# Corruption in the system? You don't say



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

After many arguments with Plainsman over exactly why we went into Iraq I finally have some hard proof. While watching the History Channel late night I saw the finale to the "Presidents" series. The episode covered 1977-2005, or Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. They had a testimonial from a man who served under four administrations during this period. He stated that in each and every administration there was a written code that the United States would invade the middle east to protect western access to oil reserves. I unfortunately do not remember the guy's name, but the same show will be airing today (January 22) at 3-4 PM, and will likely be shown multiple times over the following weeks and months (as the history channel is prone to doing). Now you could not say that the history channel has a liberal slant, nor that it is unreputible, so how do you explain such a thing?

Tiger


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So you are saying that every president liberal and conservative had an unwritten code that they would invade the Mid East to protect oil reserves? That could be possible. Possible, but I still think not probable. I have no doubt that the man said it, but that doesn't mean it is true. Maybe, maybe not, but certainly not proof. Only one man's word and who knows what his motives are. Remember where Dan Rather is now?

Even if this is true it in no way applies to the war in Iraq. We are friends with Saudi Arabia who has much more oil. We saved Kuwait's bacon and I am sure they owe us. Also, if reserves are low enough we need only quit shipping our oil to Japan. These do not make us entirely oil independent, but certainly not dependent on Iraq. Didn't most of their oil go to other nations to begin with?

If the oil was entirely the property of these nations it would be very low of us to go to war for it. The truth however is that these nations would be dirt poor if it wasn't for the investments the United States has made to develop their oil fields and their economy. If they tried to hold us up now I am afraid I would be for kicking their rear end just for the principle of it.

It is 2:00 pm here now so I will get off here and look for it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I have no doubt that the man said it, but that doesn't mean it is true. Maybe, maybe not, but certainly not proof. Only one man's word and who knows what his motives are. Remember where Dan Rather is now?


I assure you that the history channel would be the last place I would expect to see a Dan Rather type escapade. Being that the election is already over, there is rather obviously no political motivation.



> Even if this is true it in no way applies to the war in Iraq. We are friends with Saudi Arabia who has much more oil. We saved Kuwait's bacon and I am sure they owe us.


It was in reference to the Desert Storm conflict, and it is far more than likely that the younger Bush has adopted the same policies, after all his father was rather successful in his war. We saved Kuwait to protect our access to oil, remember Saddam was trying to burn them. Some kind of friend that the Saudis are, harbor terrorists and even after 9/11 make no efforts to root them out. The reason that the Saudis have not been attacked is because of the sheer amount of anti American sentiment in that country, and the amount of terrorist orginizations which have set up headquarters there. If we were to attack all access to Saudi oil would be lost, with or without American dollars and we would be put into a recession.



> It is 2:00 pm here now so I will get off here and look for it.


Thanks


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

My son called during the show about the presidents. I tried to pay attention to both, but evidently missed it. Meanwhile lets to a little cerebral exercise shall we?

You say


> Hard Proof


. The fact is you have nothing of the kind. Not even close. I mentioned Dan Rather because not only did he have a witness he had documentation. You do remember how sure you were before the election right? Look where he is now. If you were there you would be down the tubes numerous times. Do you remember before the election all the times you jumped on the bandwagon of some crazy rumor? I remember. Time after time you were wrong. As a matter of fact you were proven wrong most times. Now with the scantest of evidence you call it "hard proof". MT I hope you are never on a jury because the chance of an innocent person going to jail with you as a juror would increase exponentially.

As for history being slanted, if Hitler had won WWII we would be reading what a hero he was in our history books. Let me give you an example. The first time I visited the battle of The Little Bighorn site in Montana I viewed pictures of soldiers shot with many arrows, and some with arms cut off. These pictures were the old kind on tin plate. A few years ago I visited that site again. I asked about this type of picture and was told by the new head of the park that no such thing ever happened. As a matter of fact (she proudly announced) I am rewriting the correct history of the battle.

