Looking on the news tonight I see that the price of crude oil has hit a record $65 a barrel,where will this all end? Could we see the $100 barrel before too long and what will this mean for the economys of the west.
I think if the price continues to rise like it has we could very well go in to recession and all that entails. Plus will you be able to afford to own a car ? its not looking too good is it.

Originally posted by royjames
Looking on the news tonight I see that the price of crude oil has hit a record $65 a barrel,where will this all end? Could we see the $100 barrel before too long and what will this mean for the economys of the west.
I think if the price continues to rise like it has we could very well go in to recession and all that entails. Plus will you be able to afford to own a car ? its not looking too good is it.

it will force the big oil companies to invest in cheaper and more economical renewables I would think. Which wouldnt be a bad thing.

Were already heading into recession. You only have to look at somewhere like Meadowhall, with all the shops selling very similar "lowest common denominator" items and having to heavily reduce things to sell them. Yes oil prices have gone up (give the turmoil in the middle east it's hardly a great surprise) but oil price fluctuations have been a staple of life for a long time and may even push people more towards the hydrogen economy (what foresight is it too much to hope for??)

I think the only prediction that we can safely make is that the price of oil will continue to fluctuate (i.e. go up and down) rather than to continually rise. There is still a lot of oil left and indeed a lot of potentially oil rich sites to be discovered and tapped. Moreover, the search is on for alternative sources of energy. A big potential spanner in the works though is the remarkable economic growth of China and India, and the effect this may have on the demand for oil.

I have to agree the impact of China and india will also have a affect on the price of oil as will the situation in Iraq and the situation visa vee the US and consumption there.
I have heard that we now are in a situation of something called peak oil which in effect means we have reahed the crest of oil production and that from now on we are in terminal decline as far as oil reserves are concerned.
If this is the case I feel the price of oil will never get back to the level we have had in the past? maybe we have to get used to the price we have now.

Drevilneil is, unfortunately, correct I fear. Recession looms. This is the shortest Timo posting ever.

I'm with nightrider on this one. If oil prices car owners out of the market then less cars, more bicycles or electric cars = less pollution. Not a bad thing, surely?

If there is any sort of economic crisis via oil prices , it'll be interesting to see how Blair and his masterly team deal with it.
It's one major problem they haven't had to deal with yet. They'll find it a lot harder to, "spin " their way out of any economic blunders----people can actually see and feel the evidence of economic mis-management and British people are pretty sensitive and unforgiving when it comes to their pockets.

Although I have no time for this government I dont think you can place the blame at Blairs door on this one,mind you maybe he will have to reduce the tax we pay on petrol and this in turn will leave a big hole in the finances,its a vicious circle.
I doubt very much if we will ever get back to around $27 a barrel.

I am rather more optimistic about the future with regard to energy supplies than most posters so far. In addition to substantial improvements still to be made in energy efficiiency, the search for new sources of energy is continuing apace (and i don't mean wind or wave farms). There are also huge oil and gas fields (not least under the sea) which have yet to be tapped. Moreover, every previous energy scare has so far proven to be a false alarm. Well, I may be wrong, but its nice to be optimistic about something for a change.

Oil crises have been a fact of life for the last 30 odd years - but generally the standard of living has increased almost proportionately to the increase in oil prices from my experience.

I share LordC's optimism - often seems to need a "crisis" to bring about innovation. Well that's my take on the human condition.........

It's not so much exactly how much oil will be if there is a sudden increase but how the government will deal with it. Going on how they've handled problems up to now , not very well , I should think.
They 've never had to handle a serious economic crisis before. The sudden increase in oil did cause problems in the '70's and we can see how the Callaghan government coped with those vis-a vis , other countries .
The interesting question remains ---- If oil prices do suddenly shoot up , WILL the Blair team be capable of tackling a major economic set-back ?

Originally posted by Fareast

The interesting question remains ---- If oil prices do suddenly shoot up , WILL the Blair team be capable of tackling a major economic set-back ?

Don't you mean major economic crisis? Using the phrase "set-back" seems to suggest you've already made up your mind that the "Blair team" won't be capable of tackling the problem!

I might have worded it wrongly-----I thought , "set back" , meant problem----in that a major oil price increase WOULD be a problem and , "set back" the economy. Now , how , the government would tacke that is interesting.
As a matter of fact going on what they've planned to achieve and what they've actually achieved in their 8 years in power , I don't hold much hope out for them.
With plenty of money to go round , they held out a picture of how the N.H.S., education , the problems of immigration [legal and illegal] , and rising crime would be transformed under New Labour. I don't think there's been much improvement , if any , for the vast amounts of extra money they've spent on it all. A lot of it has been squandered on Red Tape.
The only success story they've had has been the economy and that's because nothing has happened to seriously upset the apple -cart for 8 years. Now , if we do have a crisis , will they be able to , "ride the storm " ? Maybe ? But a big maybe !
Sorry if I confused things by saying , "set -back " but I meant a set -back to the general economic situation , not just for us but for the West in general.

Just been re-reading some of the comments about the possible rise in the price of oil and it strikes me that , sensible and sincere as a lot of the comments are about replacing oil with a different form of energy , it ignores one possibility and potential problem.
The job of replacing oil , would , I guess be a long term thing[ I admit straight away I know nothing about the technicalities of the various ways ]. Now , as far as I recall , in the '70's the price of oil quadrupeled[sp.?] overnight. ?
If something like that happened again , there would be a time gap in the problem appearing and the problem being solved , presumably ? Perhaps someone could tell us in better detail what might be the case ?

Well I like high oil prices since I work in the industry :razz:

Having said that my years working in oil drilling have been plagued by cyclical prices. The oil price goes up and I get busy and decent pay rises, but industry suffers and so recession follows and demand drops off.

Oil price plummets and I'm out of a job or get a cut in pay.

Once the oil price has fallen industry gears up again and starts to boom, oil price rises again - go to step one and repeat again as necessary.

The only difference this time is that we may just be getting to peak production. the oil companies have this covered already with alternative sources such as vegetable oil and ethanol,

PS

Originally posted by evildrneil
Were already heading into recession.

I love these remarks, we are always heading into recession according to someone.

$65 per barrel, gotta pay for the wars somehow I guess.

I am sure this stuff was about $30-35 just five years ago *gulp.

I saw on TV (it was actually a holliday program) that they will run out of oil in Saudi Arabia in 6 years, thats why they are building all the hotels etc. in Dubai, they intend to move to tourism to keep the country going.

Originally posted by nick2
I saw on TV (it was actually a holliday program) that they will run out of oil in Saudi Arabia in 6 years, thats why they are building all the hotels etc. in Dubai, they intend to move to tourism to keep the country going.

They had better stop blowing people up then :hihi:

Originally posted by royjames
Looking on the news tonight I see that the price of crude oil has hit a record $65 a barrel,where will this all end? Could we see the $100 barrel before too long and what will this mean for the economys of the west.
I think if the price continues to rise like it has we could very well go in to recession and all that entails. Plus will you be able to afford to own a car ? its not looking too good is it.

This is very much a sign of things to come. Unfortunately, oil is fast running out and demand will be out stripping supply so you better get used to the idea of paying a high cost for petrol.

oh goodie - bus prices can rise again. :)

Originally posted by samc
oh goodie - bus prices can rise again. :)

dont they always go up, regardless?

Originally posted by royjames
Although I have no time for this government I dont think you can place the blame at Blairs door on this one.

Why not? Didn't Blair expect prices to rise after the invasion of Iraq? Has Blair not learned anything from history? Whenever there is war in the Middle East, oil prices will rise.

Perhaps Blair didn't want to disappoint Rupert Murdoch before another General Election. As warmonger Murdoch admitted: "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

$20 a barrel Mr Murdoch? Oh, I'm laughing so much at your misfortune I'm almost in tears :|

Guardian article (http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4607074-105337,00.html) (may need to register first)

It's quite an exciting era to be living in the UK, when foreign media barons are dictating both British foreign policy and our economic strategy

Cool Britannia indeed :roll:

Anybody prepared to quote odds on US-led "regime change" in Venezuela?

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Anybody prepared to quote odds on US-led "regime change" in Venezuela?

Is that oil strike over yet?

I was surprised to read that Venezuala is the the world's fourth largest petroleum exporter. Maybe they'll just quietly make it the 52nd US state instead, without the need for bloodshed...

Originally posted by Abdul
Is that oil strike over yet?

I was surprised to read that Venezuala is the the world's fourth largest petroleum exporter. Maybe they'll just quietly make it the 52nd US state instead, without the need for bloodshed...

The oil strike was a couple of years ago. Current situation, as I understand it, is that Chavez has set up some kind of Latin American mini-OPEC, one of whose policies is to sell oil cheaply to the more impoverished Caribbean countries.

His domestic policies are also pretty socialistic, which is popular with most people in the country (rich people and other vested interests apart).

None of this is going down well with the US, who are rumbling about him being the new Castro. Spats like the following are starting to occur:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4133622.stm

[The BBC web site actually takes quite a US-friendly stance on this - the World Service is more sympathetic to Chavez.]

