Author Topic: speaking of stating the obvious.  (Read 30287 times)

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #100 on: August 04, 2004, 03:27:43 PM »
What are we defending again in this war?


Oil - production:   
8.054 million bbl/day (2001 est.) 

Oil - consumption:   
19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.) 

Oil - exports:   
NA 

Oil - imports:   
NA   [posters note: uh.. what?]

Oil - proved reserves:   
22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002) 
The dates are important.  ;)  Our "oil imports", I can only imagine, are zero because of Iraq.  In case you missed it, we do (did) consume much more than we produce(d), so we must get it from somewhere.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #101 on: August 04, 2004, 04:35:54 PM »
Since it is only from a source like the CIA, figures can be inaccurate to downright wrong!
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline nurgles_herald

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Male
  • Valar dohaeris
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #102 on: August 04, 2004, 08:58:21 PM »
@Jester: Opus Dei? How about the Catholic Church? New study from the Church, modern feminism is responsible for the decline of family. No Catholics in Europe? ;)

Let me respond to this in two ways.  BTW, this post is going to end up being a couple of pages long (most probably), so if you think all my words are foppish, I suggest you hit page down a couple of times.

Firstly, the Catholic Church is the biggest, most hypocritical establishment ever.  I do believe it says somewhere in the bible that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven".  That's great!  Christianity is ripping into the capitalist blood-sucking pigs that are destroying this world and its inhabitants to line their (the capitalist blood-suckers') own pockets!  Huzzah!  However, the Catholic church turns this all into a laughing stock.

The Catholic Church, as we should all know, is rich beyond belief.  They brainwash their members into believing the only way to achieve salvation is to fork over all their money.  The rulers of the church (big, capitalist blood-sucking pigs) extort their n00bish followers for money at every turns with thinly-veiled threats and longsince broken promises.  However, that's (in my opinion) one of their lesser sins.

The Catholic Church should be charged for warcrimes.  By robbing their members of their minds, they also rob them of their morality, their compassion and their humanity.  [Did Jesus not call upon humanity to love and care for one another?  How can this be accomplished if all of humanity possesses no way to think or feel for itself?]  As was alluded to in a previous post, war brings in money and land, above all things.  The Church, being ruled by the most greedy of blood-suckers, felt no true problem with condoning the slaughter of "infidels".  Thus, the Chuch launched the once crusade that would define European (and thus American) history forever, in my mind.

I am not speaking of one of the traditional four crusades.  This was one that has been largely swept under the carpet by years long since gone and by the victors (particularly the victors).  Since the age of the Romans (after their adoption of Christianity) up until today a war has been waging across Europe, one that has resulted in the massacre and exploitation of an entire peoples.  It is important to point out that this war had commenced many years before, when the Romans gained enough power to expand beyond Italy.

The war I speak of, my contemporaries, is that war that was commenced to "rid" Europe of the Pagans.  Over a millenia they were hunted and killed.  Villages were sacked, children maimed, wives raped and lands exploited.  I must admit I am unsure of the numbers of Pagans killed, but I believe I saw a number with six digits somewhere.  Regardless, the effect remains- the Catholic Church committed genocide on the Pagans.  And for what?  What did they gain?  Quite a lot, actually.

By sponsoring Christian Kingdoms, the Church advanced itself not only politically, economically and socially, but it also expanded its borders geographically.  Most importantly, though, it brought in a new wave of convertees, ready to multiply and be controlled and manipulated by the Church.

However, the Church was not done.  Though it had already thrown the principles it once stood for out the door, that was not enough.  Though it had slaughtered a people mercilessly for merely refusing to convert, that was not enough.  In some bizarre mockery, the Catholic Church adopted nearly every ritual of the peoples they had slaughtered.  It was, in reality, a massacre of peoples simply so that the victors could gain a defined culture.  But rituals were not all.  The gods of the dead were adopted as Saints, and the festivals as holidays.  It has been proposed that Christmas was not the true birthday of Jesus, as December 25th was a pagan festival before the Catholics robbed them of it.  Halloween is the same story.  But why stop there?

The Catholics later stole the imagery of the pagans, incorporating several gods and godesses as being (instead of saints) demons or, in some cases, the devil himself.  From murals to stained glass, pagan deities appeared in butchered forms as the embodiments of sins.