For some intelligence may be measured by how many years it takes them to think critically. Some people question after being wrong once, some question after being wrong a thousand times, some are not intelligent enough to ever question.

I think my quote of Regan at the bottom of this post applies once again.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The fact is you have nothing of the kind. Not even close. I mentioned Dan Rather because not only did he have a witness he had documentation. You do remember how sure you were before the election right? Look where he is now.


This is not even close to the Rather situation. In said situation a document (which turned out to be forged) was shown from a commander who had in fact never signed it. In this situation it is straight from the horses mouth, the man served under four administrations including the senior Bush and tells his story on the history channel. A firsthand recount is far more believable than a third hand document.

By the way, there is still evidence that Bush was AWOL. Simply because the peice that Rather brought up turned out to be false does not mean it was the only evidence against him. Oh Plainsman, you always take conservative information as fact, and liberal information and complete bunk.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/10/guard/



> As for history being slanted, if Hitler had won WWII we would be reading what a hero he was in our history books.


With your analogy shouldn't we be hearing about how great a guy Bush is because he won? Either that or it was a poor analogy.



> For some intelligence may be measured by how many years it takes them to think critically. Some people question after being wrong once, some question after being wrong a thousand times, some are not intelligent enough to ever question.


So if a war vet came on here and told you a firsthand story about his experience you would ask him to prove it? He would obviously have no motives (as the man on the history channel did not) and he has the most pure kind of evidence, he was there. I doubt that you would.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your ducking the real debate again. I repeat you have no proof. Maybe you should get out a dictionary and look at the definition of proof vs. evidence. What you have is evidence that our nation would have gone to war to protect oil interest in the Middle East. Nothing more nothing less. As for Dan Rather, that is exactly how it began, from the mouth (horses mouth as you say) of a man in Texas. It's just that the man turned out to be a liar. We don't know the credibility of this man yet. We don't need to know he spoke only of the unwritten policy of years past. I didn't see it so I will ask you, did he say "Bush went to war for oil"? That would be stronger evidence, but still lacking the test of "hard proof".

You say I believe only the things conservatives say. On the contrary I believe little of what anyone says. Everyone thought OJ was guilty I said I didn't know. In the beginning everyone thought Clinton was innocent when accused of his affair with Monica, I said I didn't know. People who are sure of things are very often wrong. Just like you MT. Have you learned nothing from believing all the rumors before the election. I have never met anyone wrong as often as you. That creats a credability problem for you, and you want us to take you seriouse. This is just another nail in the coffin of your credability.

Oh, by the way all but the most extreme have given up on the OWOL accusations. It's dead. At some time in your life you will have to give up on all the falsehoods and except the truth. If not you will spend a very frustrating life.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Maybe you should get out a dictionary and look at the definition of proof vs. evidence. What you have is evidence that our nation would have gone to war to protect oil interest in the Middle East. Nothing more nothing less.


Thank you, thats all I wanted.



> We don't know the credibility of this man yet. We don't need to know he spoke only of the unwritten policy of years past.


Incorrect, it was written policy under the four previous administrations.



> I didn't see it so I will ask you, did he say "Bush went to war for oil"? That would be stronger evidence, but still lacking the test of "hard proof".


Bush senior went to Kuwait to protect western oil access, we can assume that the junior will follow the same course, being that his father's conquest was successful.



> Have you learned nothing from believing all the rumors before the election. I have never met anyone wrong as often as you.


Could you list exactly what I said and how I was wrong, you have used this against me since the election. I thought you wrong about it then, I think you are wrong about it now.



> Oh, by the way all but the most extreme have given up on the OWOL accusations. It's dead. At some time in your life you will have to give up on all the falsehoods and except the truth. If not you will spend a very frustrating life.