I fear that bad things might happen there.

Originally posted by Abdul
Is that oil strike over yet?

I was surprised to read that Venezuala is the the world's fourth largest petroleum exporter. Maybe they'll just quietly make it the 52nd US state instead, without the need for bloodshed...

52? There are only 50 states. :confused:

Originally posted by Chicago
52? There are only 50 states. :confused:

Depends if you count the UK!

Well it will end, I presume, in about 30 years when all the oil's gone.

It iwll not be long until prices hit a £1 a litre altho0ugh we have to remember that 65% of the costs are tax.

Did i read somewhere that the world is actually rich in oil but it's only a fact that it's actually easier to gain the supply from countries such as those in Asia/Middle East? Dont know if this is true!

It's baout time the govt's started speeding up the process of sourcing long-term and viable alternatives.

Originally posted by Abdul
Maybe they'll just quietly make it the 52nd US state instead, without the need for bloodshed...


I'm sure Bush would love that, but I don't think it's ganna happen that easily

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

Gordon Brown will be loving it. Instead of him having to impose a very unpopular hike in fuel duty the dirty work is being done for him.

Wonder how much the treasury have been raking in from the increase in pump prices over the last few months ? :o

Apparently the last panic was a result of the Saudis advising foreign workers to go home because of alleged new threats by terrorists, and of course the Saudis have nothing to gain from this :suspect: :suspect:

About time the government brought the tax down now.

Originally posted by youwhatref
It's baout time the govt's started speeding up the process of sourcing long-term and viable alternatives.

Unfortunately a governments typical idea of long term planning is the next election and certainly not 20-30 years down the road :(

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I'm sure Bush would love that, but I don't think it's ganna happen that easily

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

Good link, DC. Given the USA's track record in the region [Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba], and given that they're already dependent on Venezuela for at least 14% of their oil, it wouldn't be surprising if there's some overt or covert intervention there before long.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Good link, DC. Given the USA's track record in the region [Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba], and given that they're already dependent on Venezuela for at least 14% of their oil, it wouldn't be surprising if there's some overt or covert intervention there before long.

When staunch socialist Hugo Chavez was democratically elected as President of Venezuela in 2002, the US didn't like it one bit. Following a military coup, the Bush administration were suddenly very happy to do business with Venezuela's new, illegal government. Strange? You bet. What's even stranger is that at the time there was a substantial US Navy fleet off the coast.

Yes, quite. Perhaps I should have said some further intervention.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Given the USA's track record in the region [Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba], and given that they're already dependent on Venezuela for at least 14% of their oil, it wouldn't be surprising if there's some overt or covert intervention there before long.

Death Threat May Bolster Chavez's Popularity Before Election (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aW0HtBbsP0qU&refer=latin_america)

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may see an increase in popularity because of the death threat leveled by a U.S. television evangelist, according to Datanalisis, the country's No. 1 polling company.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson's calls for the U.S. to "assassinate'' Chavez will lead more Venezuelans to believe his claims that the Bush administration is trying to kill him

"The evangelist's declarations are terrible for the U.S. in that they totally back up Chavez,'' Leon said in a telephone interview from Caracas. ``It is absolutely going to have the opposite effect on Chavez than the U.S. wants. It's something that resonates with the country's poor.''

<snip>

[Pat] Robertson, a 75-year-old former U.S. presidential candidate who claims 1 million viewers a day for his "700 Club'' program, said on the show on Aug. 21 that Chavez is a "dangerous enemy'' and that killing him would be cheaper than going to war with Venezuela to remove him.

"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,'' Robertson said.

<snip>

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [yes, that Mr Rumsfeld] said the government can't control what Americans say.

Robertson "is a private citizen,'' Rumsfeld said at a news conference yesterday in Washington. "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.''

Interestingly:

"The rhetoric helps Chavez in the polls,'' said Luis Christiansen, executive president of Consultores 21, which has been polling Venezuelans for over two decades. "It helps stir up nationalist feelings and distracts voters from discussing other issues.''

Sound familiar?

Well the price of crude seems to show no sign of slowing down any time soon,it hit $66 a barrell earlier today .
Maybe we will have to get used to this high price for the forseeable future.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Good link, DC.
Another relevant article. While Bush has been off chasing Weapons of Mass Destruction it seems this 'salsa' revolution has caught him by surprise.

"This year alone 50,000 Venezuelans have come to Cuba to receive free eye treatment. In return, oil-rich Venezuela sends Cuba 90,000 barrels of crude a day at highly preferential terms."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4179050.stm

I love this section of the BBC report:

"The Venezuelan leader took the opportunity to brush aside recent comments from the US evangelist Pat Robertson, that he was a threat to the United States and should be assassinated."

A true champion of democracy, Mr Robertson.

Or perhaps anyone who doesn't automatically kowtow to US diktats should be eliminated, the will of the people or not? God bless America.

Yes, God bless America.

The day we get any sort of appreciation or thanks from the rest of the world, instead of a boatload of complaints? I'll be sure to flip to the weather channel. Because hell must surely be frozen over...and the devil is giving free ice skating lessons. ;)

Look. We don't want to run the world. Who in their right mind wants that sucky job? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

We don't want one stinking, dirty, millimeter of anyone's run down, backwards country. We don't want to be stuck caring for their illiterate, ungrateful masses, who can't seem to figure out where babies come from, or how AIDS is spread. Most of whom wouldn't know good government if it came up and popped them one upside the head. And who would probably slit our throats to steal our shoes, or stick a knife in our backs the minute we closed our eyes to sleep. No thank you.

We don't WANT to waste our time and resources trying to improve the living conditions of clueless people who then turn around and spit on us. And whose OWN governments could care less about them.

Whoever said Pat Robertson was a champion of democracy? He's a TV evangelist, for God's sake. AND a private citizen, and he can spout whatever nonsensical drivel he likes, no matter how crazy and off the wall he sounds. Something I'll bet the average Venezuelan or Cuban citizen (God help them) doesn't DARE do.

So, that blustering, loudmouth, tinpot dictator Senor Hugo Chavez is best buds with Fidel Castro. Who'da thunk it? Those two DESERVE each other. Maybe Fidel can give Hugo lessons on how to turn a once beautiful, bountiful country into a hellhole of starvation, oppression and torture?

When I first read this, I thought it HAD to be a joke. Cuban Medical Schools? I googled it, and it's NOT a joke. Cuba does indeed have medical schools, and there are apparently NO admission restrictions. There are even about fifty Americans there. All people turned down by US medical schools. Which means that they probably shouldn't be doctors. Who goes to Cuba for an eye operation? Desperate people who don't have a choice, that's who.

*Off topic*

We went to a car show this summer,

http://www.hotaugustnights.net/

and were told by a pachuco http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pachuco and his father, whose cars we were admiring, that Cuba has a terrific collection of vintage American 40's and 50's auto chassis that are perfectly suited for conversion to street rods. They were practically salivating at the thought of getting their hands on those parts.

The father was an older man who had wasted his youth on drugs, gangs, and prison. He had the scars and Norteno gang tatoos to prove it, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norteno_gang

He said if it hadn't been for his interest in cars, he would surely have died in prison, overdosed (he'd been a heroin addict) or been killed by other gang members. The cars saved his life.

I read this article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

I'm sorry, but I cannot take Rafael Cabrices seriously. The guy decorates his office with posters of Che Guevara, Simon Bolivar and President Chavez.

Who uses a poster of their BOSS as decoration? :loopy:

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra


Who uses a poster of their BOSS as decoration? :loopy:

:) Sierra

I just had a thought. You think he throws darts at it? :hihi:

:) Sierra

I hate to say it but your view of the developing world being full of nothing but uncivilised hordes who do not realise American liberation is good for them, smacks more then a little of the sort of aragont imperialist mentality so many Americans are accused of.

However the thing that really shocks me is your comments on Cuba’s medical provisions. Can I suggest you do some more ‘googling’ to discover such facts as that Cuba (a developing country itself) has more doctors and nusres deployed in the developing world then the WHO organisation and perhaps more shocking for Americans the fact that infant the mortality rate in Washington DC is higher then in Havana.

Originally posted by Sierra
Maybe Fidel can give Hugo lessons on how to turn a once beautiful, bountiful country into a hellhole of starvation, oppression and torture?


And this comment really is totally unfounded, please get google out again and look up the case history of a certain US backed dictator named Batista. Under Fidel Cuba has an abysmal human rights record, no one will argue any different however this record is vastly superior to when Cuba was a “beautiful and bountiful” country under Batista. That’s why a revolution occurred, and why the revolution remains strong despite Washington's assassination attempts, illegal blockades and state funding of subversives in the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4726301.stm


And please I really would like to know how on earth you have decided that their was more starvation in Cuba now under Fidel then before the Revolution. I await your evidence for this assuration with baited breath.