But enough about the Catholics slaughtering the Pagans.  The Catholics have since finished that war, feeling that they have won.  The Church is waging a war with their own brothers, a war for not only power but of slights long since forgotten.

This genocide has followed the slaughter of the pagans.  If one could assign a date to the genocides, they would probably work out a little like this---

1st genocide: ~200 A.D. to ~1200 A.D.
2nd genocide: ~600 A.D. to present day

If you aren't following me (I admit I could be more precise, and concise for that matter), I am talking about the war against Judaism.  For the past 1400 years, at the least, the Church has condemned jews as heathens, unfit to live.  The Holocaust was only one example of a Christian acting on this long standing war.  Through the darkages to the Renaissance jews were exploited, murdered, robbed, "exported"... the list of warcrimes goes on and on.  And these were the people who fathered Christianity.  This was the religion from which all of Christianity was born.  Some thanks the Church gives.

Point-  The Catholic Church is another example of fundementalism and facism teaming up to take humanity down (heh; couldn't help making fun of that add.  It's just so naive).  Not to say I have anything against catholics- I'm sure their all decent people, deep down inside.  However, the institution that exploits them is evil.  As a peer of mine said (and was promptly expelled for doing so), "Catholicism is the enemy".

To wrap all that up, I must quote George RR Martin.  But if only this were true.....

"Starving men take a hard view of priests too fat to walk." (I think Tyrion said that, that brilliant little dwarf him)
-------

Oh poo, I said I'd have two ways to respond to that post.  Oh well, here goes the second (I've been writing this for 30+ minutes!).

There's two faces to feminism.  One face is that of equality.  That's what I preffer to call the "good" face.  That part of the feminist movement has held true to the true message of feminism and is still fighting for equal rights in this patriarichal, opressive world.  However, there are two faces to feminism.

The other face is that side that insists that all sex is rape.  The other face is that side that insists that a non-working mother is a bad mother.  That face, which I can easily call "bad", does destroy the family.  I'm not talking about the heterosexual, two-child, middle-class family.  I'm talking about a loving family.  If a mother feels weighed down by her children, why have them at all?  So she can simply neglect them? (no, this Neofeminism isn't about "simply neglecting" children; rather, it is about using children as the symbol of opression, thus buying into the "Abandoned Generation" psychosis).  I have a serious problem with this side of feminism, as I feel that a mother has a right to choose.  Mother A might want to work and be a loving mother.  Mother B might want to just be a loving mother.  By forcing Mother B to work, this Neofeminism is no better than the patriarichal society it fights against, for it removes freedom (only in the opposite direction).
-----------




My conclusion:  Order bad, self-government good.  Fundementalism bad, spirituality good.  Capitalism bad, humanity good.
"It makes far better sense to reshape ourselves to fit a finite planet than to attempt to reshape the planet to fit our infinite wants."

"Communism failed as an ascetic morality. Capitalism failed because it destroys morality altogether."
--David Orr

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #103 on: August 05, 2004, 03:31:49 AM »
The other face is that side that insists that all sex is rape.  The other face is that side that insists that a non-working mother is a bad mother.  That face, which I can easily call "bad", does destroy the family.  I'm not talking about the heterosexual, two-child, middle-class family.  I'm talking about a loving family.  If a mother feels weighed down by her children, why have them at all?  So she can simply neglect them? (no, this Neofeminism isn't about "simply neglecting" children; rather, it is about using children as the symbol of opression, thus buying into the "Abandoned Generation" psychosis).  I have a serious problem with this side of feminism, as I feel that a mother has a right to choose.  Mother A might want to work and be a loving mother.  Mother B might want to just be a loving mother.  By forcing Mother B to work, this Neofeminism is no better than the patriarichal society it fights against, for it removes freedom (only in the opposite direction).
I hesitate to ask, as I'm not sure I want to hear the answer.. but, like an auto accident, I just can't help it: Where, exactly, is this "other face" depicted?
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Kish

  • HEROISM OK
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • Oversight mod.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #104 on: August 05, 2004, 04:03:12 AM »
Andrea Dworkin.
Beauty standing amidst fiery destruction.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #105 on: August 05, 2004, 04:14:23 AM »
Ah.  Never heard of her.  Reminds me of co-intel-pro, though.

edit: unless Nurgles has a skewed view of it.  :-*

the last edit:  Nevermind.  she's a Neo-feminist.  (shudders)  Sort'a counter-intuitive, if you ask me.  :(
« Last Edit: August 05, 2004, 04:22:12 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline seanas

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 131
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #106 on: August 05, 2004, 05:58:32 AM »
nah, i can't let that stand.

