| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2004 12:09:56 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by yuki:
so being half-arab and a photographer, does that mean that my chances of going on Holiday with my camera in the US next year without harassment from the authorities are slim to none?
*sigh* |
I wouldn't say slim to none, but be prepared for some level of questioning/harassment from authorities. And it depends a lot on where you want to shot. The normal tourist areas in large cities are generally less problematic. Being careful and aware of your surroundings will go a long way toward avoiding hassles. I'd say come ahead, but with your eyes wide open.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 12:11:39. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:12:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by yuki:
so being half-arab and a photographer, does that mean that my chances of going on Holiday with my camera in the US next year without harassment from the authorities are slim to none?
*sigh* |
I wouldn't say slim to none, but be prepared for some level of questioning/harassment from authorities. And it depends a lot on where you want to shot. The normal tourist areas in large cities are generally less problematic. Being carefully and aware of your surroundings will go a long way toward avoiding hassles. I'd say come ahead, but with your eyes wide open. |
Just make sure you don't appear to the authorities "carefully and aware of your surroundings", as that might prompt more questions.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:15:24 PM · #28 |
[/quote]As a serviver of 9/11 (I used to work in the north tower, on the 30th floor), even now I can say: I didn't move to this country to be safe, I moved here to be free. I will take a chance on being killed, rather than lose the freedoms which attracted me here in the first place.
 [/quote]
I am with you!
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 12:16:15. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:27:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Herblacklist12:
I am with you! |
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:33:06 PM · #30 |
| Thank you, dimitrii, for reminding some of our more liberal DPC contributors that the USA enjoys great personal freedoms when compared to the rest of the world. There are always those who will whine about their alleged loss of freedom...especially those people who have not had to sacrifice their blood and part of their young life to maintain those very freedoms. Get over it!! We live in a changed world, with new dangers. If we stick our collective heads in the sand about terrorists,they will win. It is a new war, people, and we must adapt to it. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:38:12 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JEM:
Thank you, dimitrii, for reminding some of our more liberal DPC contributors that the USA enjoys great personal freedoms when compared to the rest of the world. There are always those who will whine about their alleged loss of freedom...especially those people who have not had to sacrifice their blood and part of their young life to maintain those very freedoms. Get over it!! We live in a changed world, with new dangers. If we stick our collective heads in the sand about terrorists,they will win. It is a new war, people, and we must adapt to it. |
If the adaptation goes the way it has gone so far, the terrorists have won.
My experiences with over zealous authorities goes back to the time when my father would come home from the KGB offices beaten; all they (the authorities) were doing was trying to protect their way of life. My father never made it here, having died at 40.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:44:19 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
I didn't mean to bring out the conspiracy theorists...
Just read the article, have a laugh and turn in your favorite photographer from this list of suspects to claim your reward! |
The fun part of this is, if I get turned in, I'd probably end up getting deported - just for having the police background check pop up in an INS database, I'd no doubt fail the next round of screening - but hey, what's a little freedom anyway. The Scottish mafia have well known terrorist links in Texas after all.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 12:46:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Canada has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.
Why don't we just invade ummmmmmm errrr annex Canada? |
No need. We're already economically occupied by the United States due to the Free Trade agreement. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:10:17 PM · #34 |
To ALL who think the Iraq war is based on oil:
Why is it that since the US began the occupation of that country, gas prices have gone up? If Iraq has the second largest supply of oil in the world under its land and the US had control of that land, why is it that we are paying $2/gallon instead of 50 cents? Wouldn't it make sense that if the US went in there for the purpose of getting oil, that oil prices would actually go DOWN after the war (instead of up)? |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:19:44 PM · #35 |
Haliburton needs some more billions to get the Iraqi oil flowing.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 13:21:05. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:38:11 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ngremour:
Why is it that since the US began the occupation of that country, gas prices have gone up? If Iraq has the second largest supply of oil in the world under its land and the US had control of that land, why is it that we are paying $2/gallon instead of 50 cents? Wouldn't it make sense that if the US went in there for the purpose of getting oil, that oil prices would actually go DOWN after the war (instead of up)? |
No! Oil prices are never going to go down. The goal in a war for oil isn't to lower prices, it's to secure energy for the future of your country. Do a search on "peak oil". You'll have to weed though some extreme dooms-day banter, but you'll also find a lot of credible sources discussing the future of energy on this planet. The term is one you won't hear spoken publicly too often, but it was certianly discussed in Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings - which is one of the reasons they are so Top-Secret. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:43:21 PM · #37 |
Given the nature of this thread, I've bumped it over to 'Rant'...