* Funnily enough the USA despite maintaining a blockade of Cuba for decades was happy to bend the rules slightly to allow Cuba to export it’s meningitis vaccine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/406647.stm
I shouldn’t think a lot of Americans know the vaccine everyone's kids have been getting recently against Meningitis, which has saved thousands of lives was developed in a place judged by Bush to be part of an ‘Axis of Evil’

Originally posted by Sierra

I'm sorry, but I cannot take Rafael Cabrices seriously. The guy decorates his office with posters of Che Guevara, Simon Bolivar and President Chavez.

Who uses a poster of their BOSS as decoration? :loopy:



People putting up portraits of their head of state baffles you?

How many Americans have a picture of Bush up on their wall?

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I hate to say it but your view of the developing world being full of nothing but uncivilised hordes who do not realise American liberation is good for them, smacks more then a little of the sort of aragont imperialist mentality so many Americans are accused of.

However the thing that really shocks me is your comments on Cuba’s medical provisions. Can I suggest you do some more ‘googling’ to discover such facts as that Cuba (a developing country itself) has more doctors and nusres deployed in the developing world then the WHO organisation and perhaps more shocking for Americans the fact that infant the mortality rate in Washington DC is higher then in Havana.



And this comment really is totally unfounded, please get google out again and look up the case history of a certain US backed dictator named Batista. Under Fidel Cuba has an abysmal human rights record, no one will argue any different however this record is vastly superior to when Cuba was a “beautiful and bountiful” country under Batista. That’s why a revolution occurred, and why the revolution remains strong despite Washington's assassination attempts, illegal blockades and state funding of subversives in the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4726301.stm


And please I really would like to know how on earth you have decided that their was more starvation in Cuba now under Fidel then before the Revolution. I await your evidence for this assuration with baited breath.

I am amazed that you can defend the Castro regime, a regime which has denied the Cuban people the right to vote in free elections and has persecuted anyone bold enough to criticise it. Moreover, by imposing upon the Cuban people the absurdities of the command economy (which has failed miserably everywhere else and can now only be found in North Korea) it has held back Cuba's economic development for decades. The central flaw in your argument is that the only meaningful comparison is with the Batista regime. The real comparison should be with a functioning liberal democracy guaranteeing human rights and basic human freedoms (including the right to vote in free elections, the right to engage in free enterprise and the right to leave the country), rights which this regime has denied to the Cuban people. Castro is a megalomaniacal thug and a dictator who ought to have been relegated to the dustbin of history long ago, together with others of his ilk. The reason why he is still there is due to the totalitarian grip of his security forces and to the vested interests of the pampered elites surrounding him.

Originally posted by Sierra
So, that blustering, loudmouth, tinpot dictator Senor Hugo Chavez is best buds with Fidel Castro. Who'da thunk it? Those two DESERVE each other. Maybe Fidel can give Hugo lessons on how to turn a once beautiful, bountiful country into a hellhole of starvation, oppression and torture?


Chavez is a 'tinpot dictator'? But I'm puzzled, I thought he was democratically elected (by a landslide, in an election endorsed by Jimmy Carter), despite the US's National Endowment for Democracy (!) pumping money into funding the opposition.

Chavez may bluster, but he's done much good for his nation's poorest citizens, funding mass education and health programmes using oil money. He has massive popular support.

Perhaps the US's fervent hatred of Chavez is evidence that when Bush says 'you're either with us or against us', he's talking not only about 'turrism' but also about the rich and the poor?

Why don't you just call me a capitalist pig while you're at it?

I'm tired. It's late here. I'm going to bed, but before I do, I'll say this. Don't you DARE make assumptions about ME or any other American and our world views. DON'T YOU EFFING DARE! Most of you don't know what you are talking about.

You cannot see into my heart.

I never said anything at ALL about American liberation being good for anyone. In fact, I never mentioned Americans liberating anyone or anything.

What I meant was, it's pretty damn discouraging and disheartening to see human suffering, to try and help, and have to deal with a constant stream of criticism and accusations from countries who won't pull their weight, corrupt dictators who don't care about their own people, and the native populations who won't help themselves.

We don't want to "liberate" anyone. Nor do we wish to run the world. Don't like the way we do things? Don't like Microsoft products? Don't like anything American made? Fine. Do without. Hate Starbucks and McDonalds? Terrific. I hate them, too. Don't patronize those establishments.

Or, you come up with something better YOURSELF. Lordy. If I could be a fly on the wall THAT day.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. I LIVE here. I see what goes on every day. I'd rather live in Washington DC than Havana any day, and so would most people you asked. Christ. I can't imagine standing in line all day for toilet paper, water, or food. Their houses are literally falling down from disrepair, not laziness. They don't even have nails and lumber.

Google yourself to death looking for articles and stats to back up your arguments. Anyone can find anything to back up whatever they want.

And STOP with the BBC articles. Find another news source. Most of the time, they have things as*backwards.

And if Cuba is so *%$#@* wonderful, why are people risking their lives in leaky rafts and makeshift boats to come to America?

Yeah, I googled Cuban medical schools. Truly wonderful philosophy, too bad it doesn't work. Their schools are lousy, as are the "doctors" they turn out. They take rejects from anywhere just to fill the schools. If you are American, and attend medical school in Cuba? Then come back to the US? Guess what? Your not really a doctor! You WILL NOT be granted a medical license. Because your education was not up to US standards. Medical care in Cuba is SUBSTANDARD at best. If I need an operation? I aint going to Cuba to have it.

Nice of them to send doctors and nurses to other parts of the world. I mean that. I guess if you live somewhere where there is NO medical care. An incompetent doctor is better than none at all.

Batista was an SOB. Ever see a dictator who wasn't? At least he was smart enough to keep foreign money flowing into Cuba. And if we wanted that old fart Castro dead? He'd be DEAD.

No, I have no idea how many Americans have a picture of Bush on their wall. Not me, for sure. Why don't you find some article that will tell ME. An American, living in the US, how many of my neighbors have a picture of Bush on their wall. I know of NO ONE. The ONLY place I've ever seen pictures of George Bush was in the White House. Which I toured this last February. We also walked through Capitol Hill, saw both the house and the senate, attended a session of congress (which was incredibly boring) and I still didn't spot one picture of George Bush. Not. One. They have portraits of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, etc. Dead presidents. Let's see if anyone picks up on the hidden meaning.

Don't believe me? Visit DC and see for yourself. Until then, you'll have to take my word for it.

Jimmy Carter is a dangerous IDIOT who needs to keep his mouth shut, go back to Georgia, grow peanuts and stay at home. He sure as hell doesn't speak for ME, and most people I know. Oh. And I live in a BLUE state. Apply some pre-conceived notions to THAT.

And Venezuela has democratic elections? Sure they do. Chavez is a goon, who's never missed a chance to threaten his own country.

The Venezuelan GDP is in the toilet. Unemployment is hovering at 17%. He's having trouble with Colombia and Guyana. He's running his big mouth because oil is supposed to rise as high as $72/barrel, and he sees the chance to throw his weight around. A few "accidents" at some oil rigs would change the BS he's been spewing in a hurry.

Rich and poor? We have the most well off poor people in the world. They have access to free medical care, dental, schooling, food stamps, etc. you name it. And please, no one try and contradict me on THAT. I know what I'm talking about. Poor? Poor where I came from was having to drive last years car and live in a house where you had to put two kids in one bedroom. If you're poor in this country, compared to poor people in other countries? You've won the damn lottery.

It's really sad that some of you don't want to hear my opinions and experiences, yet would rather read stuff on the internet to get your info about America. You've got a wealth of information right under your noses. Just ask me. Politely, please, and no smartas*, nasty stuff, either. I think an opinion from someone who was actually born and raised in a place is worth it's weight in gold.

I'd rather hear THAT than read some article written by someone who's probably never been to the place they're writing about.

And Lord Chav? You are spot on. Thank God not everyone allows their anti-Bush/America feelings to overwhelm their common sense.

:) Sierra

Some good points Sierra!

I'm not going to get into the Cuba/Venezuala debate but please be assured that we are not all anti-American over here.

Getting back to the price, just passed BP on Herries Road at 97.9p a litre. Only a matter of a week or so before surely it will be £1 a litre. Brown must be coining it in!

Originally posted by Sierra
Why don't you just call me a capitalist pig while you're at it?

I'm tired. It's late here. I'm going to bed, but before I do, I'll say this. Don't you DARE make assumptions about ME or any other American and our world views. DON'T YOU EFFING DARE! Most of you don't know what you are talking about.

You cannot see into my heart.

I never said anything at ALL about American liberation being good for anyone. In fact, I never mentioned Americans liberating anyone or anything.

What I meant was, it's pretty damn discouraging and disheartening to see human suffering, to try and help, and have to deal with a constant stream of criticism and accusations from countries who won't pull their weight, corrupt dictators who don't care about their own people, and the native populations who won't help themselves.

We don't want to "liberate" anyone. Nor do we wish to run the world. Don't like the way we do things? Don't like Microsoft products? Don't like anything American made? Fine. Do without. Hate Starbucks and McDonalds? Terrific. I hate them, too. Don't patronize those establishments.

