrary to oil industry
interests, who happen to fund a large portion of Bush's activities.

If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times in
Iraq (I'm estimating 750+ billion up to 2010) and applied that towards
improving vehicle fuel economy and developing alternative energy sources, do
not you think the US would be better off than it is now? Don't you think
this would reduce US dependency on foreign oil supplies and and along with
it eliminate the need to invade and control middle eastern oil-rich states?
Even shifting as little as 10% of the military budget toward this goal (50
billion per year) would pay off in huge dividends.

Oil is a very finite resource, and at the current rate of increasing
consumption it's doubtful that there's more than 100 years worth of supply
left.

> >It's not so much retaliation. That part is obvious. The excuses used to
> >justify attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty lame and don't
hold
> >up under scrutiny. They're mostly strategic moves about oil and oil
> >politics. Not only securing future supplies of oil, but controlling what
> >other countries have access to that oil.
> >
> There isn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. We went there to eliminate
the
> terrorists that attacked us, and the regime that sheltered and sponsored
them.

That's what some people think. Other's may think that the Taliban's refusal
to sign a pipeline agreement just a few months beforehand might have
something to do with it too. The Caspian oil basin is probably the largest
untapped oil reserve in the world, by some estimates much larger than the
Persian Gulf reserves. In order to get that oil out of the region, an
overland pipeline route to the Indian Ocean is needed. That's where the
Afghanistan pipeline route comes in and its strategic importance and cannot
be underestimated. Having free and unfettered access to this oil is of many
many magnitudes greater in importance to the Bush admin than a few Islamic
terrorists in the mountains.

We can look at the permanent US military bases being built in Afghanistan
that follow the proposed pipeline route and suggest that it's a coincidence.
Maybe all the terrorists live along the proposed route?

Yet another coincidence is that once Karzai signed the pipeline agreement
with the US most of the promised funding for reconstruction vaporized.

> > The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you
want to
> > discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at
Saudi
> > Arabia first and foremost.
>
> I have to chime in on this point. I agree with the writer's sentiment
> overall - particularly that our current administration is
> untrustworthy. And I agree that Saudi Arabia had a lot to do with
> enabling the events of 9/11.
>
> But - I have to take issue with the statement that the Taleban had
> nothing to do with 9/11. The Taleban hosted Bin Laden and his ilk, and
> made it possible for them to conduct training of thousands of Al Qaeda
> operatives on Afghani soil - including some of the 9/11 hijackers.
> True, it was not the Taleban that executed the events of 9/11, but
> there's no doubt at all that they helped make it possible.

The US informed India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia of plans for a "limited
military engagement" against Afghanistan in May/June 2001, well before the
9/11 events. I've read some reports of this myself in Indian media, as well
as a few BBC articles and Janes. I believe Paul O'Neill also mentions in his
book that planning for war started in the very early days of the Bush admin.
The 9/11 events were not the reason for the invasion, as it was already
being planned before the events even took place.

We don't even know who was flying the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks,
and we probably will never know. Quite a few of the "identified" pilots on
the hijacked planes are alive and well.

> >If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times
in
>
> You don't get it, do you? Afghanistan wasn't about oil, it was about
terrorism
> and state sponsorship of terrorism. There isn't any oil there.

No, but there will soon be a huge amount of oil flowing through Afghanistan
pipelines. A potentially HUGE amount. As the Taliban refused to allow the
pipeline to be built on their soil, the construction of the pipeline would
not be taking place without US military intervention and the installation of
a puppet government. Karzai, by the way, used to work for Unocal, the main
US company involved in the construction of the pipeline. Yet another small
and insignificant coincidence? Not.

> Your constant repetition of this obvious falsehood makes it hard to take
> seriously anything else you say.

And you repeatedly fail to understand the enormous strategic importance of a
US controlled pipeline route from an area whose known oil reserves are
greater than the all of the middle east OPEC nations combined. We're talking
about trillions of dollars of oil reserves.

You seem like an person with above average intelligence. I'm surprised that
you actually think the invasion was only about a few terrorist training
camps.

> > In order to get that oil out of the region, an
> >overland pipeline route to the Indian Ocean is needed. That's where the
> >Afghanistan pipeline route comes in and its strategic importance and
cannot
> >be underestimated.
>
> Absolutely nonsense, as even a brief glance at a map will show. By far the
> shortest route from the Caspian basin to the ocean is directly south
across
> Iran to the Persian Gulf, some 400 miles. The next shortest route is west
> through Iran, Iraq, and Syria to the Mediterranean, some 700 miles.

It doesn't matter what you think. Your brief glance at a map won't change
the route either, which has been in the planning stages for many years. The
pipeline routes are going through Afghanistan, period. The agreements have
been signed (one of Karzai's first official acts) and construction is
already underway.

Who knows, maybe when Iraq gets it's puppet goverment they'll sign a
pipeline agreement too. Did Chalabi, the US's first choice to run Iraq, ever
work for a US oil company? All I know about him is that he's been convicted
in Jordan for embezzling over $300 million.

> I hate to split hairs here and actually cite facts, but ever since the
start
> of the sabre rattling towards Iraq, the administration referred to their
WMD
> programs. The programs that are (were until a couple months ago) in place
> to develop these weapons.

This is a fact? Iraq had zero nuclear capability, nor the means to develop
any. The bit about buying yellowcake from Niger and trying to import
aluminum tubes for enriching Uranium is just more propaganda and faked
evidence.

> Saddam talked about his programs and admitted
> they were real.

So did Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, Blair, etc., though everyone (both
the US and Iraq) knew it wasn't true. The only difference is that Saddam and
his top brass didn't deny their existance as a deterrent against invasion,
and the US used them to justify an invasion.

> The only question was how far along they have gotten.
> Let's not forget all of the defiance that Saddam is guilty of. He is
guilty
> of ignoring resolution after resolution from the UN.

Speaking defiance, I think Israel takes the title for ignoring UN
resolutions, and they have more WMD's than anyone else in the area.

> It is his own fault.

Really.

> There has never been a military operation in history that has given as
much
> advanced warning and opportunity for avoidance.

It's doubtful there ever was any opportunity for avoidance. The invasion was
going to take place regardless of what Saddam said or did.

> I take it from your other
> posts you would prefer that we wait until they have nukes and then go in
and
> do something about it.

You'd be waiting a very long time. They weren't anywhere near being able to
produce nuclear weapons.

> The president was very clear on the fact the we had
> to act before this threat turned into a smoking gun.

I believe that quote is atributeable to Rice. Regardless, whoever said it
was lying, as has been proven over and over these past few months.

> The smoking gun would
> be the result of a WMD being used.

You must be referring to the million pounds of chemical and biological
agents that Bush said Iraq was in possesion of, and that Rumsfeld said they
knew where it was, in and around the area near Tikrit. As it turns out, they
were both lying through their teeth.

> Hey, mp, ya listening to that? No oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

Not so fast.

Here's a clip that provides a bit more context:

"On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international
relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of
Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided
information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they
might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to
get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are
in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and
Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a
42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan
coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1
million barrels of oil per day.
Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is
a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."

> You claim that an overland route through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean
is
> "needed". Your word. Not mine. Yet the facts are plain: routes to the
Persian
> Gulf and to the Mediterranean are shorter and cross less rugged terrain.
An
> overland route through Afghanistan is therefore not needed. And your claim
is
> clearly false.

Then why isn't a route being built through Iran ultimately terminating in
Syria? The answer is obvious.

> >We don't even know who was flying the planes involved in the 9/11
attacks,
> >and we probably will never know. Quite a few of the "identified" pilots
on
> >the hijacked planes are alive and well.
> >
>
> Do you get your news from the National Inquirer? Or do you just make it up
> as you go? This is just absurd.

No, I don't make anything up. Here's one link and you can look up more for
yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

I think there might have been on or two more.

I wonder if the FBI used the same intelligence sources as Bush and his gang.

> 9/11 happened early in the administration. Don't you recall the panic
about
> how a brand new president would handle the tragedy?

Like I said earlier, the invasion was in the planning stages well in advance
of 9/11.

> What you should realize
> also is that there are individual plans in place to attack every country
on
> the planet whether or not we intend to.

That's very comforting. Thanks for sharing that.

> That includes whatever haven of
> misinformation you live in. It is called intelligence and it is why we
are
> rarely at a loss for a plan when we have to do something in a hurry.

It's ironic that what you'd call intelligence has been proven to be lies and
deception. I do agree with you though about plans for the invasion already
being in place.

> Have a look at Owen Lowe's post. There's NO OIL PIPELINE, idiot.

No need for personal attacks. An oil pipeline is in also the works with an
initial capacity of a million barrels a day. Would you prefer I use the term
petroleum-product pipeline? Or should I call it an energy pipeline?

> As to reducing oil consuption, you talk about improving fuel efficiency
and
> developing alternative fuel sources. First of all, over the years
> manufacturers have offered many vehicles that get terrific gas mileage.
The
> problem is that nobody wants them.

I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm
referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each
vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon, this
would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil imports.
It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit. The economic
and political incentive for this to happen simply isn't there at this point
in time, though that may change when oil prices rise in the future.

> As to alternative fuels, it seems the most popular alternative is electric
> power.