Exactly like the ethenol debate. You say "well it takes 1.3 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol, we win!" but you fail to realize that you have shot down but one of the ways that it can be done. As I said you take any conservative peice of evidence as the only truth, and think all liberal ideas impossible/irrevelant. They don't let a supposed killer go free because one of the peices of evidence didn't link to him, thats just not the way the world works, and you need to understand that.



> That creats a credability problem for you, and you want us to take you seriouse. This is just another nail in the coffin of your credability.


I find it a bit odd that you refuse to believe a firsthand account given on the history channel. I bet that if what the same man said benefited your arguement it would suddenly be as good as gold.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant Tiger



> Thank you, thats all I wanted.


If that's all you wanted then the debater is over. The debate turned to if you had "hard proof" and you do not. You had slight evidence about our nation not Bush.



> Bush senior went to Kuwait to protect western oil access, we can assume that the junior will follow the same course, being that his father's conquest was successful.


We can assume???? Getting very careless with another man's reputation aren't you? Remember assume (a$$ - u - me) makes an a$$ out of you and me.



> Could you list exactly what I said and how I was wrong, you have used this against me since the election. I thought you wrong about it then, I think you are wrong about it now.


Yes, I have said you were wrong many times. I'm not going to spend my afternoon looking for all the times you suckered. People that are interested can find it for themselves. It can be found in the political form , before the election. Bush was wired, Bush was AWOL etc. You will notice even then I asked if you were not getting tired of suckering for every rumor.



> Exactly like the ethenol debate. You say "well it takes 1.3 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol, we win!" but you fail to realize that you have shot down but one of the ways that it can be done. As I said you take any conservative peice of evidence as the only truth, and think all liberal ideas impossible/irrevelant. They don't let a supposed killer go free because one of the peices of evidence didn't link to him, thats just not the way the world works, and you need to understand that.


How is ethanol related to conservative vs liberal? On the ethanol debate I shot down the way we currently do it. I in no way said we should not investigate further. As a matter of fact a retired biologist in North Dakota is looking at ways to use a native grass. Plant once, and never plant again would make it energy feasible. Your grasping at straws as usual MT. What alternatives did you provide?



> I find it a bit odd that you refuse to believe a firsthand account given on the history channel. I bet that if what the same man said benefited your arguement it would suddenly be as good as gold.


No, MT your wrong again, if what the man said would support conservatives and it was not already widely accepted I would be guardedly optimistic. You find it odd because you still believe anything that supports your belief. Your statement is a reflection on your belief system not mine.

So evidently you have admitted you do not have "hard proof" debate over.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Bush was wired, Bush was AWOL etc. You will notice even then I asked if you were not getting tired of suckering for every rumor.


That is precisely what I wanted to argue actually. I made some sort of comment of where I had seen the same photo, and that it looked odd, and that suddenly means that I believed the rumor. If you are going to use these instances against me I think you should at least get your facts straight first.



> If that's all you wanted then the debater is over. The debate turned to if you had "hard proof" and you do not. You had slight evidence about our nation not Bush.


The last four administrations, including Bush senior. Do you really think Bush junior would deviate from a strategy which has worked so well in the past? There would be no reason to.



> We can assume???? Getting very careless with another man's reputation aren't you? Remember assume (a$$ - u - me) makes an a$$ out of you and me.


Lets make a similar situation. When you were young, you watched your father haggle for a used car, and he got a deal. When you grow up, and go to the car lot yourself, do you think you will also haggle, or will you just pay full price?



> How is ethanol related to conservative vs liberal? On the ethanol debate I shot down the way we currently do it.


How is it related? There could be 100 arguments against something, and somehow in your mind being able to take down one of them means that the rest hold no credence. 


> You find it odd because you still believe anything that supports your belief.


I do not believe anything that supports what I think, I simply think that a firsthand account is about the next best thing to having written proof, and sometimes better (Rathergate).