Or, you come up with something better YOURSELF. Lordy. If I could be a fly on the wall THAT day.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. I LIVE here. I see what goes on every day. I'd rather live in Washington DC than Havana any day, and so would most people you asked. Christ. I can't imagine standing in line all day for toilet paper, water, or food. Their houses are literally falling down from disrepair, not laziness. They don't even have nails and lumber.

Google yourself to death looking for articles and stats to back up your arguments. Anyone can find anything to back up whatever they want.

And STOP with the BBC articles. Find another news source. Most of the time, they have things as*backwards.

And if Cuba is so *%$#@* wonderful, why are people risking their lives in leaky rafts and makeshift boats to come to America?

Yeah, I googled Cuban medical schools. Truly wonderful philosophy, too bad it doesn't work. Their schools are lousy, as are the "doctors" they turn out. They take rejects from anywhere just to fill the schools. If you are American, and attend medical school in Cuba? Then come back to the US? Guess what? Your not really a doctor! You WILL NOT be granted a medical license. Because your education was not up to US standards. Medical care in Cuba is SUBSTANDARD at best. If I need an operation? I aint going to Cuba to have it.

Nice of them to send doctors and nurses to other parts of the world. I mean that. I guess if you live somewhere where there is NO medical care. An incompetent doctor is better than none at all.

Batista was an SOB. Ever see a dictator who wasn't? At least he was smart enough to keep foreign money flowing into Cuba. And if we wanted that old fart Castro dead? He'd be DEAD.

No, I have no idea how many Americans have a picture of Bush on their wall. Not me, for sure. Why don't you find some article that will tell ME. An American, living in the US, how many of my neighbors have a picture of Bush on their wall. I know of NO ONE. The ONLY place I've ever seen pictures of George Bush was in the White House. Which I toured this last February. We also walked through Capitol Hill, saw both the house and the senate, attended a session of congress (which was incredibly boring) and I still didn't spot one picture of George Bush. Not. One. They have portraits of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, etc. Dead presidents. Let's see if anyone picks up on the hidden meaning.

Don't believe me? Visit DC and see for yourself. Until then, you'll have to take my word for it.

Jimmy Carter is a dangerous IDIOT who needs to keep his mouth shut, go back to Georgia, grow peanuts and stay at home. He sure as hell doesn't speak for ME, and most people I know. Oh. And I live in a BLUE state. Apply some pre-conceived notions to THAT.

And Venezuela has democratic elections? Sure they do. Chavez is a goon, who's never missed a chance to threaten his own country.

The Venezuelan GDP is in the toilet. Unemployment is hovering at 17%. He's having trouble with Colombia and Guyana. He's running his big mouth because oil is supposed to rise as high as $72/barrel, and he sees the chance to throw his weight around. A few "accidents" at some oil rigs would change the BS he's been spewing in a hurry.

Rich and poor? We have the most well off poor people in the world. They have access to free medical care, dental, schooling, food stamps, etc. you name it. And please, no one try and contradict me on THAT. I know what I'm talking about. Poor? Poor where I came from was having to drive last years car and live in a house where you had to put two kids in one bedroom. If you're poor in this country, compared to poor people in other countries? You've won the damn lottery.

It's really sad that some of you don't want to hear my opinions and experiences, yet would rather read stuff on the internet to get your info about America. You've got a wealth of information right under your noses. Just ask me. Politely, please, and no smartas*, nasty stuff, either. I think an opinion from someone who was actually born and raised in a place is worth it's weight in gold.

I'd rather hear THAT than read some article written by someone who's probably never been to the place they're writing about.

And Lord Chav? You are spot on. Thank God not everyone allows their anti-Bush/America feelings to overwhelm their common sense.

:) Sierra

i want him/her on my side.
well debated points - with real evidence not google sh*t.

Originally posted by Sierra
And STOP with the BBC articles. Find another news source. Most of the time, they have things as*backwards.

Find me a more consistently reliable news source and I'll show you a unicorn.

It's one hell of a rant, so I'll just pick out a couple of points. When I referred to Jimmy Carter I was doing so only to illustrate that the election of Chavez was considered fair. Hence the huge number of people turning out on the streets during the CIA-backed coup.

I'm not anti-American (which is often a pretty lazy catch-all term for anyone who happens to criticise the US) but I have problems with aspects of their foreign policy such as this. My point is that it's not for the US to decided which democratically-elected leader they wish to eliminate - and I suspect that Robertson's views hardly stray much from those of what is a rabidly right-wing government.

Robertson ran for President, is very close to the current President of the United States and gets close to a million viewers for his TV show (that is subsidized by every American tax payer, through its zero tax rate). Not your typical private citizen.

Beside it's just not very Christian of him. Did the right thing and appologied, after he denied, but still he did the right thing in the end.

On Operation Northwoods, some background for the people who have never heard of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1


Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

<snip>

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.


The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.


"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Originally posted by Sierra
No, I have no idea how many Americans have a picture of Bush on their wall. Not me, for sure. Why don't you find some article that will tell ME. An American, living in the US, how many of my neighbors have a picture of Bush on their wall. I know of NO ONE. The ONLY place I've ever seen pictures of George Bush was in the White House. Which I toured this last February. We also walked through Capitol Hill, saw both the house and the senate, attended a session of congress (which was incredibly boring) and I still didn't spot one picture of George Bush. Not. One. They have portraits of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, etc. Dead presidents. Let's see if anyone picks up on the hidden meaning.

Don't believe me? Visit DC and see for yourself. Until then, you'll have to take my word for it.
:) Sierra

Wrong:

I spent a week in the district and saw pictures of Bush in various federal and military buildings. But then again, I have also seen pictures of Gov. Blagojovich in Illinois buildings and pictures of Mayor Daley at Chicago City Hall. As for how many Americans have a picture of Dubya on their walls at home, who knows. Better yet, who really cares?

Originally posted by Sierra

Rich and poor? We have the most well off poor people in the world. They have access to free medical care, dental, schooling, food stamps, etc. you name it. And please, no one try and contradict me on THAT. I know what I'm talking about. Poor? Poor where I came from was having to drive last years car and live in a house where you had to put two kids in one bedroom. If you're poor in this country, compared to poor people in other countries? You've won the damn lottery.
:) Sierra

Wrong:

Take a drive through the Englewood neighborhood in Chicago or vast sections of Detroit. They make Baghdad look like the Emerald City! Go to one of these free hospitals and watch the faces of sick people who have waited all day, each day, for a week to see a doctor when they are told that they will have to come back the next day because they are finished with today's admissions. Where the heck do you live...90210?

I'm really NOT trying to rag on you here, however, I thought it important to set the record straight. My wifes parents were dirt poor when she was a child and she almost died waiting in line at Cook County Hospital.

By the way what the heck does this have to do with oil prices?

:confused:

Ok. I have recovered somewhat from my little temper tantrum. Thank you all for your patience.

back2basics, my dear sir. Always nice to hear what you think, you know I respect your opinions. And I quite agree with you. That was NOT very Christian of Pat Robertson, and further reinforces what frauds most of these "TV ministers" really are. What was he thinking? However, none of us knows for sure who is close to the president, and who is not.

Greenback and Disco_Cat, I hope I didn't scare you too much. As for news sources, if you want to use that as proof, then YOU find a reliable one. If I run across one, I'll let'cha know. I've no idea where the BBC gets it's info, but the reports about what is going on in the US, particularly the west coast are not very accurate.

Chicago, I just KNEW if I said I hadn't seen a picture of Dubya in DC except in the White House, (and I didn't, but then, I wasn't looking either) SOMEONE was going to say they saw one in the men's room at the Pentagon or something. There's probably one somewhere around, I'm sure. I just felt that having a poster of your boss on your office wall was weird.

I don't live in 90210. And not ALL of zip code 90210 is nice, either. However, there is ALOT of money in California. If California were a separate country? It would have the fifth largest economy in the world. The most recent I could find was from 2000. We may have dropped a place or two in the rankings since then. Scroll down a little.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/dci/Overview/reason6.html

No need to talk to me like I'm Marie Antoinette. I don't need a lecture about my own country. YOU take a drive through East Oakland, or East L.A. Or walk. I dare you. I spent several years when I was a student nurse working (for free, it was a course requirement) in hospitals in the Bay Area whose main clientele were the medically indigent and homeless. Most of our clinic time was in "free" county hospitals. I did my rotation through the ER at Highland Hospital in East Oakland. Entering and leaving the place required a security guard, or walking in a group.

http://www.acmedctr.org/highland.htm

When I voiced my concern at just what you described, this is what I was told by the Chief Resident. He said he wished he had a dollar for everytime he heard THAT one. He also said that the ER facilities and budget were stretched to the breaking point. I could see that for myself.