The other face is that side that insists that all sex is rape.  The other face is that side that insists that a non-working mother is a bad mother.  That face, which I can easily call "bad", does destroy the family.  I'm not talking about the heterosexual, two-child, middle-class family.  I'm talking about a loving family.

Andrew Dworkin is not Shulamith Firestone, and Shulamith Firestone is not Andrea Dworkin. Dworkin might be totally focussed - manacally focussed, perhaps - on relations of power, and the way women as women are subject to them. However, the 'women are only free if they work' strand of second-wave feminism (neo-feminism? please - there's nothing 'neo' about it. crypto-feminism, maybe, but it predates its critiques, so it can't be 'neo') is more closely related to Shulamith Firestone (an early socialist-feminist who still believed science could solve all problems - in this case, the problem of having to give birth), early Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem (who just wanted the right to make as much money as her brothers). the strand of radical/revolutionary feminism that Dworkin is a part of began its life *precisely* as a critique of this (essentially bourgeois) feminism and its claim that 'women just want to have a job and be like men'. (ok, i'm doing Steinem et al a disservice here, but it's not an essay, is it?  :D)

I can actually claim personal knowledge of many of these radical/revolutionary feminists (Sheila Jeffreys was a thesis supervisor of mine some years ago) and can state that i was struck by how many of them (compared to other ppl i knew) had happy, stable families (in all different flavours: some straight, some gay, some celibate, some not, so with kids, some without, some with dogs, some with cats. err, that last is a joke... sort of  :-\). So, in both their theory and their practice, i can't say there's any evidence of radical/revolutionary feminists such as Dworkin being anti-family. anti-patriarchal family yes, but then they're anti-patriarchal everything, not limited to family life!

ok, on to the more tricky question, that all sex is rape. Dworkin's main research interest (or obsession, depending upon how you feel about her work) is, as i've said, relations of power and how women qua women (that is, women as a class) experience them. because women (and those in the position of women: gay men, children, animals) in a patriarchal society are by definition subordinate, this experience is necessarily one of subjection...

The problem with Dworkin's work is not that she's wrong or somehow in error - her work has a stringent internal logic that the woolly rubbish put out by both her feminist and anti-feminist detractors can only aspire to - it's that, like most people focussed on one particular issue, everything gets reduced to it (like the character in Aronofsky' Pi, who starts to see iterations of pi appearing everywhere). This reductiveness means that the starting conditions of problems she is analysing are usually more complex than she entertains. This complexity *doesnt* invalidate her conclusions however (the internal consistency of her arguments *is* strict), but it does contextualise them - ie, she might be right about x, but y and z also apply, and so moderate her conclusions.

Her aguments about sex, rape, consent and power are pretty unimpeachable (i research data protection issues these days, but still use Dworkin's arguments on consent as a model of what informed consent should look like) - it's just that they're not the whole of the story. But hey - with the honorary exception of that dead german bloke who used to write in the british library - who *does* have the whole story?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2004, 06:03:51 AM by seanas »
"those who like TDD are already busy giving install advice to newbies" - the bigg

Guest

  • Guest
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #107 on: August 05, 2004, 07:14:35 AM »
The dates are important.  ;)  Our "oil imports", I can only imagine, are zero because of Iraq.  In case you missed it, we do (did) consume much more than we produce(d), so we must get it from somewhere.

We get 60% of our oil domestically.  The other 40% comes from OPEC, with the vast majority of that 40% coming from Venezuela.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #108 on: August 05, 2004, 07:25:11 AM »
I don't suppose you have a source for that, Guest? 

Because that's not what I'm finding.. although we did get only 8% of our oil from Iraq before the War.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2004, 07:42:41 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline nurgles_herald

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Male
  • Valar dohaeris
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #109 on: August 05, 2004, 08:36:24 AM »
Um, I didn't say Andrea Dworkin.  That was Kish.  I was talking about a teacher in my highschool, but whatever.   :P

BTW, I wrote that post when I had a 102.1 fever, so if you think my logic is a bit loopy, it was.  If there's anything that you disagree with, know that I was makign a bad decision by writing when I had the flu.  Having the flu in the middle of summer vacation stinks. However, I can't just hide from attacks on my (extremely) agressive post, so I guess I'll just respond with this.