That's one of them. Hydrogen fueled vehicles are another possibility, with
the hitch that although the vehicles are zero-emission (and a great benefit
on it's own), the energy required to produce hydrogen is near that of
running a gasoline engine. A recent development may dramatically reduce the
energy required to generate hydrogen, which will make hydrogen fuel cells
much more attractive as an alternative to gasoline.


> What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100%
> electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power plants.
> How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels.

Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric
generation.

> I am only guessing here,
> but my experience tells me you would be against building any new nuclear
> plants.

No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it does
help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future
trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending diverted
to fund fusion research.

> Ok, so I guess then that the Bush administration was stuck without a
viable
> way to build a pipeline. They had the invasion of Afghanistan preplanned
> and by an amazing stroke of luck, 9/11 happened. Bush must have done
> cartwheels when he figured out how he had fell ass-backward into this
> situation.

Bush had to fight for Afghanistan. As soon as the towers collapsed Rumsfeld
was hopping up and down wanting to jump into Iraq.

> Better yet, you are one small step away from the viewpoint that
> the administration planned 9/11 themselves just to build the pipeline and
> benefit all of their oil buddies.

Conspiracy theories aside, we'll never know the truth about the 9/11 events
as the Bush admin has critically underfunded and stonewalled the official
inquiry every step of the way. How much did Ken Star spend investigating the
Monica bj affair? Was it $150 million or so? The 9/11 inquiry has a limited
timeline, a piddly $14 million budget, and zero access to the information it
needs to do it's job.


> Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?

Yes.

> >The bit about buying yellowcake from Niger and trying to import
> >aluminum tubes for enriching Uranium is just more propaganda and faked
> >evidence.
>
> False again. Do you get your news anywhere other than tabloids?

I don't get any new from tabloids, but thanks for asking.

As for my statement, even the Whitehouse is now admitting that the
yellowcake "evidence" was faked, and the aluminum tubes that Iraq was trying
to source could not be used in the process of enriching uranium. In fact, I
hear that Bush was so concerned about "faulty" intelligence that he recently
appointed a commission to find out why he lied about WMD's.

> >I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm
> >referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each
> >vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon,
this
> >would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil
imports.
> >It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit.
>
> Utter nonsense. It hasn't worked that way in the past; what reason is
there to
> suppose it will work that way in the future? As I pointed out in an
earlier
> post, improving fuel mileage primarily results in making longer commutes
> economically feasible, thus contributing to suburban sprawl and
*increasing*
> our dependence on imported oil. That ain't the answer.

People aren't going to move farther away just because their cars get better
gas mileage. If you stated other factors, such as the cost of housing,
community and lifestyle, then I'd agree with you.

> It won't help one damn bit,

Sure it will. Less fuel consumed, less pollution.

> >That's one of them. Hydrogen fueled vehicles are another possibility,
with
> >the hitch that although the vehicles are zero-emission (and a great
benefit
> >on it's own), the energy required to produce hydrogen is near that of
> >running a gasoline engine. A recent development may dramatically reduce
the
> >energy required to generate hydrogen, which will make hydrogen fuel cells
> >much more attractive as an alternative to gasoline.
>
> What recent development would that be? Cold fusion?

No. It was in the news a week or two ago and sounded interesting. Look it up
yourself.

> >> What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100%
> >> electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power
plants.
> >> How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels.
> >
> >Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric
> >generation.
>
> That's not very portable, is it? Not to mention the environmental damage
done
> by the hydro dams. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Yes, you're right. Hydro electric dams aren't very portable. Great
observation, though I must point out that most utility companies use
powerlines to distribute electricity to their customers. It's much easier.
Hydro electric power may not be a free lunch, but it's one of the cleanest
methods of electricity generation we have. No burning of fossil fuels, no
nuclear hazards and spent fuel disposal problems.

> Your really a towel head aren't you?

After a shower, sometimes. Not in public though.

> >No need for personal attacks. An oil pipeline is in also the works with
an
> >initial capacity of a million barrels a day. Would you prefer I use the
term
> >petroleum-product pipeline? Or should I call it an energy pipeline?
> >
> No, there is not an oil pipeline "in the works". You cited *one* case,
from
> _six_years_ ago, of an oil company exec speculating on the desirability of
> building one. That's not "in the works".

The gas pipeline is being built first. The million barrel a day oil pipeline
will run as a parallel project. It's still in the planning stages, and
that's why I said "in the works".

> > No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it
does
> > help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future
> > trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending
diverted
> > to fund fusion research.
> >
>
> Trillions and Trillions? You really don't know what is in the federal
> budget, do you?

At the current rate, two years of military spending is about a trillion
dollars. So future spending is indeed trillions and trillions.

> > That's very comforting. Thanks for sharing that.
> >
>
> Well it is admittedly a supposition on my part, but I can't see it any
other
> way. Most modern militaries have plans for attacking and defending
against
> each other before they ever have a need to do so. Why does this surprise
> you?

There's a difference between defending your nation and attacking those that
pose no threat.

"Renata"
> Bush and Co. stated specifically where the WMDs were located and
> quantities thereof.
>
> Now, perhaps our vaunted technology and intelligence assets are so bad
> that we didn't track them after finding them, when they were
> (theoretically) moved from those locations, or....


...Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them. He was
working towards that goal, problem is he was getting more bull
than product. Most of Bush's opponents voted to go for it when
shown the same data so the noise is politically driven.

In article <bZN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times
.. snip
> >
> >You seem like an person with above average intelligence. I'm surprised that
> >you actually think the invasion was only about a few terrorist training
> >camps.
>
> And I'm amazed that you have swallowed this conspiracy nonsense hook, line,
> and sinker.
>

Why are you surprised? To people who believe that somehow Bush stole
the election in 2000 by forcing the Democratic controlled precincts of
Florida to produce ballots that were "hard to understand" and stopped
the Florida supreme court from rewriting Florida election law, nothing
this president does will ever be accepted. This goes beyond simple
disagreement with philosophy or idea of governance. This is a deep,
visceral hatred that permeates their entire being; they don't dislike
Bush, they absolutely hate him with a loathing that transcends reason.
This hatred makes a regime that brutally suppressed and subjugated
women, killed homosexuals by toppling house walls upon them, and imposed
a statewide religion upon the entire country more believable and
desirable than the democratically elected president of the United
States. This hatred makes the leader of a regime that had suppressed
it's people for the past 25 years, invaded two of its neighbors, and
killed over a million of its own people, imprisoned others in rape rooms
and torture chambers, cut arms off with sawzalls (OBWW), cut out tongues
and threw people who dared to express opinions about their government
off of buildings more believable and to be trusted more than the
president of the United States.

When I expressed amazement at the mental gymnastics required to
rationalize this philosophy, I was not being facetious. Look at what
they have to believe:

They express outrage that our President would dare to support a
constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is between a man and a
woman, yet not outlawing nor castigating those who have same-sex
partners. Yet they express outrage at the destruction of a regime that
tortured and killed homosexuals when we responded to that regime's
harboring of terrorists who declared war upon this country and don't
express any satisfaction that such a regime is gone.

They express outrage that our President has expressed the desire to
view the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" -- not wanting to force
others to see it, just that he wants to see it. Yet the only thing they
can say about the removal of a regime that *killed* people for not
following their radical brand of Islam is that this war was only for oil
in a country that has none.

They are openly praising the breaking of the laws of the state of
California with same-sex marriages, yet expect the rest of us to follow
the law dictated by an activist judge who says that singing Christmas
songs in school is a violation of the separation of church and state.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:16:03 -0800, mp wrote:

> You must be referring to the million pounds of chemical and biological
> agents that Bush said Iraq was in possesion of, and that Rumsfeld said they
> knew where it was, in and around the area near Tikrit. As it turns out, they
> were both lying through their teeth.

As well as all these other liars:

"There is no doubt that. Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue
apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue
for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway
s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm
and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

--
-Doug

In article <i_O%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > I believe Paul O'Neill also mentions in his
> > book that planning for war started in the very early days of the Bush
> admin.
> > The 9/11 events were not the reason for the invasion, as it was already
> > being planned before the events even took place.
> >
>
> 9/11 happened early in the administration. Don't you recall the panic about
> how a brand new president would handle the tragedy? What you should realize
> also is that there are individual plans in place to attack every country on
> the planet whether or not we intend to. That includes whatever haven of
> misinformation you live in. It is called intelligence and it is why we are
> rarely at a loss for a plan when we have to do something in a hurry.
>
> Frank

Seems also that Afghanistan would be a high priority in that planning.
I believe a previous president, (i.e. BILL CLINTON) launched a cruise
missile or two into Afghanistan at a couple of terrorist training camps.
The attacks were ineffectual of course, since the terrorists were using
caves, the intelligence was old, and there was some rumor of someone
having tipped off the wrong people about a strike in planning, but the
dangers posed by that set of terrorists was not a new bit of
information. Thus, plans for military action in that region would not
be out of line with prudent thinking; AAMOF, it would be downright
dereliction of duty not to have had such plans in place given the actors
in that region.

In article <EuS%[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> And what about the environmental damage the dams do?

Dam them!

And what about the environmental damage done by all the diesel trucks
hauling the recycled cans, paper, plastic and glass?

Better to landfill the LOT of it. In fact, a lot of ends up being
trucked to the recycling centres (centers, Keith) and THEN being
trucked to the landfill.