AND:

If you go to the emergency room, and are NOT having an emergency? (and anyone who can sit all day waiting to see a doctor is NOT having an emergency) Expect to sit and wait. Your kid's sore throat, hives, "maybe' broken arm/hand/toe/finger, bumped head, vomiting (they'll give you a bucket, and I'm sure the other ER patients will appreciate it, heh) flu, earache or WHATEVER will have to wait.

Unless you have been shot, stabbed, involved in a serious car accident, poisoned, are having a heart attack or stroke, are bleeding profusely or have a bone sticking through your skin, you will probably NOT see a doctor/registered nurse practitioner/physician's assistant in a timely fashion.

And that's just the way it is. Even WITH medical insurance, you wait. Last fall, I sat with my seventeen year old daughter in the ER of a private hospital for over three hours waiting to see a doctor. When my son sliced open his finger, we sat holding a bloody rag on his hand for more than two hours before he received treatment. NO ONE just walks right in. Money or no money.

AND, I have called my child's private pediatrician at 10 am, and been told to call again tomorrow. All appointments for that day were gone.

And how many years ago was the Cook County incident with your wife? I would imagine a 'free' hospital in an impoverished, inner city area as heavily populated as Chicago is going to be bad.

Even if her parents had been wealthy, and they brought her to the ER or clinic in an upscale area, there's no guarantee she still wouldn't have nearly died. My youngest sister just about died having an asthma attack when we were kids. Despite my grandmother's quick action in getting her to the hospital. This took place in the ER waiting room. It happens.

I still maintain that compared to other countries, economically disadvantaged folks in the US have it pretty darn good.

If there is nothing wrong with you physically, you are not mentally handicapped, (bad attitudes don't count) there is no reason why you cannot suceed. The opportunities are there. You can finish high school, attend university for free (or very low cost) receive monetary help with living arrangements, qualify for food stamps and WIC, even buy a home.

Were it not for the Federal Housing Authorities government backed mortgage? There is no way my husband and I would have been able to purchase our first home on our own 20 years ago when we first married, unless we got parental help $$$$$, and that wasn't going to happen.

http://www.hud.gov/buying/insured.cfm

Greenback, I almost forgot, I agree that it's not for the US to just eliminate whomever it wants. Who said we were going to take out Chavez? That's what HE says, but I get the impression he's a bit of a drama queen. Where is the proof that this is going to happen? What's that saying? A lie can go around the world before the truth can get it's shoes on.

And now I'll leave. And you can all talk smack about me when I'm not here. ;)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=talk+smack

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
That was NOT very Christian of Pat Robertson, and further reinforces what frauds most of these "TV ministers" really are. What was he thinking? However, none of us knows for sure who is close to the president, and who is not.



Well he meets with the president regularly. Before the war Bush told Robertson in a personal meeting "we're not going to have any casualties." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html, washington post a Pro-Bush paper). Bush denied it so Robertson was probably not telling the truth. Still the point being very few people get to ever meet the President and have a private chat. So i would say he is fairly close to the President of the United states. Also they didn't critisis him, or set Rove on to him, so he must be fairly well liked.

Also every government office has a picture of the President. Every govermenet organisation such as the Venterans association also has a picture of the current President. In a prominent place normally in the enterance. Not a big deal just saying that there are plenty of picture of Bush or the current president. It's not just Chicago, i used to do contract work for the VA and it was every office i visited, not just the hospitals where the vets go.

Hey so you have to wait at hospitals near you even if you have money!? Dam. Thats bad. Even in England if you have health insurance you can usually get stright in to a private hospital for most things. A&E wards you usually have to wait. I am lucky i work for one of the best hospitals in the U.S, no waiting for me :)

Excuse me but this is about the price of oil,not about pictures of bush or anything else.

Roy,

Don't you like looking at pictures of Bush?
:hihi:

Sorry! Couldn't help myself!

Originally posted by Chicago
Roy,

Don't you like looking at pictures of Bush?
:hihi:

Sorry! Couldn't help myself!

Apparently, in the 2000 presidential election US males voted Republican because they understandably preferred Bush to Gore. But by voting Bush, they have ended up with lots of gore (notably in Iraq) but not much bush on TV (due to the influence of the religious right).

Yep, it's time to boycott the big 2 again BP & ESSO...

It seemed to work before :thumbsup:

I find it very odd that on most threads you only have to mention , "Oil " , "Bush " , "America " or , "Dollars " to unleash a torrent of anti-Americanism .
Even in the dark days of the Cold War , when Kruscheov[?] threatened to , "bury us " and the World was constantly on edge , I never heard the old Soviet Union denounced in such terms as those used today about America and Bush.
It seems stranger still when you consider that we and America fought on the same side in World Wars 1 and 2 , the Korean War and that they maintained a large force in Western Europe after 1945 . If it hadn't been for the American's Marshall Plan , most of Western Europe would have practically starved after 1946.
There is also in British society a large swathe of people who follow American Culture in terms of Music , Fashion , Cinema , Language .......etc.......
I'm not claiming that America is always right , by any means , in its domestic or foreign policy but , to me , it's always a mystery why certain people seem to hate EVERYTHING that America does .
Is it envy ? Of their power ? Or their strength ? Or their standard of living ? Something must trigger it off -------even the Nazis had a better press !

I agree Fareast. The reason is probably a mixture of all of the things you mention. I think if you read histories of the 19th century, when Britain was the leading superpower, you will find that the British were the subjects of similar attitudes.

At the present time though I think this ridiculous anti-Americanism is exacerbated by the current incumbent of the White House, who is an easy target for the jibes and prejudices of the morally lop-sided left in Europe. I find it almost heartbreaking that such a great country (in my view the world's greatest) is currently in the hands of such an intellectually challenged and inarticulate fool. It is heartbreaking to see on the news every day the deaths of more US soldiers in Iraq, victims of an unnecessary war launched by Bush and his neo-con puppet masters. The US deserves better (come to think of it, we deserve better than Blair too).

Originally posted by Fareast
I find it very odd that on most threads you only have to mention , "Oil " , "Bush " , "America " or , "Dollars " to unleash a torrent of anti-Americanism .
Even in the dark days of the Cold War , when Kruscheov[?] threatened to , "bury us " and the World was constantly on edge , I never heard the old Soviet Union denounced in such terms as those used today about America and Bush.
It seems stranger still when you consider that we and America fought on the same side in World Wars 1 and 2 , the Korean War and that they maintained a large force in Western Europe after 1945 . If it hadn't been for the American's Marshall Plan , most of Western Europe would have practically starved after 1946.
There is also in British society a large swathe of people who follow American Culture in terms of Music , Fashion , Cinema , Language .......etc.......
I'm not claiming that America is always right , by any means , in its domestic or foreign policy but , to me , it's always a mystery why certain people seem to hate EVERYTHING that America does .
Is it envy ? Of their power ? Or their strength ? Or their standard of living ? Something must trigger it off -------even the Nazis had a better press !

Great post Fareast and one that i whole heartadly support. I can see many dont support Bush but they choose to attack the USA as a whole. I'd much prefer to have a close relationship with the US than any other country in the world.

In relation to the origianl question, i think it is time the govt review the taxes on fuel as it is becoming ridiculous. I'm also considering switching the car to a LPG one.

Oil is expected to go over $100 a barrel, possibly by the end of the year.

Although you have to remember that the fall in the dollar has cushioned some of the blow, but you have to remember that demand from India and China in particular will place continued pressure on the price of oil.

We are in general heading in a deflationary period, and with record levels of debt, the future is not looking exactly 'bright'.

There is much talk about alternative energy sources, but this is usually just talk to exert pressure on Opec.

In the short/medium term, alot will be determined by what happens in Saudi Arabia, and whether the monarchy can stay in power.

Also remember that one of the big factors in why we invaded Iraq, was that Saddam was threatening the US Dollar by wanting to sell oil in Euro's.

This would result in undermining the Dollar, as it is in effect backed up by the US stranglehold on Middle Eastern Oil.

Now the Iranians are also planning to setup an oil bourse, to sell their oil in you've guessed it...Euro's !

If this takes off, you can expect BIG trouble for those who have alot of dollar based investments!

Wolfman

Originally posted by evildrneil
oil price fluctuations have been a staple of life for a long time and may even push people more towards the hydrogen economy (what foresight is it too much to hope for??)

Hydrogen is a more explosive and flammable fuel than petrol LPG or diesel and a hell of a lot more explosive than some of the other alternitives.

Given the driving skills of some of our population i'd doubt the government will be too happy with hundreds of thousands of potential bombs driving around. One car exploding is likley to have a domino effect on other nearby vehicles using hydrogen as a fuel imagine that on the high street.

oil price stability has been the biggest factor in our economic growth!

Look at the 'swinging' 60's, a decade of growth and guess what oil didn't increase in price.

In a funny way we're more dependent upon the Arabs now than they are on us.

'I think there may be trouble ahead'

Now that the US has failed in its attempt to 'oust' (sorry carry out regime change) Democratically elected Chavez, we can expect more trouble.

Interesting times!

Oil hits $65 a barrel,where will it end? When we run out of oil!

