[outmywindow]

Since we are discussing gas prices, and Donald was somewhat instrumental in that. "inquiring minds" need to know, what's the story behind the avatar?

[alloyed2sea]

..., R definitely deceiving.
Well, thatz my take on ole' Rummy-boy.
Still, he was about the only member of the regime who cud speek proper englesh, no?
Wound a bit (just at bit) tite - thought this photo of the "happy man" mite prove provocative, eh?
Remember, "..., there are known knowns, and known unknowns,..., itz only the unknown unknownz we have to worry about" (or something like that).
Cheers!
Eric
(justbecausewesailthepotomacdoesntnecessarilymeanw eknowanymilitarysecrets)

[catmando]

Originally Posted by outmywindow

Since we are discussing gas prices, and Donald was somewhat instrumental in that. "inquiring minds" need to know, what's the story behind the avatar?

I find it absolutely unconscionable that Rumsfeld, the architect of the failed war strategy in Iraq, and who is responsible for 98% of the Coalition deaths, still maintains an office in the Pentagon.

OTOH, when Fitzgerald sees fit to charge Rumsfeld with high crimes and misdemeanors, he knows where to find him.

[alloyed2sea]

Originally Posted by catmando

I find it absolutely unconscionable that Rumsfeld, the architect of the failed war strategy in Iraq, and who is responsible for 98% of the Coalition deaths, still maintains an office in the Pentagon.

OTOH, when Fitzgerald sees fit to charge Rumsfeld with high crimes and misdemeanors, he knows where to find him.

Well (speaking in my most Reaganesque voice now) Catty, what's really unconscionable is almost the entire policy agenda pursued by the current (can't bring myself to utter the owner's name) regime. The fact that someone would find Rummy's maintenance of an office in the Pgon "offensive" strikes me as rather absurb - since it only means that he has to keep on working (all the while feeling the disdain & pure hatred of the building cast upon him) and watching (a la Clockwork Orange) as his bad bet in Iraq goes further & further south. He owes us that, eh? Instead, I would encourage you to think of it as his just reward (kinda like what Sartre & C.S. Lewis said about hell) -- hopefully this will allow you to sleep alot (alot) easier at night, no?
PS - As for ur perspective on the current Messopotamia imbroglio, I say "Blame it on Canada" : )

[brian eiland]

Does anybody here remember this other criminal's name, McNamara?? ...another Defense Sect
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/...s/mcnamara.htm

At least he came to eventually recoqnize the failure of force to resolve all conflicts, and he resigned.

The Vietnam conflict came to claim most of McNamara's time and energy. The Truman and Eisenhower administrations had committed the United States to support the French and native anti-Communist forces in Vietnam in resisting efforts by the Communists in the North to control the country. The U.S. role, including financial support and military advice, expanded after 1954 when the French withdrew. During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from just a few hundred to about 17,000. U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 when North Vietnamese naval vessels reportedly fired on two U.S. destroyers. President Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes on North Vietnamese naval bases and Congress approved almost unanimously the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authoriz-ing the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the U.S. and to prevent further aggression."

In 1965, in response to stepped up military activity by the Communist Viet Cong in South Vietnam and their North Vietnamese allies, the United States began bombing North Vietnam, deployed large military forces, and entered into combat in South Vietnam. Requests from top U.S. military commanders in Vietnam led to the commitment of 485,000 troops by the end of 1967 and almost 535,000 by 30 June 1968. The casualty lists mounted as the number of troops and the intensity of fighting escalated.

Although he loyally supported administration policy, McNamara gradually became skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam. He traveled to Vietnam many times to study the situation firsthand. He became increasingly reluctant to approve the large force increments requested by the military commanders. The Tet offensive of early 1968, although a military defeat for the enemy, clearly indicated that the road ahead for both the United States and the South Vietnamese government was still long and hard. By this time McNamara had already submitted his resignation, chiefly because of his disillusionment with the war.

[brian eiland]

Forty-five years ago - January 1961 - Dwight Eisenhower gave his final address as President of the United States.

