17 Mar 08
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt was meant to be offensive and it sounds like you are going to cry like a little girl. Is that how you and your Euro buddies want to take over from the US?
I find that deeply offensive chum! Sort your attitude out!
Let me tell you what is really offensive. The world has a problem with terrorism and its only the UK that had enough balls to assist the US with solving the problem. The world will become a safer place in spite of Europeans and not because of them
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by MexicoJust a note, the US has more untapped oil reserves than the Middle East. We can thank the tree huggers for them not being developed. Or maybe we are just using everyone elses oil up first
Well said....... China's economy is getting ridiculously strong with although their human rights record is a little shaky. Personally I'm a little concerned with the Lunatic running Russia at the moment trying to do something stupid.......
17 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999no problems with terrorism here. and i have no wish to take over anything from the us. i just want a world where everybody can live in peace and prosperity.
It was meant to be offensive and it sounds like you are going to cry like a little girl. Is that how you and your Euro buddies want to take over from the US?
Let me tell you what is really offensive. The world has a problem with terrorism and its only the UK that had enough balls to assist the US with solving the problem. The world will become a safer place in spite of Europeans and not because of them
and in what way are you solving the problem? is it going away? are the terrorists gone? or are they multiplying because of your war on terror? it's pretty evident to the rest of the world that the world is not a safer place thanks to your war, quite the contrary.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Thats just the attitude that gives your people a bad name. Its easy for you over there to comment, it's not on your god damn doorstep, you've never lived in a war zone, either terrorist driven or otherwise so how the hell would you know. Invading Iraq isn't solving terrorism its generating more disgruntled people, thus more terrorists you idiot. Plus the Invasion itself had nothing to with Terrorism.
It was meant to be offensive and it sounds like you are going to cry like a little girl. Is that how you and your Euro buddies want to take over from the US?
Let me tell you what is really offensive. The world has a problem with terrorism and its only the UK that had enough balls to assist the US with solving the problem. The world will become a safer place in spite of Europeans and not because of them
Granted Afghanistan was an anti-terrorism step, but are you honestly naive/dumb enough to believe Iraq was too?
As for your europe comment;
France and Spain have massive muslim populations, you think getting involved in this pointless war is going to be good for them? Eastern Europe and Germany also have large Islamic populations either in the country or next door.
Its got nothing to do with balls and everything to do with common sense.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by MexicoI see. The spineless Euro trash is scared of Islam.
Thats just the attitude that gives your people a bad name. Its easy for you over there to comment, it's not on your god damn doorstep, you've never lived in a war zone, either terrorist driven or otherwise so how the hell would you know. Invading Iraq isn't solving terrorism its generating more disgruntled people, thus more terrorists you idiot. Plus the Inva ...[text shortened]... ry or next door.
Its got nothing to do with balls and everything to do with common sense.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. (Winston Churchill)
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Spineless, I love it, tell me has your family ever had bombs going off a few doors up the street. Or been held at gun point over their religious beliefs?. And still continued to live there? spineless indeed.
I see. The spineless Euro trash is scared of Islam.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. (Winston Churchill)
And no its not fear, its stability. Islam isn't the problem you tool, thats just un-researched bigotry. Its extremist groups within Islam. However occupying entire countries due to their faith and fighting wars on the pretext of terrorism (Iraq) isn't going to encourage stability within you own generally peaceful and educated Islamic population.
Come to think of there's plenty of poorly educated, idiotic, fanatical, extremist Christians in the US, that doesn't reflect the entire christian faith though does it?
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Exactly, and it's brilliant. The US actually exported oil at one time, hard to believe.
Just a note, the US has more untapped oil reserves than the Middle East. We can thank the tree huggers for them not being developed. Or maybe we are just using everyone elses oil up first
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716So does the north sea actually, once the price of Oil rises enough certain currently unviable reserves become accessible, thus the landscape of accessible oil distribution will change, we have oil for a long long time yet, all the studies are conveniently avoiding this factor. However all that aside the future viability oil is limited at best.
Just a note, the US has more untapped oil reserves than the Middle East. We can thank the tree huggers for them not being developed. Or maybe we are just using everyone elses oil up first
Nuclear is probably the solution but thats for another thread.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by MexicoI would go with nuclear... but there are 2 triilon barrels of oil in oil shale under Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, thats a conservative estimate. Plus whats off shore of California and in ANWR and of course, we still have some here in Texas
So does the north sea actually, once the price of Oil rises enough certain currently unviable reserves become accessible, thus the landscape of accessible oil distribution will change, we have oil for a long long time yet, all the studies are conveniently avoiding this factor. However all that aside the future viability oil is limited at best.
Nuclear is probably the solution but thats for another thread.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716True but 2 trillion barrels in oil shale never equals 2 trillion barrels production by a long stretch. And our oil usage is an exponential curve, its dramatically increasing due to China/India.... We simply won't be get it out of the ground fast enough. Plus its messy and inefficient. I think we may need a better soloution
I would go with nuclear... but there are 2 triilon barrels of oil in oil shale under Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, thats a conservative estimate. Plus whats off shore of California and in ANWR and of course, we still have some here in Texas