PS- http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n4oil_body.html
Read that, and I mean actually read it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It wasn't just the AWOL MT go back and look if you need to know. The debate on proof is over. You exaggerated with the "hard proof" comment. People sometimes read that and except without questioning. My only point was to say you have no "hard proof" you don't even have proof, and the evidence you do have doesn't lend itself to Bush jr. much less the war in Iraq. I don't think we had much for oil interest in Iraq. Didn't that mostly go to France, Germany and other countries. I guess in reality you didn't even show evidence, much the contrary. I'm done. If you want to continue you will need to look for someone else for attention. Anything further is simply a juvenile whizzing match.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Now you could not say that the history channel has a liberal slant, nor that it is unreputible, so how do you explain such a thing?


I would not say that they are unreputible, they often do a very good job at reporting history. They do on occasion put a liberal slant to some of their programing, the History Channel is, after all, owned by Disney, which is decidedly liberal. It does not keep me from watching the History Channel, I happen to enjoy the study of history.



Militant_Tiger said:


> So if a war vet came on here and told you a firsthand story about his experience you would ask him to prove it? He would obviously have no motives (as the man on the history channel did not) and he has the most pure kind of evidence, he was there. I doubt that you would.


That would depend on the content of the "story" and the reason it was being told. If for simple entertainment or general knowledge, then the story would be taken at face value. However, if the story was to be used as evidence, then yes, I would want proof. If you ever take any psycology or criminal justice courses when you get out of high school you will learn that eyewitness testimony without corroberating evidence is the most unreliable testimony there is. 
I once participated in an experiment where I wore a simple colored tee shirt, jeans, and a baseball cap. I entered the classroom unexpecedly, took ten steps into the room toward the professor, and said in a loud voice, "I told you to stay away from my wife." then "shot" him with a water pistol. There were 30 college students in the class, there were 25 different decriptions of what I looked like and what I was wearing, and 25 different versions of what I said. 5 people got it right, they were in the front row.

Perhaps everthing this man is saying is true, perhaps it is not. We do not know his motivation, does he have a grudge against the government, does he have a score to settle, does he feel he was wronged in some way. 
With something as important as this, the reputations of several presidents and their administrations, one person telling me a "story" is not good enough, regardless of what channel it appears on. I want some hard evidence.
I did not see the program you are talking about but will try to find out when it will be aired again so that I can.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> It wasn't just the AWOL MT go back and look if you need to know. The debate on proof is over. You exaggerated with the "hard proof" comment. People sometimes read that and except without questioning. My only point was to say you have no "hard proof" you don't even have proof, and the evidence you do have doesn't lend itself to Bush jr. much less the war in Iraq. I don't think we had much for oil interest in Iraq. Didn't that mostly go to France, Germany and other countries. I guess in reality you didn't even show evidence, much the contrary. I'm done. If you want to continue you will need to look for someone else for attention. Anything further is simply a juvenile whizzing match.


I can assume then that you didn't even take the time to look at the link I posted. You really should, it gives much credence to what this man said. Exactly how much proof would it take for you to believe and understand our motives for the invasion of Iraq? Would it take the exact documents with the written code included? That would be impossible, being that it would still be classified since it is still in use. This is the hardest evidence available at the current time. I'm sure 10 years from now when and if this blows over you will be able to look up the documents themselves, but until then we will have to go on the measley words given by a rather obviously trustworthy (served under four administrations) employee of the government.

Now we will connect the dots

Bush Senior- Invades Iraq
Pretense- Removal of weaponry/dictator
True Motive- Protection of oil reserves

Bush Junoir- Invades Iraq
Pretense- Removal of weaponry/dictator
True Motive-???

That one doesn't seem too hard.



> Perhaps everthing this man is saying is true, perhaps it is not. We do not know his motivation, does he have a grudge against the government, does he have a score to settle, does he feel he was wronged in some way.