[CENTER]President Dwight Eisenhower, January 17, 1961[/center]
My fellow Americans, this evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. We have been compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions. Three-and-a-half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

(Dwight Eisenhower was quit a visionary)

Those words are the starting point for a new film that takes a look at the American war machine over the past half century. "Why We Fight" by filmmaker Eugene Jarecki looks at conflicts from World War II right up to the current war in Iraq to examine the political, economic and ideological reasons that drive American war policy..

[alloyed2sea]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

Although he loyally supported administration policy, McNamara gradually became skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam. He traveled to Vietnam many times to study the situation firsthand. He became increasingly reluctant to approve the large force increments requested by the military commanders.

Indeed, once the Army's operational doctrine became, "We have to destroy the village in order to save it" - pouring more gasoline on the fire began to appear counterproductive.

Originally Posted by brian eiland

The Tet offensive of early 1968, although a military defeat for the enemy, clearly indicated that the road ahead for both the United States and the South Vietnamese government was still long and hard. By this time McNamara had already submitted his resignation, chiefly because of his disillusionment with the war.

Well, as much as Rummy was "possessed" with the idea of not fighting another Vietnam (and trying repeatedly to "win" it back, at least in his own mind) - he failed to stay around long enough to see a repeat of a Tet -style Offensive in Baghdad; which my friends is right around the corner (i.e., the due date on GEN Patraeus's report on the Surge, come September).
Ready?

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by alloyed2sea

Well, as much as Rummy was "possessed" with the idea of not fighting another Vietnam (and trying repeatedly to "win" it back, at least in his own mind) - he failed to stay around long enough to see a repeat of a Tet -style Offensive in Baghdad; which my friends is right around the corner (i.e., the due date on GEN Patraeus's report on the Surge, come September).
Ready?

I'm not so sure of that 'big offensive". In this case I think the enemy wants us to stay there so they can continue to beat up on us. We're playing right into their hands, propoganda wise. They continue to recruit with us there as a whipping boy.

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

excerpt from posting#56....I'm still betting we will see $100/barrel crude this year when Israel bombs those Iranian nuclear facilities by the end of the year...certainly during Bush's presidency??

Well it appears as though we don't need to wait for the 'new conflict' to affect this price rise, but rather the world's economy and dependance. We are closing in on that $100 barrel prediction.

Now imagine that my conflict prediction comes true. I'm betting we will see $200 per barrel price spike when that happens.

There are some nations, and some oil companies, that are loving this situation....huge profits and transfers of wealth.

[K1W1]

Hi,

The title of this thread got my eye.

You guys on the west side of the Atlantic have it good it's now more than $2.00 a litre in the UK which makes it around $9.50 a gallon for them

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

05/08/07.I'm still betting we will see $100/barrel crude this year when Israel bombs those Iranian nuclear facilities by the end of the year...certainly during Bush's presidency??

Originally Posted by brian

11/12/07. Well it appears as though we don't need to wait for the 'new conflict' to affect this price rise, but rather the world's economy and dependance. We are closing in on that $100 barrel prediction.

Its looks like I missed it by a day or two. On Jan 2, 2008, the price of crude broke the $100/barrel price tag

[Codger]

A good part of it is that the US$ has lost so much value against other currencies. The price of oil converted to Euros has not been that drastic a change.
I was in Nigeria just a short time ago and that supply source has some, ahem, how do I put this, security issues.

[Codger]

I just took a look and the volumes traded are pretty low so it seems that the short hit at 100.00 is purely speculative. Anyway, demand will decrease, supply will increase or the price will simply go to wherever it needs to be until things balance out.

[Codger]

This morning's BBC News corrected me.
It was a one shot trade just so that the trader could have bragging rights as to being the first person to pay a hundred bucks a bbl.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7169543.stm

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by Codger

....it seems that the short hit at 100.00 is purely speculative. Anyway, demand will decrease, supply will increase or the price will simply go to wherever it needs to be until things balance out.

It was a one shot trade just so that the trader could have bragging rights as to being the first person to pay a hundred bucks a bbl.

So does that mean we should treat it as just another little unconsequential blip, and nothing too serious, as does the majority of this Washington crowd that continues to drink the same kool-aid??

We have the gathering of the 'perfect storm' with big energy price increases, housing market failure, lost of manufacturing, and the coming lost of a great portion of creative IT. We need to get some different kool-aid to drink.