(That's not sarcasm. I'm serious.)

djb

PS: The USA could handle all their garbage, our garbage and Mexico's
garbage if they'd just privatize the Grand Canyon. What a waste of a
great big hole.

(That was...)

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
<nuclear weapons as concerned, which are the only ones that really
fall into the category of WMD's, Iraq never had any.>

I guess you believe that biological and chemical weapons are not WMD.

Let me enlighten you.

From March to December 1918, 600,000 Americans died in an influenza
epidemic in the USA, with 20,000,000 succumbing worldwide. During the
same period, the US lost 120,000 dead in World War I to bullets,
shrapnel, bayonets, poison gas and disease. Our influenza losses were
far greater than our battle losses.

According to the US census, the US population was about 106,000,000 in
1920 and 281,000,000 in 2000. In 1920, 51% of the US population was
urban, 49% rural.
That flu was not spread by a hostile power, but by people going about
their daily business.

If a contagious biological agent, say smallpox or a hemmorhagic fever,
from which most of us have no immunity, were unleashed and spread with
the same death rate as the 1918 flu, the USA, with the best medical
system in the world, would have 1,600,000 dead.

Add to that our much increased mobility and the fact that our
population is now 81% urban, and only 19% rural, and I suspect the
outcome would be much much worse.

How can you say that "only" nuclear weapons are WMD?

Can't you see that there is a crescent of lands across northern Africa
all the way to the East Indies, where many of its people have virulent
hatred for all things Western? That they have access to oil billions,
that they're doing their absolute best to assemble WMD's (have you
read about the Khan multinational network of nuclear bomb builders?)?
Do you really believe that the 9/11 gang would have been satisfied
with a mere four airliners if they could have floated a nuke or a few
pounds of anthrax in a shoulder fired missle up the East River in a
Chris Craft?

We cannot sit by waiting for that day. Too many imams are preaching
that good pious Islamic faith = hate America, much as Hitler railed
against Jews to rally his brown-shirt thugs. We must divide and remake
the Islamic crescent countries into secular nations, much as Turkey is
today. Iraq with a much hated, secular Sadaam was the best place to
start. After 12 years of UN talk talk talk, it was time. Note how
some other nuclear wannabe's have started making nicenice since we
went to Iraq.

If you think we're wrong, go spend some time in Africa and the Middle
East and see for yourself. Otherwise, do a little more serious
reading or shut up.

Al Reid wrote:

> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:CRR%[email protected]...
>
>> Al Reid wrote:
>>
>>> Having spent a little over 4 years working at the
>>> Princeton Plasma Fusion Lab on the Tokamak Fusion Test
>>> Reactor, I believe that it WOULD take trillions and
>>> trillions of dollars over decades and decades to develop a
>>> viable, large scale fusion reactor and bring it into the
>>> market. I'm not sure the technology would ever reach
>>> break-even on the costs invested.
>>
>> What's current status? I heard that tests were successful
>> and that performance was as expected. What's the (current)
>> holdup?
>>
> The tests were highly successful, however, the definition of
> success in scientific break-even. This means that you do not
> count certain energy inputs that are necessary to keep the
> reaction going, including the neutral beam injection. In
> addition, A successful 'shot' is a contained plasma lasting
> from several second to less than 1 minute. The first plasma
> was created on 12/23/1982 and was considered a great
> milestone. The plasma was contained for ~20ms. Also there
> are issues of metal fatigue/embrittlement due to the very high
> radiation levels and neutron flux. The breakeven experiments
> were delayed many years due to a cut in funding. The thought
> was to continue to use the reactor for scientific research
> since once the tritium/deuterium breakeven experiments were
> completed, the reactor would be too contaminated and
> radioactive to maintain. The unit would be mothballed for a
> cooling off period.
>
> It has been a while since I was involved (I was there from
> '82-'86). At the time the plan was to use deuterium/Tritium
> as fuels. Tritium is highly radioactive and toxic.
>
> Another hurdle is how to convert the energy to a usable form.
> Perhaps a molten lithium or sodium blanket to absorb the
> neutron flux that can be used to create steam to turn a
> turbine.
>
> I would never say it cannot be done, but there is a long way
> to go.

That there would be metalurgical issues never even ocurred to me.
I did understand that if the reactors were configured in pairs or
triples, they could power each other and (still) produce a
considerable excess.

It's /worth/ "trillions and trillions" of dollars to solve this
one problem! The funding issue is unbelievably frustrating - even
to non-participants/non-physicists like myself. I've believed
that development to the point of safe deployment and
commercialization could/would improve life for every human on the
planet.

Eventually the problems /will/ be solved - or made moot by a
breakthrough in a different direction. To me, at his point in
time, this still looks like the most promising approach.

Thanks for your contributions to the project!
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

George wrote:

>> Geez. Are you suggesting gay military tactics?

> Don't ask....

Don't tell.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

mp wrote:
> The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want to
> discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at Saudi
> Arabia first and foremost.

You're right of course. The only answer to the problem is to nuke
the entire Mid-East until the sand boils. No more
Irna/Iraq/Isreali/etc problems. I'd even bet that the N Koreans
crap so hard that they start negotiating in earnest. Besides, we
can break up the boiled sand afterwards and sell it as
commemorative night lights. Whatcha think?

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

mp wrote:
dave in Fairfax wrote:
> > You're right of course. The only answer to the problem is to nuke
> > the entire Mid-East until the sand boils. No more
> > Irna/Iraq/Isreali/etc problems. I'd even bet that the N Koreans
> > crap so hard that they start negotiating in earnest. Besides, we
> > can break up the boiled sand afterwards and sell it as
> > commemorative night lights. Whatcha think?
>
> You'd have to sell the 8mpg SUV and buy a bike.

I get better milage than that in my truck and besides, the oil
wouldn't be hurt under the glass. Remove the night lights, then
the oil, no muss no fuss. Also, no more crap from that part of
the world, less from any other part.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

HUH? Through which of the OTHER unstable neighbors would that be?
Pakistan, or Kashmir/India?

Think you'd better find something else to try to sound knowledgeable about.
Kazakhstan/Baku and points west, maybe. Lots of pipe there already.

Now lets talk mountains and pumps....

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Axshuallly, I believe there's a huge oil pipeline that is desired to
> cross Afghanistan from north to south - i.e. the shortest distance from
> the oil fields to the sea is across Afghanistan.
>

Don't ask....

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will soon follow.
>
> Geez. Are you suggesting gay military tactics?
>
>

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

no no no no no no no!

Facts and history have no place in this argument. It makes it too difficult
to try to discredit the current effort when it is clear that anyone else in
power would to exactly the same thing (or at least try to).

Some additional people agreeing with our current administration -
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fketchum/images/iraq_wmd_oct98.jpg

Isn't it odd that the mainstream media can't seem to report these sorts of
thing?

In article <Fct%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > This must be part of the mis-guided battle to win the hearts and minds of
> > the local population.
> >
>
> I don't recall this being the reason that we are in Afghanistan. What local
> population, mountain goats?
>
>
>

no, no All those friendly yokels who were shooting at those eeevil
invaders.

it seems mp is one of those who would have preferred the rolling over
and soiling ourselves response to the attacks of 9/11 and the refusal of
the Taliban to eliminate its support of the terrorists and their camps.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want to
> discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at Saudi
> Arabia first and foremost.

I have to chime in on this point. I agree with the writer's sentiment
overall - particularly that our current administration is
untrustworthy. And I agree that Saudi Arabia had a lot to do with
enabling the events of 9/11.

But - I have to take issue with the statement that the Taleban had
nothing to do with 9/11. The Taleban hosted Bin Laden and his ilk, and
made it possible for them to conduct training of thousands of Al Qaeda
operatives on Afghani soil - including some of the 9/11 hijackers.
True, it was not the Taleban that executed the events of 9/11, but
there's no doubt at all that they helped make it possible.

I personally don't support the invasion of Iraq (though I do support
our troops - an important distinction!), but I sure as hell support
the overthrow of the Taleban. I think that any response short of that
would have been unacceptable. I don't know why we bothered to ask them
to turn over Bin Laden, though - it's not as though we would have
walked away if they had. Nor should we have.

PQ

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > As to reducing oil consuption, you talk about improving fuel efficiency
> and
> > developing alternative fuel sources. First of all, over the years
> > manufacturers have offered many vehicles that get terrific gas mileage.
> The
> > problem is that nobody wants them.
>
> I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm
> referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each
> vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon, this
> would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil imports.
> It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit. The economic
> and political incentive for this to happen simply isn't there at this point
> in time, though that may change when oil prices rise in the future.
>
> > As to alternative fuels, it seems the most popular alternative is electric
> > power.
>
> That's one of them. Hydrogen fueled vehicles are another possibility, with
> the hitch that although the vehicles are zero-emission (and a great benefit
> on it's own), the energy required to produce hydrogen is near that of
> running a gasoline engine. A recent development may dramatically reduce the
> energy required to generate hydrogen, which will make hydrogen fuel cells
> much more attractive as an alternative to gasoline.
>
>
> > What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100%
> > electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power plants.
> > How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels.
>
> Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric
> generation.
>

... and the greenies are up in arms over that, seems that hydro-
electric dams are bad too, since it floods areas that used to be
"pristine wilderness" There are actually proposals to blow up all those
dams and "let the rivers run free".