1. "Oil rich" countries have been under pressure in the past to keep oil prices down to prevent the economic collapse of western nations. (i.e. don't bite the hand that feed you)

2. China and India are demanding more petroleum to fuel their economic growth and are willing to pay more. (They have already factored in higher fuel prices in their economic growth plans. The west has not.)

3. With a finite supply of oil, these "oil rich" nations will eventually, if not earlier, need to cash-in before they run out. (money, military alliances and military hardware)

What can we do in the West?

1. Factor in higher fuel costs and accept some form of hyperinflation.

2. Reduce our dependency of oil.
a. Plug-in hybrid cars. http://www.calcars.org/
b. Electric cars and trucks using advanced Li-Poly batteries.
c. Improve public transportation infrastructures.
d. Improve electric power grid distribution technology.
e. Increase solar panel efficiencies. (increased demand will spur competition and lower costs)
f. Ride bicycles on nice days.

3. Reduce our consumption of cheap Chinese and Indian imports.

4. Go to war and capture all the oil. Enrage the world and deal with terrorism. Use it all up and then cry about why we didn't try to conserve and find alternatives along the way.

:gag:

Did I leave anything out? :help:

Originally posted by Sierra
Or, you come up with something better YOURSELF. Lordy. If I could be a fly on the wall THAT day.



www.openoffice.org

I didn't but someone did.

Originally posted by Sierra
Greenback and Disco_Cat, I hope I didn't scare you too much.

No worries you didn’t scare me I’ve been away enjoying seeing mostly American punk bands at Leeds festival. Don’t know where that sits with the stereotype that anyone who dares criticise US foreign policy is a rabid anti Americanist, but I never saw the logic behind that stereotype in the first place. I have a question for you, if Cuba doctors are as incompetent as you claim how do you explain the remarkably high life expectancy for the country? And incidentally a lot of Americans do receive treatment from Cuban doctors but they do so by travelling to see them in Mexico where they get treated a lot cheaper then in the US

I don’t believe Cuba is paradise, far from it, and i would much rather live in the UK or US then Cuba. But what's so interesting about Cuba is it is an example of what can be achieved by directing as much resources as possible into education and health. It’s already been established that we’d both rather be poor in the US then Cuba but as Chomsky argues about comparing the USSR to the US (another American this supposed anti-American is a fan of) this is an utterly false comparison as the coutnries are totally different in almost every way.

A better country to contrast with would be one much more similar such as the Dominican Republic http://www.who.int/countries/dom/en/ or Haiti http://www.who.int/countries/hti/en/ yet I have never seen pictures of economic migrants risking their lives to get to these places from Cuba http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/

Out of these three which would you rather be poor in?

These are some interesting article not produced by the BBC or Google, which covers the improvements Chavez is making to ordinary peoples lives by ignoring the advice of the WTO organisation and American neo-liberalism by redirecting the wealth from Venezuelan oil into Health and education in the country.
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=653
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=656

The oil price hit $70 today in the states due to the somewhat windy conditions they are having, just wait until winter sets in and see how much more it rises :(

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
No worries you didn’t scare me I’ve been away enjoying seeing mostly American punk bands at Leeds festival. Don’t know where that sits with the stereotype that anyone who dares criticise US foreign policy is a rabid anti Americanist, but I never saw the logic behind that stereotype in the first place. I have a question for you, if Cuba doctors are as incompetent as you claim how do you explain the remarkably high life expectancy for the country? And incidentally a lot of Americans do receive treatment from Cuban doctors but they do so by travelling to see them in Mexico where they get treated a lot cheaper then in the US

I don’t believe Cuba is paradise, far from it, and i would much rather live in the UK or US then Cuba. But what's so interesting about Cuba is it is an example of what can be achieved by directing as much resources as possible into education and health. It’s already been established that we’d both rather be poor in the US then Cuba but as Chomsky argues about comparing the USSR to the US (another American this supposed anti-American is a fan of) this is an utterly false comparison as the coutnries are totally different in almost every way.

A better country to contrast with would be one much more similar such as the Dominican Republic http://www.who.int/countries/dom/en/ or Haiti http://www.who.int/countries/hti/en/ yet I have never seen pictures of economic migrants risking their lives to get to these places from Cuba http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/

Out of these three which would you rather be poor in?

These are some interesting article not produced by the BBC or Google, which covers the improvements Chavez is making to ordinary peoples lives by ignoring the advice of the WTO organisation and American neo-liberalism by redirecting the wealth from Venezuelan oil into Health and education in the country.
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=653
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=656

Every positive statement you have said about Cuba in this post is based on the assumption that evidence emanating from official Cuban sources (for example about health and education standards) can be taken at its face value. In fact, the same false assumptions used to be made about other communist regimes and the same specious arguments trotted out - to the effect that, for example, the Soviet Union or East Germany might have bad human rights records, but at least they have good health and education systems. We now know that the statistics on which this evidence was based was largely manufactured and in fact the standards of health care (and indeed of other public services) was appallingly bad in these countries. When the Castro tyranny is eventually toppled, and access is gained to the genuine statistical evidence, I think it highly likely that a very different picture will emerge of Cuba's supposedly positive achievements in recent decades. What is more likely to emerge is a picture of how Cuba's economic and social development has been held back by a megalomaniacal tyrant and his fantasies.

This is an important point but you are forgetting this isn’t just based upon evidence from behind the Iron curtain. As has already been pointed out Cuba has exported it’s doctors to countries including Venezuela. So even if we accept that Cuba has lied to the WHO about the state of it’s domestic healthcare the very fact that a developing country is in a position where it can have more doctors and nurses volunteering in other developing countries then the WHO is an impressive feat.

And while our American friend is very sceptical about the quality of this exported medical care, I have read reports from very satisfied residents of Venezuelan Barrios. the Venezuelan people must after all be getting something for all that free crude oil, which gets more expensive by the day.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Cuba's economic and social development has been held back by a megalomaniacal tyrant and his fantasies.

So do you genuinely believe that the state of education and health is worse in Cuba then Haiti or the Dominican Republic?

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
So do you genuinely believe that the state of education and health is worse in Cuba then Haiti or the Dominican Republic?

Disco_Cat,

This 'worst case comparison' argument (which I notice you have used before on different threads) just will not wash.

The most enlightening and useful comparisons ought to be with Latin American development as a whole since 1959 or with Cuba's economic performance before the Castro regime. If we take the latter for example, prior to the Castro 'revolution', Cuba was one of the richest countries in Latin America (second only to Argentina) and had a GDP per capita comparable to that of Italy or Spain. It has the lowest infant moratility rate of any Latin American country. It ranked third in Latin America for per capita food consumption and also scored highly with regard to per capita usage of consumer goods of various kinds. As a result of the so called 'revolution', in comparison with other Latin American countries Cuba now ranks near the bottom on virtually ever economic indicator relating to consumption of goods, whereas prior to the 'revolution' it was near the top. As for levels of literacy, many other Latin American countries have made huge gains in this regard since the 1950s. As for health care, Cuba's statistics with regard to infant mortality require closer scrutiny, not least becasue of the very high abortion rate for high risk pregnancies. The much trumpeted export of Cuban doctors to other developing countries is yet another example of Castro's egotistical obsession with cutting a dash on the world stage. The bottom line is that Cuban living standards have generally declined since 1959 (except for Castro and his nomenklatura) whereas living standards in Latin America as a whole have risen appreciably. Add to this the appaling human rights record of the Castro regime, including a long catalogue of political repression, then it should become clear that the Cuban revolution was a catastrophe for Cuba (its international image sustained only by regime propaganda and by the gullibility or ignorance of certain Western commentators, analysts or idealists hankering after a communist paradise as an alternative to market capitalism). Castro was by no means the only alternative to Batista (any more than Lenin was the only alternative to Tsar Nicholas II). Cuba's development trajectory since 1959 would almost certainly have been very much better without the Castro regime.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The most enlightening and useful comparisons ought to be with Latin American development as a whole since 1959 or with Cuba's economic performance before the Castro regime. If we take the latter for example, prior to the Castro 'revolution', Cuba was one of the richest countries in Latin America (second only to Argentina) and had a GDP per capita comparable to that of Italy or Spain. It has the lowest infant moratility rate of any Latin American country. It ranked third in Latin America for per capita food consumption and also scored highly with regard to per capita usage of consumer goods of various kinds. As a result of the so called 'revolution', in comparison with other Latin American countries Cuba now ranks near the bottom on virtually ever economic indicator relating to consumption of goods, whereas prior to the 'revolution' it was near the top. As for levels of literacy, many other Latin American countries have made huge gains in this regard since the 1950s. As for health care, Cuba's statistics with regard to infant mortality require closer scrutiny, not least becasue of the very high abortion rate for high risk pregnancies. The much trumpeted export of Cuban doctors to other developing countries is yet another example of Castro's egotistical obsession with cutting a dash on the world stage. The bottom line is that Cuban living standards have generally declined since 1959 (except for Castro and his nomenklatura) whereas living standards in Latin America as a whole have risen appreciably. Add to this the appaling human rights record of the Castro regime, including a long catalogue of political repression, then it should become clear that the Cuban revolution was a catastrophe for Cuba (its international image sustained only by regime propaganda and by the gullibility or ignorance of certain Western commentators, analysts or idealists hankering after a communist paradise as an alternative to market capitalism). Castro was by no means the only alternative to Batista (any more than Lenin was the only alternative to Tsar Nicholas II). Cuba's development trajectory since 1959 would almost certainly have been very much better without the Castro regime. [/B]

I think you will find that much of that can be explained by the huge and long lasting sanctions placed on Cuba by it's largest and rishest neighbour. They have been pretty much unpresidented.