Ug.

And yes, I still have the flu.   :P
"It makes far better sense to reshape ourselves to fit a finite planet than to attempt to reshape the planet to fit our infinite wants."

"Communism failed as an ascetic morality. Capitalism failed because it destroys morality altogether."
--David Orr

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #110 on: August 05, 2004, 08:46:10 AM »
(102?!  Yes, your brain is cooking - what are you doing here?  Go to bed!  :D)

Well, maybe your high school teacher was expounding on Andrea since the term I used to describe her is out-dated, so might her message be that old.  I realize Kish said it, I however still think that "face" of feminism is... counter-intuitive.  ;)
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #111 on: August 05, 2004, 11:21:08 AM »
'My concern is not whether God is on our side. My great concern is to be on God's side.' The last good use of religion in Amerivan politics AFAIR.

About the reason for picking a face for something I am not entirely sure. It might be easier to concentrate on selected aspects that tie to certain prominent figures instead of the ideas alone. I must admit I do not know anything of the two people mentioned though. I do kno the German bloek however, if that helps. :D
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Guest

  • Guest
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #112 on: August 05, 2004, 04:30:09 PM »
I don't suppose you have a source for that, Guest?

Appologies, but without going back to get the specifics...

I had pervious found it was 58%/42%, but recently BP (the oil company) has been saying that its 60%/40%.  Also, last's years big jumps in gas prices were caused by all the refinery problems Venezula was having.

Quote
Because that's not what I'm finding.. although we did get only 8% of our oil from Iraq before the War.

France and Russian got most of Iraq's oil (as part of the Oil-for-food program) before the war.

BTW, in case you're wondering, I do think whole the gas thing / oil business is a racket.  Sure stations may only make pennies (9 to 10 of them to be exact), but it used to be that oil companies wouldn't even supply a station if it couldn't pump 40K gallons.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #113 on: August 06, 2004, 09:19:21 AM »
Quote
Countries from which the US imports the most petroleum products (millions of barrels/day)
1. Canada      1.8
2. Saudi Arabia 1.6
3. Venezuela  1.5
4. Mexico      1.4
5. Nigeria      .9
6. Iraq          .8
7. Norway     .3
8. Angola      .3
9. UK           .3
10. Colombia .3

Top (net) petroleum importers
1. United States
2. Japan
3. Germany
4. South Korea
5. France

Top petroleum producers (millions of barrels/day)
1. Saudi Arabia   9
2. United States 8
3. Russia   7
4. Iran   4
5. Mexico  3
6. Norway 3
7. China    3
8. Venezuela 3
9. Canada 3
10. Iraq    3

Persian Gulf states: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE
• Percentage of US oil imports imported from Gulf states: 25%
• Same figure for Western Europe: 35%
• Same figure for Japan: 76%
• Percentage of world crude oil produced by Persian Gulf states: 28%
• Percentage of world crude oil reserves located in Gulf states: around 66%
• 80% of Gulf oil (40% of world oil) is transported by tanker from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz (34 miles wide)
• Iraq’s oil is mostly sent by pipeline to Saudi Arabia and Turkey
• Percentage of US oil consumed for transportation purposes: 70%