Wind? Forget it -- birds get killed by the blades

Solar? Uh-uh, shades the earth and ruins the ecology near the
collectors.

> > I am only guessing here,
> > but my experience tells me you would be against building any new nuclear
> > plants.
>
> No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it does
> help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future
> trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending diverted
> to fund fusion research.
>

Trillions and Trillions? You really don't know what is in the federal
budget, do you?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > That's very comforting. Thanks for sharing that.
> > >
> >
> > Well it is admittedly a supposition on my part, but I can't see it any
> other
> > way. Most modern militaries have plans for attacking and defending
> against
> > each other before they ever have a need to do so. Why does this surprise
> > you?
>
> There's a difference between defending your nation and attacking those that
> pose no threat.
>
>

Just out of curiosity mp, what exactly would a country have to do to
meet your criteria for "pose a threat?" Harboring, abetting, and
encouraging a group that carried out an attack against our country
apparently doesn't meet that criteria, just exactly how big a plain of
smoking glass would you need to see before you decided someone was a
threat?

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times
>in
>>
>> You don't get it, do you? Afghanistan wasn't about oil, it was about
>terrorism
>> and state sponsorship of terrorism. There isn't any oil there.
>
>No, but there will soon be a huge amount of oil flowing through Afghanistan
>pipelines. A potentially HUGE amount.

Have a look at Owen Lowe's post. There's NO OIL PIPELINE, idiot.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As to reducing oil consuption, you talk about improving fuel efficiency
>and
>> developing alternative fuel sources. First of all, over the years
>> manufacturers have offered many vehicles that get terrific gas mileage.
>The
>> problem is that nobody wants them.
>
>I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm
>referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each
>vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon, this
>would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil imports.
>It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit.

Utter nonsense. It hasn't worked that way in the past; what reason is there to
suppose it will work that way in the future? As I pointed out in an earlier
post, improving fuel mileage primarily results in making longer commutes
economically feasible, thus contributing to suburban sprawl and *increasing*
our dependence on imported oil. That ain't the answer.

It won't help one damn bit,

>The economic
>and political incentive for this to happen simply isn't there at this point
>in time, though that may change when oil prices rise in the future.

And in no way will that alter our dependence on imported oil.
>
>> As to alternative fuels, it seems the most popular alternative is electric
>> power.
>
>That's one of them. Hydrogen fueled vehicles are another possibility, with
>the hitch that although the vehicles are zero-emission (and a great benefit
>on it's own), the energy required to produce hydrogen is near that of
>running a gasoline engine. A recent development may dramatically reduce the
>energy required to generate hydrogen, which will make hydrogen fuel cells
>much more attractive as an alternative to gasoline.

What recent development would that be? Cold fusion?
>
>
>> What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100%
>> electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power plants.
>> How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels.
>
>Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric
>generation.

That's not very portable, is it? Not to mention the environmental damage done
by the hydro dams. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

>> I am only guessing here,
>> but my experience tells me you would be against building any new nuclear
>> plants.
>
>No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it does
>help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future
>trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending diverted
>to fund fusion research.
>
Getting scary now -- you and I agree on something twice in one day. That's the
second thing you've said all day that makes any sense.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I hate to split hairs here and actually cite facts, but ever since the
>start
>> of the sabre rattling towards Iraq, the administration referred to their
>WMD
>> programs. The programs that are (were until a couple months ago) in place
>> to develop these weapons.
>
>This is a fact? Iraq had zero nuclear capability

Conjecture on your part. Probably correct, but conjecture nonetheless. "It
hasn't been found" is not the same as "it doesn't exist". Remember that as
of Oct '03, Saddam Hussein had not been found, but obviously he does exist.

> nor the means to develop any.

False.

>The bit about buying yellowcake from Niger and trying to import
>aluminum tubes for enriching Uranium is just more propaganda and faked
>evidence.

False again. Do you get your news anywhere other than tabloids?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

Al Reid wrote:

> Having spent a little over 4 years working at the Princeton
> Plasma Fusion Lab on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, I
> believe that it WOULD take trillions and trillions of dollars
> over decades and decades to develop a viable, large scale
> fusion reactor and bring it into the market. I'm not sure the
> technology would ever reach break-even on the costs invested.

Al...

What's current status? I heard that tests were successful and
that performance was as expected. What's the (current) holdup?

--
Morris Dovey (WB0YEF, once a Field Day operator at W2PU)
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm
>> >referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each
>> >vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon,
>this
>> >would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil
>imports.
>> >It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. It hasn't worked that way in the past; what reason is
>there to
>> suppose it will work that way in the future? As I pointed out in an
>earlier
>> post, improving fuel mileage primarily results in making longer commutes
>> economically feasible, thus contributing to suburban sprawl and
>*increasing*
>> our dependence on imported oil. That ain't the answer.
>
>People aren't going to move farther away just because their cars get better
>gas mileage.

That's not what I said.

> If you stated other factors, such as the cost of housing,
>community and lifestyle, then I'd agree with you.
>
>> It won't help one damn bit,
>
>Sure it will. Less fuel consumed, less pollution.

You're not paying attention, either to me or to history. Improved vehicle fuel
mileage does *not* lead to a drop in fuel consumption, but rather to an
increase in miles driven.

You are living in a fantasyland. The real world does not work the way you
would like it to.
[snip]
>> >> How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels.
>> >
>> >Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric
>> >generation.
>>
>> That's not very portable, is it? Not to mention the environmental damage
>done
>> by the hydro dams. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
>
>Yes, you're right. Hydro electric dams aren't very portable. Great
>observation, though I must point out that most utility companies use
>powerlines to distribute electricity to their customers. It's much easier.
>Hydro electric power may not be a free lunch, but it's one of the cleanest
>methods of electricity generation we have. No burning of fossil fuels, no
>nuclear hazards and spent fuel disposal problems.
>
Then how come we don't run power lines from the existing hydro dams to
everywhere that electricity is consumed? Answer: because they can't generate
enough electricity to supply everyone that wants it. It just isn't possible to
supply the energy demands of a large industrial nation such as the US with
hydro power alone. You're in your fantasyworld again.

And what about the environmental damage the dams do?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly of
> the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe France.
> But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
> destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
> concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
> WMD's, Iraq never had any.
>
> When Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the
> gang were talking about Iraq possessing WMD's and the "iminent threat"
from
> Iraq, they weren't referring to the mid 80's and early 90's. They were
> talking about the present.
>
>

I hate to split hairs here and actually cite facts, but ever since the start
of the sabre rattling towards Iraq, the administration referred to their WMD
programs. The programs that are (were until a couple months ago) in place
to develop these weapons. Saddam talked about his programs and admitted
they were real. The only question was how far along they have gotten.
Let's not forget all of the defiance that Saddam is guilty of. He is guilty
of ignoring resolution after resolution from the UN. It is his own fault.
There has never been a military operation in history that has given as much
advanced warning and opportunity for avoidance. I take it from your other
posts you would prefer that we wait until they have nukes and then go in and
do something about it. The president was very clear on the fact the we had
to act before this threat turned into a smoking gun. The smoking gun would
be the result of a WMD being used. What is so hard to remember about this?
It just happened.

Frank

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This must be part of the mis-guided battle to win the hearts and minds of
> the local population.
>

I don't recall this being the reason that we are in Afghanistan. What local
population, mountain goats?

Hi, I agree, was just trying to be nice.....
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tony" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > May have just flat out lied.
>
> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > Lemmee see here. (As a comment on the general thread and not Frank's
> > post)
> > > > The USA should NOT have intervened? Despite faulty intelligence ...
> > >
> > > What makes you think the administations received faulty intelligence?
> > >
>
> May have? They've been caught flat out lying on some points. WHere
> there is smoke, there is fire.
>
> --
>
> FF

SWEET!!!!

--
"Cartoons don't have any deep meaning.
They're just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh."
Homer Simpson
Jerry© The Phoneman®
"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> this is from my nephew in Air Force.
> john
> take out the TRASH to email me
>
>
>
>
>
> From Afghanistan, the story of the week:
>
> So we are up in the mountains at about 0100 hrs looking for a bad guy
> that we thought was in the area. Here are ten of us, pitch black,
> crystal clear night, about 25 degrees. We know there are bad guys in
> the area, a few shots have been fired but no big deal. We decide
> that we need air cover and the only thing in the area is a solo B-1
> bomber. He flies around at about 20,000 feet and tells us there is
> nothing in the area. He then asks if we would like a low level show
> of force. Stupid question. Of course we tell him yes. The
> controller who is attached to the team then is heard talking to the
> pilot. Pilot asks if we want it subsonic or supersonic. Very stupid
> question. Pilot advises he is twenty miles out and stand by. The
> controller gets us all sitting down in a line and points out the
> proper location. You have to picture this. Pitch black, ten killers
> sitting down, dead quiet and overlooking this 30 mile long valley.
> All of a sudden, way out (below our level) you see a set of four
> 200' white flames coming at us. The controller says, "Ah-guys-you
> might want to plug your ears".
> Faster than you can think a B-1, supersonic, 1000' over our heads,
> blasts the sound barrier and it feels like God just hit you in the
> head with a hammer". He then stands it straight up with 4 white
> trails of flame coming out and disappears. Cost of gas for that:
> Probably $50,000
>
> Hearing damage: For certain
> Bunch of ragheads thinking twice about shooting at us: Priceless
>

May have just flat out lied.
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Lemmee see here. (As a comment on the general thread and not Frank's
post)
> > The USA should NOT have intervened? Despite faulty intelligence ...
>
> What makes you think the administations received faulty intelligence?
>
>
> --
>
> FF

That was worth it whatever the cost...