I don't think there is any country you could make a direct comparison to.

The case can still be made however that without Castro things would have been better. If the missle crisis had never have happened the sanctions would not have been in place.

However after they were in place, there are some pretty impressive things done to try and keep the quality of live up.

And i know there are many poor people in America today, happy they will be getting cheap oil direct from Venezuela, as the House and Senate here have done little to help out poorer school find their heating this winter.

It’s interesting you choose GDP and consumption of consumer goods as means of judging a countries success. If you judge your quality of life by how much Coca Cola you can drink each day or how fashionable your Nike trainers are then Cuba is certainly not going to be place you enjoy living in.

Of course Cuba had a higher GDP prior to the revolution but as you well know this wealth was focused on cities such as Havana and bought no benefit to the average rural Cuban. Cuba’s GDP was artificially high due to the American mob, amongst others, treating Havana as a playground of gambling and prostitution. Cubans outside of the big cities reaped no benefit from this "investment".

And as for choosing the worst case scenario I didn’t do this intentionally as I merely picked countries of a similar size in the Caribbean to offer a fairer comparison (strange you did not berate other user for picking “best case scenario” when they contrasted Cuba to the USA)

Finally It would be useful if you could provide some evidence to go along with your post, I’d be very interested to know which Latin American countries you refer to as having made great gains in combating illiteracy.

Originally posted by back2basics
I think you will find that much of that can be explained by the huge and long lasting sanctions placed on Cuba by it's largest and rishest neighbour. They have been pretty much unpresidented.

I don't think there is any country you could make a direct comparison to.

The case can still be made however that without Castro things would have been better. If the missle crisis had never have happened the sanctions would not have been in place.


I have a friend who makes whiskey in Scotland and he used to buy old Rum barrels from Cuban to make his best whiskey in but the economic blockade by America stopped him doing this as the US was one of his biggest markets and it was illegal for him to import his whiskey their purely because of him buying old Cuban rum barrels. So I think your very accurate in highlighting the embargo when explaining Cuba’ poor GDP.

However you are incorrect in blaming the embargo on the Cuban Missile crisis as the blockade was initiated by Eisenhower in 1960, a year before the US attempted and failed to invade Cuba and two years before the Missile Crisis.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I have a friend who makes whiskey in Scotland and he used to buy old Rum barrels from Cuban to make his best whiskey in but the economic blockade by America stopped him doing this as the US was one of his biggest markets and it was illegal for him to import his whiskey their purely because of him buying old Cuban rum barrels. So I think your very accurate in highlighting the embargo when explaining Cuba’ poor GDP.

However you are incorrect in blaming the embargo on the Cuban Missile crisis as the blockade was initiated by Eisenhower in 1960, a year before the US attempted and failed to invade Cuba and two years before the Missile Crisis.

It was just a sugar embargo in 1960, which escalated as Russia bought the sugar, and then the oil after the partial embargo at the end of 1960. Russia was buying the goods at and inflated price, so the economic effect was minimal.

The real problems started when the extended embargo in 1962 was placed, it was a problem because Russia did not take on the burden the embargo was taking. Prior to this embargo nearly 70% of all Cuban exports were to the US, so it played an absolute role in the Cuban economy.

Stoping tourism was a big hit on the Cuban economy.

When the regulations on US visitors were removed there was a huge amount of people going to Cuba for medical tourism, buying cheap drugs and bringing them back to America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._embargo_against_Cuba

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
It’s interesting you choose GDP and consumption of consumer goods as means of judging a countries success. If you judge your quality of life by how much Coca Cola you can drink each day or how fashionable your Nike trainers are then Cuba is certainly not going to be place you enjoy living in.

Of course Cuba had a higher GDP prior to the revolution but as you well know this wealth was focused on cities such as Havana and bought no benefit to the average rural Cuban. Cuba’s GDP was artificially high due to the American mob, amongst others, treating Havana as a playground of gambling and prostitution. Cubans outside of the big cities reaped no benefit from this "investment".

And as for choosing the worst case scenario I didn’t do this intentionally as I merely picked countries of a similar size in the Caribbean to offer a fairer comparison (strange you did not berate other user for picking “best case scenario” when they contrasted Cuba to the USA)

Finally It would be useful if you could provide some evidence to go along with your post, I’d be very interested to know which Latin American countries you refer to as having made great gains in combating illiteracy.

There are indeed many indicators of a country's success and on almost every one of these (e.g. standard of living, quality of transport and power infrastructures , ownership of cars or telephones, freedom of expression etc) Cuba under Castro has been a miserable failure. You can introduce as many flippant examples as you like as a means of diverting attention form the abundant evidence concerning Cuba's maldevelopment under Castro, but it just will not wash. Cuba is not a country many Cubans enjoy living in either, given the extraordinary lengths many of them will go to to escape Castro's terrestrial paradise (risking execution or long prison terms if they are caught doing so). You are quite correct that Cuba's wealth prior to the revolution was unevenly distributed (incidentally, it still is, thanks to the Castro nomenklatura) but there was also a trickle down effect, and also some opportunities for free enterprise, meaning that this wealth distribution was by no means static. As for choosing Haiti and the DR as comparators, I doubt whether Cubans themselves (either before or since the advent of Castro) would regard these two countries as the standard against which to measure Cuba's economic and social performance. Moreover, I did not compare Cuba to the USA. I compared it against the development of latin America as a whole. Finally, you ask me to provide examples of Latin American countries which have made great gains in combating illiteracy besides Cuba. Well, in alphabetical order, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama and Paraguay. All of these were behind Cuba in this regard prior to 1959 and all have made huge strides comparable to or even better than Cuba in this regard (if measured in literacy percentages now compared to literacy percentages in the 1950s). Moreover, in Cuba's case, because the repressive nature of the regime and the maldevelopment of the economy, much of the gains which should accrue from increased literacy have been squandered anyway. As for the US embargo, Castro brought this on himself (and in so doing on the people of Cuba) by his policy of expropriation and by aligning himself with the Soviet Union and other communist states, which propped up the regime for decades. No US president would have allowed Soviet missiles to be placed 90 miles off the US coast. Had Castro opted to introduce a pluralist democracy and a market economy instead of a centrally planned, Soviet-leaning dictatorship, the history of modern Cuba would have been very different (but then Castro would not then have been able to stay in power, which is probably his principal raison d'etre).

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Finally, you ask me to provide examples of Latin American countries which have made great gains in combating illiteracy besides Cuba. Well, in alphabetical order, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama and Paraguay. All of these were behind Cuba in this regard prior to 1959 and all have made huge strides comparable to or even better than Cuba in this regard (if measured in literacy percentages now compared to literacy percentages in the 1950s).

Sorry my mistake I should have been more specific, I wanted to know if you could point me in the direction of sources you have used to reach your conclusion as I’ve never come across this argument before. This source for example http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_2_1_1.html I believe puts Cuba’s literacy rate at 96.9% but Brazil and Haiti's at 86.4% and 51.9%

I’m not sure how reliable this source is but I have always understood that the Average literacy rate in Latin America was around 90% with Cuba being at the top end at around 95%, but your point was more specifically on the development of literacy and I’d be very interested to know the sources you are referring to.

Originally posted by back2basics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._embargo_against_Cuba

Another fine example of opensource for our American friend.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Sorry my mistake I should have been more specific, I wanted to know if you could point me in the direction of sources you have used to reach your conclusion as I’ve never come across this argument before. This source for example http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_2_1_1.html I believe puts Cuba’s literacy rate at 96.9% but Brazil and Haiti's at 86.4% and 51.9%

I’m not sure how reliable this source is but I have always understood that the Average literacy rate in Latin America was around 90% with Cuba being at the top end at around 95%, but your point was more specifically on the development of literacy and I’d be very interested to know the sources you are referring to.