Source: Department of Energy, 2001
I started to do a comparisson table and realized I had mismatched data, so I opted for this (below).  It's not as thorough (the other cites countries within the divisions) but it shows a broader timeline.
Quote
Crude Oil Imports, 1973 - Present
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total/a/b        Total
Year/Month  Arab OPEC  Other OPEC/a  OPEC   Non-OPEC/a   Imports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1973 Avg        838         1,257         2,095        1,149        3,244
1974 Avg        713         1,827         2,540          931         3,477
1975 Avg      1,330         1,882         3,211          893        4,105
1976 Avg      2,378         2,167         4,545         742         5,287
1977 Avg      3,136         2,507         5,643         971         6,615
1978 Avg      2,930         2,254         5,184       1,172         6,356
1979 Avg      3,002         2,110         5,112       1,407         6,519
1980 Avg      2,503         1,361         3,864       1,399         5,263
1981 Avg      1,774         1,149         2,922       1,474         4,396
1982 Avg        736           998         1,734        1,754         3,488
1983 Avg        533           944         1,477        1,853         3,329
1984 Avg        634           878         1,512        1,914         3,426
1985 Avg        300         1,012         1,312        1,888         3,201
1986 Avg        854         1,259         2,113        2,065         4,178
1987 Avg        965         1,435         2,400        2,274         4,674
1988 Avg      1,415         1,281         2,696        2,411         5,107
1989 Avg      1,794         1,582         3,376        2,467         5,843     
1990 Avg      1,864         1,650         3,514        2,381        5,894             
1991 Avg      1,754         1,622         3,377        2,405        5,782         
1992 Avg      1,660         1,746         3,406        2,676         6,083           
1993 Avg      1,661         2,026         3,687        3,100         6,787           
1994 Avg      1,636         1,944         3,580        3,483         7,063           
1995 Avg      1,505         1,835         3,341        3,889         7,230           
1996 Avg      1,496         1,942         3,438        4,070         7,508           
1997 Avg      1,641         2,134         3,775        4,450         8,225             
1998 Avg      2,053         2,116         4,169        4,537         8,706           
1999 Avg      2,385         1,843         4,228        4,502         8,731           
2000 Avg      2,410         2,134         4,544        4,526         9,071         
2001 Avg      2,675         2,173         4,848        4,480         9,328           
2002 Jan       2,625         1,839         4,465        4,244         8,709
        Feb       2,434         1,732         4,165        4,588         8,753
        Mar        2,592         1,802         4,394        4,405         8,799
        Apr        2,452         1,657         4,108        5,193         9,301
        May       2,217         1,769         3,987        5,337         9,323
        Jun       2,046         1,717         3,763        5,561         9,324
        July       1,928         1,940         3,868        5,316         9,184
        Aug      1,826         2,341         4,167        5,378         9,544
        Sep      2,032         1,839         3,871        4,926         8,797
        Oct      2,135         2,085         4,221        5,311         9,532
        Nov      2,179         2,028         4,206        5,448         9,654
        Dec      2,455         1,318         3,774        4,968         8,741
  Average      2,243         1,840         4,083        5,058         9,140           
2003 Jan       2,644         1,228         3,873        4,760         8,633
        Feb      2,593         1,079         3,672        4,802         8,474
        Mar      2,780         2,104         4,883        4,342         9,226
        Apr      3,151         2,127         5,279        4,649         9,928
        May      2,653         2,407         5,060        5,093        10,153
        Jun      2,494         2,228         4,722        5,316        10,038
        Jul       2,159         1,954         4,112        5,922        10,034
        Aug     1,975         2,373         4,347        5,676        10,023
        Sep     2,578         2,220         4,798        5,489        10,287
        Oct      2,376         2,377         4,754        5,309        10,063
        Nov      2,715         2,018         4,733        4,618         9,351
        Dec      2,357         2,293         4,650        5,034         9,684
  Average      2,537         2,041         4,578        5,087         9,665
2004 Jan      2,371         2,236         4,607        4,715         9,322
        Feb      2,113         2,382         4,494        4,764         9,258
        Mar      2,565         2,611         5,177        4,897        10,073
        Apr      2,532         2,490         5,022        5,040        10,062
        May     2,673         2,537         5,210        5,115        10,324
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)  On December 31, 1992, Ecuador withdrew as a member of OPEC. As of
     January 1, 1994, imports of petroleum from Ecuador appear under imports
     from Non-OPEC sources.  On December 31, 1994, Gabon withdrew as a member
     of OPEC.  As of January 1, 1995 imports of petroleum from Gabon appear
     under imports from Non-OPEC sources.

(b)  Excludes petroleum imported into the United States indirectly from members
     of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), primarily
     from Caribbean and West European ares, as petroleum products that were
     refined from crude oil produced by OPEC.

Notes: Beginning in October 1977, Strategic Petroleum Reserve imports are
         included.  Geographic coverage is the 50 States and the District of
         Columbia.  Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent
         rounding.

Source:  Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Monthly, Table S3.
(via http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/importexport.html)

US Oil Imports Hit Record 63% in 2003
Crude imports also set a new high in 2003 in number of barrels at 9.6 million barrels per day
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States imported a record 63 percent of its oil from foreign sources in 2003, government figures showed Wednesday, and oil analysts said that dependence is likely to rise in the new year.