Bob S.

The tests were highly successful, however, the definition of success in
scientific break-even. This means that you do not count certain energy
inputs that are necessary to keep the reaction going, including the neutral
beam injection. In addition, A successful 'shot' is a contained plasma
lasting from several second to less than 1 minute. The first plasma was
created on 12/23/1982 and was considered a great milestone. The plasma was
contained for ~20ms. Also there are issues of metal fatigue/embrittlement
due to the very high radiation levels and neutron flux. The breakeven
experiments were delayed many years due to a cut in funding. The thought
was to continue to use the reactor for scientific research since once the
tritium/deuterium breakeven experiments were completed, the reactor would be
too contaminated and radioactive to maintain. The unit would be mothballed
for a cooling off period.

It has been a while since I was involved (I was there from '82-'86). At the
time the plan was to use deuterium/Tritium as fuels. Tritium is highly
radioactive and toxic.

Another hurdle is how to convert the energy to a usable form. Perhaps a
molten lithium or sodium blanket to absorb the neutron flux that can be used
to create steam to turn a turbine.

I would never say it cannot be done, but there is a long way to go.




"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:CRR%[email protected]...
> Al Reid wrote:
>
> > Having spent a little over 4 years working at the Princeton
> > Plasma Fusion Lab on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, I
> > believe that it WOULD take trillions and trillions of dollars
> > over decades and decades to develop a viable, large scale
> > fusion reactor and bring it into the market. I'm not sure the
> > technology would ever reach break-even on the costs invested.
>
> Al...
>
> What's current status? I heard that tests were successful and
> that performance was as expected. What's the (current) holdup?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey (WB0YEF, once a Field Day operator at W2PU)
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
>

So what you are saying is that these people should have known better
than to trust the word of a dishonorably lying deserter.

That's nothing new, as we all know that. The real question is why you
bush licker are so willing to disgrace yourself by sticking up for the
embarrassment.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:16:03 -0800, mp wrote:
>
> > You must be referring to the million pounds of chemical and biological
> > agents that Bush said Iraq was in possesion of, and that Rumsfeld said they
> > knew where it was, in and around the area near Tikrit. As it turns out, they
> > were both lying through their teeth.
>
> As well as all these other liars:
>
> "There is no doubt that. Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
> Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue
> apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
> continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
> a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
> threaten the United States and our allies."
> Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
> others, Dec, 5, 2001.
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
> a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
> mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
> and the means of delivering them."
> Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
> chemical weapons throughout his country."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
> impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue
> for as long as Saddam is in power."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and
> developing weapons of mass destruction."
> Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We
> are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
> biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
> build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
> reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
> authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
> his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
>

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jkP%[email protected]...

>
>You cannot just ignore/rewrite history because you
> have a disdain for the
> current president.
>

Aw, come on. The only way this makes any sense at all is to ignore a whole
heap o' history and common sense.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it
does
> help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future
> trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending
diverted
> to fund fusion research.
>

Having spent a little over 4 years working at the Princeton Plasma Fusion
Lab on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, I believe that it WOULD take
trillions and trillions of dollars over decades and decades to develop a
viable, large scale fusion reactor and bring it into the market. I'm not
sure the technology would ever reach break-even on the costs invested.

Until such a marvel is created, we need to make use of oil ( including our
own), coal, nuclear and other alternative fuels. Perhaps wind farms off the
coast of Nantucket. Oh, can't do that, Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite are
fighting that one. And the ones that have already been built. The
environmentalists are trying to shut them down because they are killing
birds...

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> When I expressed amazement at the mental gymnastics required to
> rationalize this philosophy, I was not being facetious. Look at what
> they have to believe:
>
<snipped several good examples>
>

Yes, clearly logic and common sense does not apply and hasn't applied to
most criticisms coming Bush's way. You know, it used to be that a party
that disagreed with the president would offer up their solution to the
current issues. Look who they are nominating. John Kerry? This guy is the
definition flip flopping to both sides of every issue possible. He is a war
hero, then he comes home and becomes a protestor, he testifies to congress
that Vietnam vets are rapists and baby killers (never mind the question of
why he did nothing about it while he was over there), then he signs his name
to the congressional request to Bill Clinton to attack Iraq to get rid of
weapons of mass destruction,

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fketchum/images/iraq_wmd_oct98.jpg

then he votes for Bush to go into Iraq, now he thinks the war was the wrong
move, blah blah blah blah blah. What's next? The sad part is that he is
not the lunatic fringe anymore, he represents a large number of peoples like
mp.

Frank

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You claim that an overland route through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean
>is
>> "needed". Your word. Not mine. Yet the facts are plain: routes to the
>Persian
>> Gulf and to the Mediterranean are shorter and cross less rugged terrain.
>An
>> overland route through Afghanistan is therefore not needed. And your claim
>is
>> clearly false.
>
>Then why isn't a route being built through Iran ultimately terminating in
>Syria? The answer is obvious.

Of course it is: unstable governments in both of those places. If our
objective was simply to get a pipeline built, that's a much easier route --
and we would have *no* trouble finding a pretext for invading either nation,
if that were our intent.

South through Iran is an even easier route physically, and clearly militarily
as well, as their would be one less nation to invade (assuming, again, some
actual correlation between the real world and the fantasyland you inhabit).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> no, no All those friendly yokels who were shooting at those eeevil
>> invaders.
>>
>> it seems mp is one of those who would have preferred the rolling over
>> and soiling ourselves response to the attacks of 9/11 and the refusal of
>> the Taliban to eliminate its support of the terrorists and their camps.
>
>You're making the assumption that the Taliban in the end refused to hand
>over Bin Laden,

No "assumption" there -- it's a matter of historical *fact*. President Bush
demanded that they hand over the terrorists, and the Taliban explicitly and
publicly refused, referring to them as "guests in our country".

> and that if they did, that would have prevented the
>invasion. Even if the Taliban cooperated 100% with US demands, it's very
>unlikely that would have made any difference to an aggressive administration
>hell-bent on war.

Speaking of assumptions...

>The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
>an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then you
>probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed WMD's
>and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon be
>unleashed along the eastern seaboard.

Hellooooooo! Earth calling mp! Iraq *admitted* having WMDs. Where have you
been??

>The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want to
>discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at Saudi
>Arabia first and foremost.

For once, you and I agree on something. For years, I've been telling anyone
who will listen that the Saudis are *not* our friends. Business associates,
yes. Friends and allies, not even close.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that suggests the Bush admin is even remotely
> interested in reducing oil consumption. It would be contrary to oil
industry
> interests, who happen to fund a large portion of Bush's activities.
>

Bush has tried to reduce our dependance on foriegn oil but what a nauseating
controversy resulted. Apparently having a drilling operation in the
American equivalent of Siberia would be bad some how.

As to reducing oil consuption, you talk about improving fuel efficiency and
developing alternative fuel sources. First of all, over the years
manufacturers have offered many vehicles that get terrific gas mileage. The
problem is that nobody wants them. So requiring car manufacturers to only
provide vehicles meeting some arbitrary always moving target of gas mileage
is just an excercise in forcing something people don't want down their
throats.

As to alternative fuels, it seems the most popular alternative is electric
power. What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100%
electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power plants.
How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels. So either
you burn it in your car or the burden gets moved to electrical plants to
provide more energy and it's the same fuel causing all the frackas now.
Don't you see that it is the same damn problem? I am only guessing here,
but my experience tells me you would be against building any new nuclear
plants. Not to mention the enormous cost that it would take to upgrade
electrical grids to handle delivering all the power to move our automobiles.
It will never happen, and it doesn't need to happen. What needs to happen
is that panty waist worrywarts need to get the hell out of the way of
progress.

And the funding issue is my personal favorite. What some people just can't
seem to grasp is that large corporations (oil companies included along with
all of the others) contribute a lot of funds to BOTH sides of the political
isle. They will contribute large lumps of cash to Kerry, or whoever is
nominated because they want influence with the administration regardless of
which party it is. It seems the funding issue only gets mentioned when it
is an evil Republican (sorry, I don't mean to be redundant) in office.

Frank

Bestest Handsander wrote:

> Great story. May God bless and protect him and his fellow soldiers.



Yeah, but I've seen so many of these 'personal stories' that were written by HQ/
Commanders to be sent home by the troops that I have a hard time believing any
of them.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
> an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then
you
> probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed WMD's
> and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon be
> unleashed along the eastern seaboard.
>
> The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you want
to
> discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at
Saudi
> Arabia first and foremost.
>
> You and I will never know what the truth was behind 9/11 as the key
players
> in the White House, Pentagon, CIA, and FBI refuse to testify in front of
> the commission of inquiry and have stonewalled it pretty much ever step of
> the way.
>

See, the thing is that no matter what the administration does, they will be
wrong. What would your criticism be if we attacked Saudi Arabia? Oh let me
guess, we would never attack Saudi Arabia because we use their oil! So we
are attacked by our biggest supplier of oil and we pick on a couple weak
targets to retalliate. Right.