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:45:27 PM · #38 |
Thanks manic,
okay okay okay...maybe this has veered a little to far off topic.
I hereby allow people to take away my freedom to not be bothered. go ahead..ask me question, and therefore rip my freedom, cherished so dearly from my grasp. I die...
lol
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 13:51:56.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:55:00 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ngremour:
To ALL who think the Iraq war is based on oil:
Why is it that since the US began the occupation of that country, gas prices have gone up? If Iraq has the second largest supply of oil in the world under its land and the US had control of that land, why is it that we are paying $2/gallon instead of 50 cents? Wouldn't it make sense that if the US went in there for the purpose of getting oil, that oil prices would actually go DOWN after the war (instead of up)? |
Oil is a finite resource. The war isn't about bringing down oil prices, which would lead to a dramatic increase in usage here in the US, it is about keeping the oil flowing. There is a difference.
Not much of a difference on the surface, but a significant difference if brought into context.
Our government and the oil companies honestly don't care about bringing the price of oil down. What they care about is keeping oil flowing. If the flow of oil stops, the world will crash into the worst economic and life crisis ever experienced.
Within weeks of the flow of oil ceasing there would be continual theft of oil/gasoline from even your own automobile. Manufacturing plants would have to idle for lack of parts, eventually they would shut down. Food wouldn't get to the cities, let alone be harvested from the fields. Power stations would begin cutting back the juice they feed people, since they would be receiving fewer and fewer fuel that is carried to them via Diesel Trains, Diesel Semi-Trucks and Diesel Ocean Going Vessels. Without power, you couldn't be guaranteed fresh clean water from the water departments across the US.
If something couldn't be done to ensure or restart the flow of oil, it would end up being a long, cold and starving winter for those of us in the North. In the South, there would be starvation and rampant disease from lack of clean water and the normally hot and humid climate that bacteria and other diseases enjoy so much.
Hopefully before that point, our military would use the "Strategic Oil Reserve", which is what it is there for, in order to take command of oil fields and ensure that we start to receive oil once again. Of course, we would have limited military control of those fields and would face regular attack from militants and other forces also vying for that oil.
If, in such a time, our leadership is smart, they would share the oil for as long as it lasts, with the rest of the world. Thus getting the world on our side against whatever forces stopped the flow of oil in the first place.
Hopefully, if such a day arrived it could be over within a year and only about or less then 10% of the world's population that depends on oil would perish in the meantime. It would take probably another 5 years to stabilize, but things might return to where they were before the oil flow stopping.
To slightly use your words...
"To ALL who think the Iraq war is based on oil prices:
It's about keeping oil flowing so that we don't *die*.
We being the industrialized world that depends upon oil for over 95% of the things we use each and every day. From food, to clothing, to shelter, to transportation, to energy and even to talking over the Internet. Without Oil today, none of that would be as easily available to us as it is. That is why we NEED to keep the oil flowing, until we can find a readily available, inexpensive, viable alternative that will replace all of our needs we currently require Oil for." |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:01:14 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by ngremour:
To ALL who think the Iraq war is based on oil:
Why is it that since the US began the occupation of that country, gas prices have gone up? If Iraq has the second largest supply of oil in the world under its land and the US had control of that land, why is it that we are paying $2/gallon instead of 50 cents? Wouldn't it make sense that if the US went in there for the purpose of getting oil, that oil prices would actually go DOWN after the war (instead of up)? |
Your answer shows a complete ignorance of the laws of supply and demand, and of the intrinsic human nature towards greed.
Prices went up during the war because:
1. Supplies are always uncertain during wartime, when a "regional conflict" could erupt into a world-wide conflagration at any time
2. Oil companies can get you to pay it |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:13:21 PM · #41 |
Wow, from a humorous who took the pictures to our dependence on oil and the laws of supply and demand.
To get back on topic:
Wasn't me! |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:19:28 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Wow, from a humorous who took the pictures to our dependence on oil and the laws of supply and demand.
To get back on topic:
Wasn't me! |
Perhaps the fact that all threads seem to inevitably migrate towards this topic is in fact proof that it really is all about oil ... |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:28:16 PM · #43 |
I assume that people who live in Corpus Christy TX have nothing else to take picture of,but rafinery after rafinery and the best part of the beach is owned by the military !
It is ecological disaster over-there,the whole air stinks and 99% of the remaining seafront is owned by rich Oilmen's villas !