Crude imports accounted for 62.9 percent of oil run through U.S. refineries, up from the previous record of 61.7 percent in 2001 and from last year's 61.2 percent, the Department of Energy said.

Twenty years ago, foreign crude accounted for only 28 percent of oil used by the United States, the world's biggest consumer -- then and now.

Crude imports also set a new high in 2003 in number of barrels at 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd). The amount of crude refined in the United States was also a record at 15.3 million barrels daily, the EIA said.
...
If there were aggressive efforts to increase domestic crude production, if demand stays high, there is little chance of lessening dependence on foreign crude, Beranek said.

He said drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not a viable near-term solution to this dependence.

"ANWR is going nowhere anyway," Beranek said, referring to the U.S. Senate quagmire on allowing drilling in ANWR. "Even if it were opened for drilling tomorrow, it wouldn't be producing oil for five years."

The United States just after World War II controlled about 60 percent of the world's proved oil reserves. In terms of production, the United States is still the third-largest in the world behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia, according to the BP annual review of petroleum statistics.

But U.S. demand for oil is about a fourth of the world's total daily production of about 78 million bpd.

The volume of crude imports rose 500,000 bpd in 2003, the EIA said, even as the price of benchmark crude in the United States averaged $31, up 19 percent from a year ago. This is the highest average annual U.S. price for crude since 1982, according to data complied by BP in its annual statistical review.

Instability in Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria helped boost prices, energy experts said.

"Ultimately, more imports will be needed in 2004 to bring inventories back to levels high enough to relieve some of the price pressures experienced in 2003," the U.S. Department of Energy said in a report.

The biggest importer of crude to the United States, according to the most recent Energy Department data, was Saudi Arabia at an average of 1.76 million bpd.

The next three leading importers were from the Western Hemisphere -- Mexico at 1.57 million bpd, Canada at 1.53 million bpd, and Venezuela at 1.16 million bpd.

The same four nations led in importing crude to the United States in 2002, in order, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.

Source: http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=4766 [Jan 07, 2004]
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #114 on: August 06, 2004, 12:24:55 PM »
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we, they never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Washington, D.C. 08.05.2004
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #115 on: August 06, 2004, 01:19:57 PM »
So far 'we' seem to be several steps ahead of those enemies. :P
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #116 on: August 06, 2004, 02:12:23 PM »
Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?
A: 700%  - this is an estimate..

"The Pentagon and United Nations estimate that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks in Iraq in March and April -- far more than the estimated 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War.

"We continue to get these sporadic reports of various places where a lot of people are getting sick, and nobody is willing to connect the dots yet," he said. "I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of people get sick before they finally admit that depleted uranium really causes a problem for us (U.S. veterans and their families) as well as for the Iraqis."

After NATO's use of DU weapons in Kosovo in 1999, the Council of Europe parliamentarians called for a worldwide ban on the manufacture, testing, use and sale of weapons using depleted uranium, asserting that NATO's use of DU weapons would have "long term effects on health and quality of life in South-East Europe, affecting future generations." The call went unheeded.

The Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, saying there have been no known health problems associated with the munition. At the same time, the military acknowledges the hazards in an Army training manual, which requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and says that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

The U.S. and British use of DU during the latest conflict, also alarms doctors in Iraq. Cancer had already increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The rate of birth defects also had risen sharply, according to doctors in Iraq.

She said that because the incubation period for cancer is about five years, the effects of the latest war should start showing up in 2008. "I think the number of cancer cases will be as much as 10 times or more higher,"

(exerpted from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0804-04.htm)

Stupid is as stupid does.

Guest

  • Guest
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #117 on: August 06, 2004, 02:36:36 PM »
Ah ha.