Frank

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...and every proposal made by the Bush administration to reduce our
>dependence
>> on foriegn oil was welcomed with open hands by the opposition?
>
>I'm not familiar with any proposals by the Bush admin to reduce dependency
>or foreign oil, whatever they may be.

Apparently you missed the big controversy over the President's plans to drill
for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

>I do know that the Bush admin did not
>support legislation to force car companies to increase gas mileage, which
>would go a long way to reducing dependency or foreign oil.

With good reason, too. Here are at least three:

1) The Federal government has no authority under the Constitution to do that.
Never mind that they've done it in the past anyway. There still is no
authority under the Constitution.

2) History shows that the major consequence of an increase in vehicle fuel
mileage is an increase in miles driven, not a decrease in fuel consumption. It
can be argued that the increases in fuel mileage over the last three decades
have contributed greatly to suburban sprawl, and thus to a net *increase* in
fuel consumption.

3) The only way to make a significant increase in vehicle fuel mileage is by
reducing vehicle weight. This in turn increases the risk of injury and death
in collisions.

>
>> If we rule out oil exploration and drilling in the US, then where do we
>turn?
>> Alternative fuels? The Bush adoin was blased for not doing enough even in
>> the face of the largest proposed increase in funding ever for that
>purpose.
>
>I haven't seen any evidence that suggests the Bush admin is even remotely
>interested in reducing oil consumption. It would be contrary to oil industry
>interests, who happen to fund a large portion of Bush's activities.
>
>If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times in

You don't get it, do you? Afghanistan wasn't about oil, it was about terrorism
and state sponsorship of terrorism. There isn't any oil there.

Your constant repetition of this obvious falsehood makes it hard to take
seriously anything else you say.

[snip]
>
>Oil is a very finite resource, and at the current rate of increasing
>consumption it's doubtful that there's more than 100 years worth of supply
>left.
>
Known oil reserves have *always* been at around 40-50 years worth, because
there is no economic incentive to explore beyond that point.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

Great story. May God bless and protect him and his fellow soldiers.


"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> this is from my nephew in Air Force.
> john
> take out the TRASH to email me
>
>
>
>
>
> From Afghanistan, the story of the week:
>
> So we are up in the mountains at about 0100 hrs looking for a bad guy
> that we thought was in the area. Here are ten of us, pitch black,
> crystal clear night, about 25 degrees. We know there are bad guys in
> the area, a few shots have been fired but no big deal. We decide
> that we need air cover and the only thing in the area is a solo B-1
> bomber. He flies around at about 20,000 feet and tells us there is
> nothing in the area. He then asks if we would like a low level show
> of force. Stupid question. Of course we tell him yes. The
> controller who is attached to the team then is heard talking to the
> pilot. Pilot asks if we want it subsonic or supersonic. Very stupid
> question. Pilot advises he is twenty miles out and stand by. The
> controller gets us all sitting down in a line and points out the
> proper location. You have to picture this. Pitch black, ten killers
> sitting down, dead quiet and overlooking this 30 mile long valley.
> All of a sudden, way out (below our level) you see a set of four
> 200' white flames coming at us. The controller says, "Ah-guys-you
> might want to plug your ears".
> Faster than you can think a B-1, supersonic, 1000' over our heads,
> blasts the sound barrier and it feels like God just hit you in the
> head with a hammer". He then stands it straight up with 4 white
> trails of flame coming out and disappears. Cost of gas for that:
> Probably $50,000
>
> Hearing damage: For certain
> Bunch of ragheads thinking twice about shooting at us: Priceless
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > >We don't even know who was flying the planes involved in the 9/11
> attacks,
> > >and we probably will never know. Quite a few of the "identified" pilots
> on
> > >the hijacked planes are alive and well.
> > >
> >
> > Do you get your news from the National Inquirer? Or do you just make it up
> > as you go? This is just absurd.
>
> No, I don't make anything up. Here's one link and you can look up more for
> yourself.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
>
> I think there might have been on or two more.
>

Like I said before, the mental gymnastics to manufacture this into a
conspiracy theory must really give you a headache. What's so hard to
understand? Several of the hijackers, who were filmed on video tape
going through security so their looks are known, were using stolen
identities. This is a big surprise?

> I wonder if the FBI used the same intelligence sources as Bush and his gang.
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times
>in
>>
>> You don't get it, do you? Afghanistan wasn't about oil, it was about
>terrorism
>> and state sponsorship of terrorism. There isn't any oil there.
>
>No, but there will soon be a huge amount of oil flowing through Afghanistan
>pipelines. A potentially HUGE amount.

From those reserves that are (according to your other post) about to run out.

> As the Taliban refused to allow the
>pipeline to be built on their soil, the construction of the pipeline would
>not be taking place without US military intervention and the installation of
>a puppet government. Karzai, by the way, used to work for Unocal, the main
>US company involved in the construction of the pipeline. Yet another small
>and insignificant coincidence? Not.

Maybe you've forgotten what happened to the United States on 9 Sept 2001. I
have not.
>
>> Your constant repetition of this obvious falsehood makes it hard to take
>> seriously anything else you say.
>
>And you repeatedly fail to understand the enormous strategic importance of a
>US controlled pipeline route from an area whose known oil reserves are
>greater than the all of the middle east OPEC nations combined. We're talking
>about trillions of dollars of oil reserves.

Make up your mind. "Known oil reserves greater than all of the middle east
... combined" or "less than 100 years left"? Which is it?

>
>You seem like an person with above average intelligence. I'm surprised that
>you actually think the invasion was only about a few terrorist training
>camps.

And I'm amazed that you have swallowed this conspiracy nonsense hook, line,
and sinker.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

john wrote:

>this is from my nephew in Air Force.
>john
>take out the TRASH to email me
>
>
>
>
>
>From Afghanistan, the story of the week:
>
>So we are up in the mountains at about 0100 hrs looking for a bad guy
>that we thought was in the area. Here are ten of us, pitch black,
>crystal clear night, about 25 degrees. We know there are bad guys in
>the area, a few shots have been fired but no big deal. We decide
>that we need air cover and the only thing in the area is a solo B-1
>bomber. He flies around at about 20,000 feet and tells us there is
>nothing in the area. He then asks if we would like a low level show
>of force. Stupid question. Of course we tell him yes. The
>controller who is attached to the team then is heard talking to the
>pilot. Pilot asks if we want it subsonic or supersonic. Very stupid
>question. Pilot advises he is twenty miles out and stand by. The
>controller gets us all sitting down in a line and points out the
>proper location. You have to picture this. Pitch black, ten killers
>sitting down, dead quiet and overlooking this 30 mile long valley.
>All of a sudden, way out (below our level) you see a set of four
>200' white flames coming at us. The controller says, "Ah-guys-you
>might want to plug your ears".
> Faster than you can think a B-1, supersonic, 1000' over our heads,
>blasts the sound barrier and it feels like God just hit you in the
>head with a hammer". He then stands it straight up with 4 white
>trails of flame coming out and disappears. Cost of gas for that:
>Probably $50,000
>
> Hearing damage: For certain
> Bunch of ragheads thinking twice about shooting at us: Priceless
>
>
The R.A.M. version ended with:
"Cost of gas for that: Probably $50,000
Cost to Hearing: $500 for hearing aids (eventually...)
A bunch of Taliban thinking twice about shooting at us: Priceless

"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> this is from my nephew in Air Force.
> john
> take out the TRASH to email me
>
>
>
>
>
> From Afghanistan, the story of the week:

<snip>

Awesome! Just to expand the OT, I'm posting one of my favorite pictures on
A.B.P.W. Don't even remember where I got it, it's just labeled "UN B1"

--
Nahmie
Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq. If you
> want to
> > > discuss countries that fund and support terrorism, you need to look at
> Saudi
> > > Arabia first and foremost.
> >
> > I have to chime in on this point. I agree with the writer's sentiment
> > overall - particularly that our current administration is
> > untrustworthy. And I agree that Saudi Arabia had a lot to do with
> > enabling the events of 9/11.
> >
> > But - I have to take issue with the statement that the Taleban had
> > nothing to do with 9/11. The Taleban hosted Bin Laden and his ilk, and
> > made it possible for them to conduct training of thousands of Al Qaeda
> > operatives on Afghani soil - including some of the 9/11 hijackers.
> > True, it was not the Taleban that executed the events of 9/11, but
> > there's no doubt at all that they helped make it possible.
>
> The US informed India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia of plans for a "limited
> military engagement" against Afghanistan in May/June 2001, well before the
> 9/11 events. I've read some reports of this myself in Indian media, as well
> as a few BBC articles and Janes. I believe Paul O'Neill also mentions in his
> book that planning for war started in the very early days of the Bush admin.
> The 9/11 events were not the reason for the invasion, as it was already
> being planned before the events even took place.
>
> We don't even know who was flying the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks,
> and we probably will never know. Quite a few of the "identified" pilots on
> the hijacked planes are alive and well.
>

Wow, mp, I am truly amazed. How do you manage to perform the mental
gymnastics necessary to believe such convoluted logic without having
your head explode?