Awful !
BTW,I was there 2 years ago and didn't find anything decent to take picture of !
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 14:29:56. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:53:07 PM · #44 |
few people come from perfect places, and those that do shouldn't throw stones; much less people from very imperfect places. Unfortunately, ignorance and jealousy seems to rule the day.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 14:54:15.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 03:12:22 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by imolaavant:
Originally posted by ngremour:
Why is it that since the US began the occupation of that country, gas prices have gone up? If Iraq has the second largest supply of oil in the world under its land and the US had control of that land, why is it that we are paying $2/gallon instead of 50 cents? Wouldn't it make sense that if the US went in there for the purpose of getting oil, that oil prices would actually go DOWN after the war (instead of up)? |
No! Oil prices are never going to go down. The goal in a war for oil isn't to lower prices, it's to secure energy for the future of your country. Do a search on "peak oil". You'll have to weed though some extreme dooms-day banter, but you'll also find a lot of credible sources discussing the future of energy on this planet. The term is one you won't hear spoken publicly too often, but it was certianly discussed in Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings - which is one of the reasons they are so Top-Secret. |
There was a national geographic issue recently that was mostly focusing on the realities of peak oil. It isn't such a wacko dooms-day plot rather than just a reality of limited resources and rising demand. The main point of contention between geologists appears to be when, not if the supply runs out. Estimates vary between 10 and 40 years and that seems to be the only major question mark. The rising requirements of the Chinese economy hits this quite hard too.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 15:13:29.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 03:46:11 PM · #46 |
Your answer shows a complete ignorance of the laws of supply and demand, and of the intrinsic human nature towards greed.
Prices went up during the war because:
1. Supplies are always uncertain during wartime, when a "regional conflict" could erupt into a world-wide conflagration at any time
2. Oil companies can get you to pay it
Ok, so let me get this straight, since I am so ignorant. The war is now over and Iraq is producing oil, therby increasing world supply, but prices have not gone down yet. Does the law of supply and demand say that when supply goes up, prices also go up? Or does it say that when supply goes up and demand remains a constant, prices go down?
Oil companies can get you to pay it? Well, that is true, but it was also true before the war and will be for some time. They could double the price of gas and we would still pay it, but they haven't done that, have they? We will never aggressively pursue alternative fuels until one of two things happens:
1) oil reserves come close to running out (who knows when? they find new pockets of oil all the time)
2) the use of gas and oil becomes cost-prohibitive. doubtful the oil companies will let that happen and drive use toward alternative fuels sources. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 04:01:17 PM · #47 |
| A white man driving a white van just parked across the street from my house! Should I be concerned? |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 04:18:15 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ngremour:
Ok, so let me get this straight, since I am so ignorant. The war is now over and Iraq is producing oil, therby increasing world supply, but prices have not gone down yet. Does the law of supply and demand say that when supply goes up, prices also go up? Or does it say that when supply goes up and demand remains a constant, prices go down? |
It tends to go up when you blow up the supply lines, set fire to the refinaries, and so on, limiting the supply and increasing the uncertainty of future supply. 4000+ miles of pipeline is hard to secure in the middle of a war zone, with already overstretched resources. Iraq apparently was producing about half as much oil as it did before the US invaded (at oct 2003). This is supposed to be now approaching pre-invasion levels, which is also evident by the now falling gasoline prices in the US to some extent.
Also, demand is not remaining constant, as some of the world's largest economies are now greatly and rapidly increasing their oil requirements. China is already the second largest oil consumer and the rate of increase of consumption is around 15% and still growing.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 16:29:10.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 04:45:39 PM · #49 |
If oil companies doubled the price of gas today there would be massive protests and a quick turn to alternatives. That is why environmentalists have consistently urged that the price of gas be raised closer to its true cost (via taxes which can be used to research alternatives).
Gas prices have been kept artificially LOW in the US for a long time. By increasing them only a few percent above general inflation they gradually increase your tolerance without engendering a catastrophic reaction. Rather like the way a person's tolerance for drugs gradually creeps up to where one eventually needs what would have recently been a fatal dose just to maintain a state of equilibrium. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 04:50:00 PM · #50 |
Prices also go up as the number of competing vendors goes down. I've noticed that a lot of "conservatives" tend to preach deregulation and free enterprise, while practicing monopoly and regulation through private agreement (price-fixing).
That the people who control several governments also have unseverable economic ties to the oil industry probably has "some" effect as well. |
|