After re-looking its:
our gasoline producton > gasoline imports &
our [crude] oil production < [crude] oil imports

sorry for any confusion ;)

p.s. Have you seen the new 'Swift Boat Verterans' anti-Kerry ad?  Personally, I think its rather distasteful.  Of course, both sides should lay off the others military service.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #118 on: August 06, 2004, 04:06:42 PM »
Here is a WHO link to DU weapons that is interesting. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

 I hope it works. :)

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #119 on: August 06, 2004, 04:11:31 PM »
I think the fact that good citizens now feel the urge to speak the truth after all these years is telling enough. The guys who brought you the Gulf of Tongkin now bring you the truth about everything you always wanted to ask but could not because of national security concerns. :D WND reports that not only weren't there any atrocities commited by American soldiers, but they lost a lot of brothers-in-arms due to their docile nature and peaceful behaviour.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2004/update072804.html
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #120 on: August 06, 2004, 09:52:08 PM »
Jester - reminds me of the saying that goes something like the winner [of any war] gets to write history.  The real tragedy occurs, imo, when it finds the larger audience, unchallenged.  ::)

Regullus: It works.  Interesting, indeed.  Still, it makes me think of the beginning of the AIDS crisis, and CDC's reaction to it, for some reason.  ;)

Got anything on Gulf War Syndrome?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2004, 10:02:37 PM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #121 on: August 06, 2004, 11:54:34 PM »
@CS: I actually am looking into GWS, I was hoping someone would ask. ;D

 Not ready to link but three potential scenarios:

1) Vaccinations. Quite likely that some problems are related to vaccinations. This is to do with the fact that some soldiers did get sick despite the fact that they were nowhere near the Persian Gulf.

2) Very likely possibile, during the bombings in GW1 that the US or "coalition forces"  hit something that caused a dispersal of bio/chem, which would explain the immediate affects or to all intents, also a possible explanation for many conditions.

3) And, of course, DU weapons.

*This is vague because I cannot recall the date but a tantalizing bit of news that was never followed up, naturally, in the mainstream media.  An event occurred in Iraq that immediately caused around six hundred deaths, and Iraq shut down the media. I am trying to find out more about the occurence but it is vague so far. Probably due to the fact that I don't know how to phrase my search. :-\

PS: The long and short of the DU weapons is that it is still, if you read the studies, ambiguous. It surprises me that at this late date that there is no distinct confirmation.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #122 on: August 07, 2004, 01:45:16 AM »
The long and short of the DU weapons is that it is still, if you read the studies, ambiguous. It surprises me that at this late date that there is no distinct confirmation.
And that's why it reminds me of the CDC and AIDS - they wouldn't say anything without irrefutable proof.  With AIDS, no one wanted the associated stigma; and in investigting DU, dealing with either Government must be like pulling teeth along with navigating "National Security".  I'd think if we hit some bio-chem, we'd be gloating about taking out WMD's, but anything is possible.

(Does that asterisk'd note belong with #2?)
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #123 on: August 07, 2004, 03:55:59 AM »
Jester - reminds me of the saying that goes something like the winner [of any war] gets to write history.  The real tragedy occurs, imo, when it finds the larger audience, unchallenged.  ::)

Not always as the Vietcong had little influence on western history books I imagine.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #124 on: August 07, 2004, 11:10:32 AM »
@CS: I bow to your greater knowledge of CDC. (Not a facetious sentence).

 The asterisk is related to, I think, GW1. This is all wondering on my part, and it is something that I have not read about, I have not seen any articles on this subject but I wonder about the enviromental damage done to Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 Things that we "know" the water supply is polluted, the oil wells were set on fire and burned in some cases for over a year, we do know at one point he did have bio/chem weapons and studies to make bio/chem, and a nuclear program. If you recall the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor in 1981(?). We do know that bio/chem weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq war. We know that he destroyed the marshes in southern Iraq, we know that some event occurred that killed 600 people immediately. I have heard that oil seeps out of the ground in Iraq. We do know he used bio/chem against the Kurds.

 All these events make my wonder if Iraq is not a man-made enviromental disaster. Then you add the hyposthesis that some chem/bio dump was bombed in Iraq in GW1, and possibly dispersed a diluted bio/chem cloud.

 It would seem to me (someone who knows nothing) that there might be stronger correlations to the above issues and health than what seems can be made to DUs.

 To finish last year I was watching a Brit docu. on GWS. In that docu. they stressed the bombing of some site was the possible cause of GWS.  It seems to me that makes sense because DUs would have a longer incubation period before sickness is detected while veterans from GW1 started to get sick very quickly.

 To repeat, this is all speculation on my part. :) If people are interested in learning more, I can do some searches and post links here.

modified to correct errors.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2004, 11:15:43 AM by Regullus »