Absolutely amazin'

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > >You're making the assumption that the Taliban in the end refused to hand
> > >over Bin Laden,
> >
.. snip
> > >The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
> > >an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then
> you
> > >probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed
> WMD's
> > >and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon
> be
> > >unleashed along the eastern seaboard.
> >
> > Hellooooooo! Earth calling mp! Iraq *admitted* having WMDs. Where have you
> > been??
>
> Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly of
> the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe France.
> But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
> destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
> concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
> WMD's, Iraq never had any.

... and why is that?

>
> When Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the
> gang were talking about Iraq possessing WMD's and the "iminent threat" from
> Iraq, they weren't referring to the mid 80's and early 90's. They were
> talking about the present.
>

Hellooo, Bush never said the threat was imminent, he said, "we must
act before it becomes imminent"

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <Fct%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...

(refering to the use of the derogatory term 'ragheads'.

> > >
> > > This must be part of the mis-guided battle to win the hearts and minds of
> > > the local population.
> > >
> >
> > I don't recall this being the reason that we are in Afghanistan. What local
> > population, mountain goats?
> >

Do you think mountain goats care what they are called?

>
> no, no All those friendly yokels who were shooting at those eeevil
> invaders.
>
> it seems mp is one of those who would have preferred the rolling over
> and soiling ourselves response to the attacks of 9/11 and the refusal of
> the Taliban to eliminate its support of the terrorists and their camps.

I dunno about mp but I don't think that calling people 'ragheads'
is going to make us safer. If you do, well then don't be surprised
if those 'ragheads' call you the 'great satan.'

You all are welcome to call me anything you want. What you all do,
is another matter and if you shoot at our troops in Afghanistan then
I hope that B-1 is nearby.

--

FF

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >You're making the assumption that the Taliban in the end refused to hand
> > >over Bin Laden,
> >
> > No "assumption" there -- it's a matter of historical *fact*. President
> Bush
> > demanded that they hand over the terrorists, and the Taliban explicitly
> and
> > publicly refused, referring to them as "guests in our country".
>
> Yes, they initially rejected US demands, but at the last minute they were
> willing to roll over.

The last I heard about this before we began bombing their AA sites
was that they would be willing to turn him over under a number of
conditons regarding how he might be charged and tried.

That's not rolling over and if you heard anything closer to rolling
over then pleas let me know where.

>
> > >The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just

There is no question that Al Qaeda was mostly run from Afghanistan.

> >
> > Hellooooooo! Earth calling mp! Iraq *admitted* having WMDs. Where have you
> > been??
>
> Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly of
> the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe France.
> But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
> destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
> concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
> WMD's, Iraq never had any.

Clearly the Bush Administration knew that too. Just consider how long
it was before any Americans were sent to any of the sites where Iraq
supposedly was building nuclear weapons and stockpiling materials.

>
> When Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the
> gang were talking about Iraq possessing WMD's and the "iminent threat" from
> Iraq, they weren't referring to the mid 80's and early 90's. They were
> talking about the present.

s/talking/lying/

>
> > >The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Iraq.

The Taliban put themselves between us and Al Qaeda.

> >
> > For once, you and I agree on something. For years, I've been telling
> anyone
> > who will listen that the Saudis are *not* our friends. Business
> associates,
> > yes. Friends and allies, not even close.
>

Some factions within the Saudi Royal family are pro-American. Others
are not and most of the population is not.

--

FF

"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Lemmee see here. (As a comment on the general thread and not Frank's post)
> The USA should NOT have intervened? Despite faulty intelligence ...

What makes you think the administations received faulty intelligence?


--

FF

"Tony" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> May have just flat out lied.

> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Lemmee see here. (As a comment on the general thread and not Frank's
> post)
> > > The USA should NOT have intervened? Despite faulty intelligence ...
> >
> > What makes you think the administations received faulty intelligence?
> >

May have? They've been caught flat out lying on some points. WHere
there is smoke, there is fire.

--

FF

Lemmee see here. (As a comment on the general thread and not Frank's post)
The USA should NOT have intervened? Despite faulty intelligence and
political mishandling of it, there was still just cause for alarm.

After 9/11, if someone on board a plane says they have a weapon in their
pocket and intend to take over the aircraft, I suspect the passengers or air
marshalls may take some action *whether or not a weapon is produced*. The
safest action is intervention.

On a global level, if a country was _known_ to have used WMDs, and had
previously been attacked for developing nuclear capabilities, were to
continue its belligerent posing and refuse inspectors access, then does it
really surprise anyone that action was taken? If Bush had NOT taken action,
and the USA was subsequently attacked again, then the Government would have
been ripped from office - physically. That action would have installed a
hawkish government that would destabilise more than America.

They may have got some specific facts wrong, but the general threat was
dealt with. As someone from another country looking in, it's a bit sad to
see people trying to re-write history now when they offered no alternatives
earlier that would have protected their citizens had WMDs been used.

Greg


"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message ...
>
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly
of
> > the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe
France.
> > But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
> > destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
> > concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
> > WMD's, Iraq never had any.
> >
> > When Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of
the
> > gang were talking about Iraq possessing WMD's and the "iminent threat"
> from
> > Iraq, they weren't referring to the mid 80's and early 90's. They were
> > talking about the present.
> >
> >
>
> I hate to split hairs here and actually cite facts, but ever since the
start
> of the sabre rattling towards Iraq, the administration referred to their
WMD
> programs. The programs that are (were until a couple months ago) in place
> to develop these weapons. Saddam talked about his programs and admitted
> they were real. The only question was how far along they have gotten.
> Let's not forget all of the defiance that Saddam is guilty of. He is
guilty
> of ignoring resolution after resolution from the UN. It is his own fault.
> There has never been a military operation in history that has given as
much
> advanced warning and opportunity for avoidance. I take it from your other
> posts you would prefer that we wait until they have nukes and then go in
and
> do something about it. The president was very clear on the fact the we
had
> to act before this threat turned into a smoking gun. The smoking gun
would
> be the result of a WMD being used. What is so hard to remember about
this?
> It just happened.
>
> Frank
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >It's not so much retaliation. That part is obvious. The excuses used to
>> >justify attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty lame and don't
>hold
>> >up under scrutiny. They're mostly strategic moves about oil and oil
>> >politics. Not only securing future supplies of oil, but controlling what
>> >other countries have access to that oil.
>> >
>> There isn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. We went there to eliminate
>the
>> terrorists that attacked us, and the regime that sheltered and sponsored
>them.
>
>That's what some people think. Other's may think that the Taliban's refusal
>to sign a pipeline agreement just a few months beforehand might have
>something to do with it too. The Caspian oil basin is probably the largest
>untapped oil reserve in the world, by some estimates much larger than the
>Persian Gulf reserves.

I wish you'd make up your mind. Are we on the verge of running out, or have
the Russians just discovered more oil than we can possibly imagine?

> In order to get that oil out of the region, an
>overland pipeline route to the Indian Ocean is needed. That's where the
>Afghanistan pipeline route comes in and its strategic importance and cannot
>be underestimated.

Absolutely nonsense, as even a brief glance at a map will show. By far the
shortest route from the Caspian basin to the ocean is directly south across
Iran to the Persian Gulf, some 400 miles. The next shortest route is west
through Iran, Iraq, and Syria to the Mediterranean, some 700 miles.

> Having free and unfettered access to this oil is of many
>many magnitudes greater in importance to the Bush admin than a few Islamic
>terrorists in the mountains.

What planet are you from?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > In order to get that oil out of the region, an
>> >overland pipeline route to the Indian Ocean is needed. That's where the
>> >Afghanistan pipeline route comes in and its strategic importance and
>cannot
>> >be underestimated.
>>
>> Absolutely nonsense, as even a brief glance at a map will show. By far the
>> shortest route from the Caspian basin to the ocean is directly south
>across
>> Iran to the Persian Gulf, some 400 miles. The next shortest route is west
>> through Iran, Iraq, and Syria to the Mediterranean, some 700 miles.
>
>It doesn't matter what you think. Your brief glance at a map won't change
>the route either, which has been in the planning stages for many years.

You claim that an overland route through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean is
"needed". Your word. Not mine. Yet the facts are plain: routes to the Persian
Gulf and to the Mediterranean are shorter and cross less rugged terrain. An
overland route through Afghanistan is therefore not needed. And your claim is
clearly false.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I believe Paul O'Neill also mentions in his
> book that planning for war started in the very early days of the Bush
admin.
> The 9/11 events were not the reason for the invasion, as it was already
> being planned before the events even took place.
>

9/11 happened early in the administration. Don't you recall the panic about
how a brand new president would handle the tragedy? What you should realize
also is that there are individual plans in place to attack every country on
the planet whether or not we intend to. That includes whatever haven of
misinformation you live in. It is called intelligence and it is why we are
rarely at a loss for a plan when we have to do something in a hurry.

Frank

> ... I believe Paul O'Neill also mentions in his
> book that planning for war started in the very early days of the Bush
admin.
> The 9/11 events were not the reason for the invasion, as it was already
> being planned before the events even took place.
>

Regime change has been the official policy of the US since the bill was
enacted into law
on October 31, 1998 by Bill Clinton. I would, then not be surprised that
some contingency
planning was taking place by the new administration during the first part of
George Bush's
term, which began in January of 2001. Remember that the cowardly, terrorist
attacks occurred
less than 9 months after President Bush took office.