Disco_Cat,

I am very pleased to be able to oblige. As you say, the point I was making was in relation to percentage improvements in literacy rates in Latin American countries since the 1950s. On this criterion, almost all Latin American countries have higher percentage scores than Cuba (see page 5 of the attached article). The key point here is that literacy rates have improved markedly in the whole region since the 1950s, not just in Cuba. Moreover, as the article makes clear, not only are the health care claims of the Castro regime exaggerated, but also the regime's performance on virtually every socio-economic indicator you care to name has been abysmal (e.g. food production, industrial production, quality of infrastructure, provision of public utilities, exports, balance of payments, GDP per capita, quantity and quality of food and consumer goods, levels of FDI etc). The article below by Smith and Llorens is a good starting point, although there are others which make essentially the same points - i.e. that the Castro regime has been a disaster for Cuba. If Castro was so confident about the support he has amongst the Cuban people he would have held free elections - but of course he won't for obvious reasons.


http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Disco_Cat,

I am very pleased to be able to oblige. As you say, the point I was making was in relation to percentage improvements in literacy rates in Latin American countries since the 1950s. On this criterion, almost all Latin American countries have higher percentage scores than Cuba (see page 5 of the attached article). The key point here is that literacy rates have improved markedly in the whole region since the 1950s, not just in Cuba. Moreover, as the article makes clear, not only are the health care claims of the Castro regime exaggerated, but also the regime's performance on virtually every socio-economic indicator you care to name has been abysmal (e.g. food production, industrial production, quality of infrastructure, provision of public utilities, exports, balance of payments, GDP per capita, quantity and quality of food and consumer goods, levels of FDI etc). The article below by Smith and Llorens is a good starting point, although there are others which make essentially the same points - i.e. that the Castro regime has been a disaster for Cuba. If Castro was so confident about the support he has amongst the Cuban people he would have held free elections - but of course he won't for obvious reasons.


http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf

http://sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=574068#post574068

Here's the Onion's reaction to the incitement to murder allegedly preached by a certain hate-filled radical cleric ...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40107

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
www.openoffice.org

I didn't but someone did.

Forgive this late reply. Real life intrudes sometimes. :hihi:

School has started here, things are beyond busy, and we had a small crisis when my son's pet rat died yesterday.

I'm not too knowledgeable about computers, and all I know is Windows, so I'll have to take your word for it. Now if they can only get everyone to use it....On second thought. Bill Gates would never allow it. And I'm not kidding.

I really don't want to fight with anyone on the forum, and I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone who offers any criticism of the US is necessarily Anti-American. I apologize if I come off that way. Perhaps I am oversensitive, and/or we are misunderstanding each other.

I think a more likely explanation are cultural differences. We do things differently and see things differently.

Lord Chaverly, I agree 100% with you about Cuba. You said it better than I ever could, and IMHO, I think life under Castro for the average Cuban sucks like a clogged drain.
Let us not forget about the Mariel Boatlift in 1980. Where Castro basically emptied the prisons, mental asylums, and hospitals, threw in the poor he didn't want and shipped them out of Cuba. 125,000 landed in Miami, and the US took them in. The fictional movie Scarface, starts with the title character leaving Cuba this way.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
And incidentally a lot of Americans do receive treatment from Cuban doctors but they do so by travelling to see them in Mexico where they get treated a lot cheaper then in the US

While this is true, there are also Americans who stick forks into toasters and base jump off of El Capitan. These people are nuts, and anyone who seeks medical care in Mexico is asking for trouble. It's usually people having cosmetic surgery or procedures either illegal in the US or those not covered by their insurance. Mexican doctors and hospitals demand cash or credit card payment up front, and refuse to treat Americans and even Mexicans who can't pay. Even victims of accidents. Mexican Pharmacias are notorious for selling any drug to anybody, as long as they have the money.

Mexico seems to be very much like Cuba. Beautiful country, beautiful people, bad government. I've not been to Cuba, but I have been to Mexico many times. My maternal grandmother's family came to the US from Mexico in the early 1800's, and they have strong ties to Mission Dolores in San Francisco.

http://www.californiamissions.com/cahistory/dolores.html

There is a huge problem here in the US with illegal immigration from Mexico, particularly the western states. These people come seeking a better life, and free top notch medical care not available to them in Mexico. There are federal laws requiring ER doctors to treat ANYONE who seeks care. Regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay. EMTALA: the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985. The inevitable stampede is bankrupting the US health care system. This is from Arizona, but things are just as bad in California, Texas, and other border states.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:69346

We are seeing the resurgence of diseases long since eradicated in the US. Last year, my husband and I had to have measles shots, despite being vaccinated as children, because of the influx of illegals bringing in diseases like whooping cough (pertussis), diptheria, tuberculosis, and even leprosy.

Chicago, the world hates us anyway. No matter what we do. In fact, we seem to take as much flak for the stuff we don't do. Those people who have the notion that things will be allright, and people will like us if we just do what they want could not be more wrong.

We are HATED in some parts of the world, simply because we are top dog. Nothing personal, they'd hate anyone in our position. As a child visiting Mexico City with my family, a restaurant refused to serve us. Our host was embarrassed, and argued with the owner in spanish. But he was adamant. This was his place, and he wasn't having any damn "yanquis" in it. He used words to describe us, that even though I have a limited grasp of spanish, and I was a kid, I knew weren't very nice.

I know I'm way, way, off topic, but Disco_Cat, I wanted to let you know that I appreciated your taking the time to reply, and that I wasn't ignoring you.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Here's the Onion's reaction to the incitement to murder allegedly preached by a certain hate-filled radical cleric ...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40107

You are aware that this is satire, right? It's not real news.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
Why don't you just call me a capitalist pig while you're at it?

I'm tired. It's late here. I'm going to bed, but before I do, I'll say this. Don't you DARE make assumptions about ME or any other American and our world views. DON'T YOU EFFING DARE! Most of you don't know what you are talking about.


:) Sierra

There is no need to call you a capitalist pig, you are from or live in the USA speaks for its self.

I hesitate to use the word american as that would lump the canadians and mexicans with the USA and I'm sure that would offend them deeply. Just being compelled to share the same continent is bad enough.

Originally posted by redhawk

I hesitate to use the word american as that would lump the canadians and mexicans with the USA and I'm sure that would offend them deeply. Just being compelled to share the same continent is bad enough.

I think I might of found out why this forum has a reputation for being ‘anti-American’ one too many full of **** comments like this.

On a more constructive note, I found an interesting article on New Orleans Indymedia about Venezula’s pledge of aid to the US hurricane victims (careful Sierra it’s another example of anti-Bill Gates/Rupert Mordoch open source info)

Venezuela was the first country to offer help to the United States in dealing with the effects of Hurricane Katrina. On Wednesday, August 31st, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuelan state-owned CITGO Petroleum Corporation had already pledged US$1 million for hurricane aid. "It's a terrible tragedy that our North American brothers are living through," Chavez said. "We have a battalion from our Simon Bolivar humanitarian team ready in case they authorize it for us to go there, if they give us the green light." He offered humanitarian workers and fuel to help. "We are willing to donate fuel for hospitals, for public transport, everything we can do," Chavez said.
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/4004.php

you Brits shouldn't worry too much about oil prices, just use your dole money, you won't feel the pinch one bit :clap: :clap:

Off in holidays now, worked and all paid for :heyhey:

Originally posted by poppins
you Brits shouldn't worry too much about oil prices, just use your dole money, you won't feel the pinch one bit :clap: :clap:

Off in holidays now, worked and all paid for :heyhey:

Yes....damn us and our state benefits and public services....free healthcare anyone?

Maybe you all ought to try sticking to the topic which in case you have forgotten is about the price of crude oil,if you want to discus cuba or castro feel free to start your own thread on that subject.:mad:

Roy,

I agree. This thread has been hijacked by a debate about Cuba et al. However, I must say that I really like Cuban sandwiches. They are fantastic! Ham, pork, and two kinds of melted cheese on a fresh roll lovingly pressed flat and crisped to perfection. Long live Cuban sandwiches! :clap:


Oh… and the high oil prices really bite… :gag:

Originally posted by redhawk
There is no need to call you a capitalist pig, you are from or live in the USA speaks for its self.

I hesitate to use the word american as that would lump the canadians and mexicans with the USA and I'm sure that would offend them deeply. Just being compelled to share the same continent is bad enough.

Oh dear.

Your lovely and fair minded comment had somehow escaped my notice until now, and I'd like to ask, what the hell did I ever do to YOU?

While you're mulling this over, might I suggest that you take a long walk off a short pier.

And if you harbor such ill will towards Americans, change your damn name.

"Redhawk" is a traditional Native American name. Commonly used as a surname these days, mostly by the Oglala Sioux and the Seminoles.

You sir, are what is commonly referred to in California as a doofus.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doofus

And by the way. The weather here is fabulous. 85 degrees (30 celsius) bright and sunny. Eat your heart out.


Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
You sir, are what is commonly referred to in California as a doofus.

Are you sure you don't mean "Grade A Nimrod"? :)

Careful Sierra!

Redhawk is an ambulance chaser. Keep an eye on your purse! :suspect: I really have to laugh at a lawyer calling anyone a capitalist pig. It's kind of like a pot calling the kettle black! :hihi: I imagine that several years of fine education went into developing such a clever mind. ;)

Roy,

Just wanted you to know that I am still keeping on topic. Oil prices still suck and are getting worse! :thumbsup:

Is Peak Oil somthing too laugh about?:D


http://www.hubbertwehaveaproblem.co.uk