Posted on 03/02/2008 10:35:00 AM PST by MeanGreen2008
LOL. Yep, it’s awful hard to tell one bloviating blowhard from another nowadays. ;-)
Pat Robertson was right but I know missionaries who were kicked out and/or their lives were made much more difficult because of what he said.
“(threat being anything they can use as a reason for padding their pockets)”
Hey, don’t bad mouth corporations, this is a Republican website and as such, we know corporations can do no wrong.
You live in a dream world if you don’t believe oil companies have any influence on the price of fuel.
Do you think this comment should have even been written? talk about a load.
No, we're paying more than $3.00 per gallon for fuel because that's the price at the pump. People have to work, have to drive their children to school, have to shop for groceries, have to make trips to the doctor's office. People no longer live within a short trip to these places, and are REQUIRED to purchase that which their vehicles need to run. The oil industry, and the refineries, and the people on Wall St. know this. I'd be willing to bet that people are cutting back on other things to some degree (some more than others) due to the price of fuel. This trend will continue, and the effect will be a free fall into a recession.
“It’s easier to shoot uphill, than down. Plunging fire also has more limited effect than raking fires.”
Now, there’s a unique perspective. Were you in the military? Have you not read Sun Tsu’s “The Art of War”?
“All armies prefer high ground to low and sunny places to dark.”
“Do not climb heights in order to fight. So much for mountain warfare.”
Chavez has a Napoleon complex for sure.
Funny...all those ‘peace activists’ loving and admiring a two-bit thug that initiates unprovoked military action with his neighbor states.
And because it's worth what you get.
People have to work, have to drive their children to school, have to shop for groceries, have to make trips to the doctor's office.
There are always alternatives. Before cars existed people didn't buy gasoline; they ordered their lives around the available technology and griped about the price of horse feed. Nobody is *forcing* anybody to drive; the alternatives (bicycles, walking, living closer to work) are unpleasant, so it's worth paying the current price of gas to avoid them.
People no longer live within a short trip to these places, and are REQUIRED to purchase that which their vehicles need to run.
They aren't required to live that far from work. It's a choice that has costs; people have decided the costs are worth it.
The oil industry, and the refineries, and the people on Wall St. know this.
They "know" something that's not true?
I'd be willing to bet that people are cutting back on other things to some degree (some more than others) due to the price of fuel.
That's true; I'd also be willing to bet that people are cutting back on fuel usage.
This trend will continue, and the effect will be a free fall into a recession.
That may be; if it happens the price of fuel will then drop due to lower demand.
It was a question, not a comment. What's the answer? If they can charge whatever they want, why not charge even more? Why not $1,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000,000 per barrel?
It’s another tactical justification for reverse slope defenses.
Placing an observation post on a hilltop provides max visibility for the observers defending the area. Unfortunately, the observers also become targets for all known enemy in the area. So when an enemy attacks, they are likely to attack those positions with indirect fire first.
Reverse slope defenses are used to help mask friendly positions from enemy observation prior to their commitment to an assault. They also afford the defenders fighting and alternate positions not previously observed by the enemy, giving some element of surprise when they defend. The defenders are also shooting uphill into the enemy, making it easier to produce grazing fire and easier to aim the rifle upon recoil. More accurate rounds downrange in less time than fewer inaccurate rounds in more time.
I believe the Israelis used the tactic in the ‘74 war and in the Golan Heights. First UN observers on the scene afterwards were puzzled by the tactic, but it makes sense.
Funny, not so much as a sniff about this on CNN.
Yeah, people can starve to death. That would be the alternative.
It was a rhetorical question, and as such, a comment. It was also one that was completely silly.
Colombia has more troops and are better trained.
Colombians have been fighting more or less since the late 40s and quite a bit in their history before that. They are probably the most competent fighting wise peoples in South America.
Venezuela has new airpower but Northern Uncle can help with that.
This would galvanize the citizenry who are already tired of the rebel groups who have become nothing more than extortion rackets
And they never were crazy about Venezuelans who think they are better anyhow since their country is a bit richer due to oil.
Colombia would be a very rugged place to fight a war....even a limited border incursion one.
I see Chavez getting his ass handed to him.
I guess it's easier to call it "silly" than to answer it. The answer would call your socialistic view of economics into question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.