Again, in the 1990's, ex-president Clinton, along with John Kerry, and most
of the world believed
that Iraq had WMD's. You cannot just ignore/rewrite history because you
have a disdain for the
current president.
back then as well.


> We don't even know who was flying the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks,
> and we probably will never know. Quite a few of the "identified" pilots on
> the hijacked planes are alive and well.
>
>

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international
> relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of
> Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided
> information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they
> might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to
> get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves
are
> in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and
> Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a
> 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan
> coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1
> million barrels of oil per day.
> Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there
is
> a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."
>

Ok, so I guess then that the Bush administration was stuck without a viable
way to build a pipeline. They had the invasion of Afghanistan preplanned
and by an amazing stroke of luck, 9/11 happened. Bush must have done
cartwheels when he figured out how he had fell ass-backward into this
situation. Better yet, you are one small step away from the viewpoint that
the administration planned 9/11 themselves just to build the pipeline and
benefit all of their oil buddies.

Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?

Frank

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The US informed India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia of plans for a "limited
>military engagement" against Afghanistan in May/June 2001, well before the
>9/11 events. I've read some reports of this myself in Indian media, as well
>as a few BBC articles and Janes. I believe Paul O'Neill also mentions in his
>book that planning for war started in the very early days of the Bush admin.
>The 9/11 events were not the reason for the invasion, as it was already
>being planned before the events even took place.
>
>We don't even know who was flying the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks,
>and we probably will never know. Quite a few of the "identified" pilots on
>the hijacked planes are alive and well.
>

Do you get your news from the National Inquirer? Or do you just make it up
as you go? This is just absurd.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Have a look at Owen Lowe's post. There's NO OIL PIPELINE, idiot.
>
>No need for personal attacks. An oil pipeline is in also the works with an
>initial capacity of a million barrels a day. Would you prefer I use the term
>petroleum-product pipeline? Or should I call it an energy pipeline?
>
No, there is not an oil pipeline "in the works". You cited *one* case, from
_six_years_ ago, of an oil company exec speculating on the desirability of
building one. That's not "in the works".

Repeat: there is no oil in Afghanistan to speak of. To claim that the US
invaded Afghanistan "for the oil" is utterly absurd. To actually *believe*
that, as you appear to, is to live in a world divorced from reality.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <qwL%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> What oil fields would you be referring to? Certainly not any in the Middle
> East. Did you happen to look at a map before posting this? Afghanistan is
> totally landlocked, and at no point is it closer to the sea than about two
> hundred fifty miles.

OK, I conceed I misspoke about an "oil" pipeline, how about a natural
gas one instead?

From part of an October '02, US DOE website
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/afghan.html>:

> Afghanistan as an Energy Transit Route
> Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian
> Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a
> potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will
> likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. Unocal
> had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turmenistan to Pakistan in
> the mid-1990s, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against
> Afghanistan in August 1998. The new Afghan government under President Karzai
> has tried to revive the pipeline plan, and talks have been held between the
> governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan in 2002 on the issue,
> but a signing ceremony for a framework agreement between the governments has
> been delayed until at least December 2002.

The BBC also ran a story in Dec. '02 about the agreement signing
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm>:

> With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban about a year
> ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with
> plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline.
>
> Pakistan will be the terminus for the pipeline
>
> The leaders of the three countries have now signed a framework agreement
> defining the legal aspects of setting up a consortium to build and operate
> the pipeline.
>
> The trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas via Afghanistan to
> Pakistani ports, from where it could reach world markets.
>
> India is the largest potential buyer and the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai,
> said Delhi was welcome to join the project.
>
> Turkmenistan has some of the world's greatest reserves of natural gas, but
> still relies on tightly controlled Russian pipelines to export it.
>
> Ashgabat has long been desperate to find an alternative export route.
>

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <r1K%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> There isn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. We went there to eliminate
> the
> terrorists that attacked us, and the regime that sheltered and sponsored
> them.

Axshuallly, I believe there's a huge oil pipeline that is desired to
cross Afghanistan from north to south - i.e. the shortest distance from
the oil fields to the sea is across Afghanistan.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <qwL%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> What oil fields would you be referring to? Certainly not any in the Middle
>> East. Did you happen to look at a map before posting this? Afghanistan is
>> totally landlocked, and at no point is it closer to the sea than about two
>> hundred fifty miles.
>
>OK, I conceed I misspoke about an "oil" pipeline, how about a natural
>gas one instead?
>
>From part of an October '02, US DOE website
><http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/afghan.html>:
>
>> Afghanistan as an Energy Transit Route
[snip]
Hey, mp, ya listening to that? No oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

Bush and Co. stated specifically where the WMDs were located and
quantities thereof.

Now, perhaps our vaunted technology and intelligence assets are so bad
that we didn't track them after finding them, when they were
(theoretically) moved from those locations, or....

Renata

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:11:03 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>Assumptions again. "We haven't found them yet" is not the same as "they never
>had them."
--snip--

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <r1K%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> There isn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. We went there to eliminate
>> the
>> terrorists that attacked us, and the regime that sheltered and sponsored
>> them.
>
>Axshuallly, I believe there's a huge oil pipeline that is desired to
>cross Afghanistan from north to south - i.e. the shortest distance from
>the oil fields to the sea is across Afghanistan.
>
What oil fields would you be referring to? Certainly not any in the Middle
East. Did you happen to look at a map before posting this? Afghanistan is
totally landlocked, and at no point is it closer to the sea than about two
hundred fifty miles.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Something like that. The US is too dependant on Saudi oil,

No argument so far...

> and the Bush
>family has close financial ties with the Bin Ladens.

.. but this is completely disconnected from reality.

>For the time being, the
>Saudis can, and are, doing pretty much what they want to do.
>

They *are* a sovereign nation, you know. That's what sovereign nations do.

>It's not so much retaliation. That part is obvious. The excuses used to
>justify attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty lame and don't hold
>up under scrutiny. They're mostly strategic moves about oil and oil
>politics. Not only securing future supplies of oil, but controlling what
>other countries have access to that oil.
>
There isn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. We went there to eliminate the
terrorists that attacked us, and the regime that sheltered and sponsored them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >You're making the assumption that the Taliban in the end refused to hand
>> >over Bin Laden,
>>
>> No "assumption" there -- it's a matter of historical *fact*. President
>Bush
>> demanded that they hand over the terrorists, and the Taliban explicitly
>and
>> publicly refused, referring to them as "guests in our country".
>
>Yes, they initially rejected US demands, but at the last minute they were
>willing to roll over.

False. They never agreed to the US demands to turn over bin Laden and the rest
of the al Qaida terrorists. Never.
>
>> >The bit about the Taliban supporting terrorists was just
>> >an excuse used to justify military aggression. If you believed that then
>you
>> >probably also believed the administration's lies that Iraq possessed
>WMD's
>> >and a million pounds of chemical and biological agents which would soon
>be
>> >unleashed along the eastern seaboard.
>>
>> Hellooooooo! Earth calling mp! Iraq *admitted* having WMDs. Where have you
>> been??
>
>Yes, Iraq did have some biological and chemical agents, courtesy mostly of
>the Reagan administration, and also the Brits, Germans, and maybe France.
>But that was a long time ago, and most of the remaining stocks were
>destroyed shortly after the first Gulf war. As far as nuclear weapons as
>concerned, which are the only ones that really fall into the category of
>WMD's, Iraq never had any.

Assumptions again. "We haven't found them yet" is not the same as "they never
had them."
>
>When Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the
>gang were talking about Iraq possessing WMD's and the "iminent threat" from
>Iraq, they weren't referring to the mid 80's and early 90's. They were
>talking about the present.

See above.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will soon follow.

Your really a towel head aren't you?

--
"Cartoons don't have any deep meaning.
They're just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh."
Homer Simpson
Jerry© The Phoneman®
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > As to reducing oil consuption, you talk about improving fuel efficiency
> and
> > developing alternative fuel sources. First of all, over the years
> > manufacturers have offered many vehicles that get terrific gas mileage.
> The
> > problem is that nobody wants them.
>
> I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm
> referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each
> vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon, this
> would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil
imports.
> It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit. The
economic
> and political incentive for this to happen simply isn't there at this
point
> in time, though that may change when oil prices rise in the future.
>
> > As to alternative fuels, it seems the most popular alternative is
electric
> > power.
>
> That's one of them. Hydrogen fueled vehicles are another possibility, with
> the hitch that although the vehicles are zero-emission (and a great
benefit
> on it's own), the energy required to produce hydrogen is near that of
> running a gasoline engine. A recent development may dramatically reduce
the
> energy required to generate hydrogen, which will make hydrogen fuel cells
> much more attractive as an alternative to gasoline.
>
>
> > What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100%
> > electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power
plants.
> > How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels.
>
> Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric
> generation.
>
> > I am only guessing here,
> > but my experience tells me you would be against building any new nuclear
> > plants.
>
> No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it
does
> help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future
> trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending
diverted
> to fund fusion research.
>
>
>

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That's very comforting. Thanks for sharing that.
>

Well it is admittedly a supposition on my part, but I can't see it any other
way. Most modern militaries have plans for attacking and defending against
each other before they ever have a need to do so. Why does this surprise
you?

Frank