OT London

In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
their country on some pretext like WMDs.
"johnboy" > wrote in message
...
> "John Willis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> About the best thing that could be done is to provide some way of
>> removing their power. No high oil prices, no power because they'd have
>> no money. No money means no way to buy fertilizer for bombs. No bombs
>> means no more people dead by idiots.
>
> Terrorism is cheap. You are way off the mark.
>
>

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:24:39 -0400, "ilambert" >
wrote:

>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>their country on some pretext like WMDs.

I'm not sure but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and
guess that you probably haven't been following the $/barrel thing here
in the US, but if you had then you probably wouldn't have been limber
enough to shove your foot into your mouth as far as you just did. I
wonder what you would have done if you lived in the US to prevent
something like "invading a country on some pretext like WMDs." I'll
bet your picket sign you held out protesting the war would have been
huge and that you would have made a lot of friends who also didn't
have a job (while picketing) and who "got by" on their welfare checks
that they got from the government. Just like you. What island do you
live on again that has internet access? I'm gonna move there and kick
you off of it.

"ilambert" > wrote in message
...
>
> In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
> their country on some pretext like WMDs.
>
>

...............At $60 a barrel, who's stealing from who.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:24:39 -0400, "ilambert" >
scribbled this interesting note:


>>
>>> About the best thing that could be done is to provide some way of
>>> removing their power. No high oil prices, no power because they'd have
>>> no money. No money means no way to buy fertilizer for bombs. No bombs
>>> means no more people dead by idiots.

>
>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>their country on some pretext like WMDs.

You miss the implication entirely. What I was getting at is, through
technology, reduce the demand for oil such that the prices drop so
much as to remove money from the equation entirely.

I don't want "their" oil. "They can have it, for all the good it'll do
"them" when demand drops, causing prices to drop, causing all manner
of problems for "them."

BTW, I don't know who "they" are. I was referencing how some in the
middle east funnel large chunks of change to terrorists, financing the
efforts of mentally challenged individuals who see nothing wrong with
blowing up a bus load of Londoners intent on just getting to work in
the morning.


--
John Willis

(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:42:10 GMT, Shag >
scribbled this interesting note:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:24:39 -0400, "ilambert" >
>wrote:
>
>>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>>their country on some pretext like WMDs.
>
>I'm not sure but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and
>guess that you probably haven't been following the $/barrel thing here
>in the US, but if you had then you probably wouldn't have been limber
>enough to shove your foot into your mouth as far as you just did. I
>wonder what you would have done if you lived in the US to prevent
>something like "invading a country on some pretext like WMDs." I'll
>bet your picket sign you held out protesting the war would have been
>huge and that you would have made a lot of friends who also didn't
>have a job (while picketing) and who "got by" on their welfare checks
>that they got from the government. Just like you. What island do you
>live on again that has internet access? I'm gonna move there and kick
>you off of it.

ROTFLMAO....PLOP!:~)


--
John Willis

(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

"Shag" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:24:39 -0400, "ilambert" >
> wrote:
>
>>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>>their country on some pretext like WMDs.
>
> I'm not sure but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and
> guess that you probably haven't been following the $/barrel thing here
> in the US [...]

Hell, we still pay a fraction of the price they pay in Europe for the same
barrel. Anywho, most of our oil comes from Canada. Let's invade! Moose-Drool
beer, free! Wait... maybe we otta stop sending our Alaska pipeline oil to
Japan. So many choices...

"Tim Rogers" > wrote in message
...

> ..............At $60 a barrel, who's stealing from who.

I can hear all of England laughing at you from here.

"John Willis" > wrote in message
...

> You miss the implication entirely. What I was getting at is, through
> technology, reduce the demand for oil such that the prices drop so
> much as to remove money from the equation entirely.

Let the price of oil rise to it's natural level (explained below) and the
demand will go down. People will still have their private vehicles, but they
will be more like the rest of the world: cost effective. Public
transporation will become reasonable and humane. Trucking will adjust, and
get government breaks. No worries.

We pay 'protection money' for that mideast oil. We don't see the cost at the
pumps.We see it in our inflated government taxations. That's another thing
we need to fix.

Tim Rogers wrote:
> "ilambert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>>their country on some pretext like WMDs.
>>
>>
>
>
> ..............At $60 a barrel, who's stealing from who.
>
>

With people like him spouting off **** like 'war for oil,' they have
effectively prevented that from happening. I'd like to see Iraq pay for
the expenses of war in free oil to us, then I'd be happier.
-Kevin

"Kevin Holzer" > wrote in message
...
> With people like him spouting off **** like 'war for oil,' they have
> effectively prevented that from happening. I'd like to see Iraq pay for
> the expenses of war in free oil to us, then I'd be happier.

That's not the way it works. WE pay for the war, over and over, now and
later. Besides, Iraq's piddling dribble of oil won't help our situation one
bit, and OPEC sets the price, and OPEC is just plain ****ed off at the USA.
We're losers no matter how you look at it. Thank Bush!