Don't you figure that the history channel would check him out first, lest they risk their entire reputation? I will write them and see exactly what they know about him, and how reputible he is. I'm sure this won't change either of your minds, more for my own satisfaction than anything, but I will post it none the less.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Well, iv heard theHistory chanel make alot of stupid errors before, so i quit trusting them long time ago. they ofen have trouble with NOT checking basic facts.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Apparently there is no way to contact the history channel. If anyone watches the episode again please copy down said persons name, and I will do some research on him myself.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant
Bush Senior- Invades Iraq
Pretense- Removal of weaponry/dictator
True Motive- Protection of oil reserves[/quote said:


> I wasn't going to waste anymore time on this MT, but every time you open you mouth another erroneous statement rolls of your finger tips and onto the computer. Like a dog dumping in a logical mind.
> 
> We didn't go to Iraq the first time because of weapons or to remove Sadam. We went to liberate Kuwait which he invaded. We may have gone to protect our oil reserves (in Kuwait not Iraq) big deal. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad that time. We didn't because Bush senior was not there to look for or destroy weapons, or to chase Sadam around the desert. Do you have no desire for credibility? Kerie eleison.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

The History Channel often runs shows on religion which are a total joke. Topics such as "The child Jesus Christ had with Mary Magdalene." They do shows on the "Da Vinci Code",Which by the way if you want to purchase this book you have to look in the fiction area of a book store. It's not real, which might come as a shock to some since the media has tried very hard to push this trash off as being true. The History Channel will do a show on anything and the more contravesial the better. And what better than to find some yahoo who will make some outlandish claims like the U.S. has a plan to attack the mid-east for oil. And even better find someone who will rewrite history and change it to make it more exciting, or sture up contraversy. Many times people who are on the other side of the aisle, such as Tiger, are going to make it there life goal to try and discredit George Bush. Anything negative about President Bush is the gospel, it doesn't matter what the facts are. Take a lesson from CBS and Dan Rather. Be careful before you start slandering someone. More than likely it isn't true and it will come back to bite you in the rear.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> And what better than to find some yahoo who will make some outlandish claims like the U.S. has a plan to attack the mid-east for oil.


Outlandish in what way? Did anyone take the time to check the link I posted? It has some rather good information about our involvement with mid east oil over the years, and gives credence to much of what I say.

To Plainsman, I think you have got me on that one. Cherish the moment.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Yes it is sad what some presidents have done int he past...but this a a tar pit we got stuck in long ago. the sad thing is, its almost imposible for us to get out of it now. the simple fact is that the Mid East controlls alot of the world, including the U.S.A because of our dependance on oil.

Oil depencancy is a major weakness of our nation. i think it should be corrected imediately.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

Hi im The_Rookie and i approve this msg, kind of, sort of, not really


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> Yes it is sad what some presidents have done int he past...but this a a tar pit we got stuck in long ago. the sad thing is, its almost imposible for us to get out of it now. the simple fact is that the Mid East controlls alot of the world, including the U.S.A because of our dependance on oil.
> 
> Oil depencancy is a major weakness of our nation. i think it should be corrected imediately.


I couldn't agree more, Trooper. The truth of the matter is that our country depends on mideast oil to sustain our economy. I think it would be foolish not to have some sort of military plan in place to thwart any attempt to cut our oil supply off. I would bet our military has contingecy plans for many situations such as invading Iran, North Korea, Syria.... perhaps even China. These plans will likely never have to be implemented, but I suspect they have them in place in case the situation warrants them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

There is simply not enough of an effort to produce new fuels. The president can spend 50 million on parties for his inauguration yet there is no government effort to properly supply our troops or as I said better yet produce alternative fuels so they won't need to be deployed at all. In the future if these invasions continue I would like at least a little truth from the government. I am tired of the cover up stories that we are going to remove a dictator, or give "freedom" to those who do not want it, or to remove nuclear weapons that we knew damn well did not exist.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> There is simply not enough of an effort to produce new fuels. The president can spend 50 million on parties for his inauguration yet there is no government effort to properly supply our troops or as I said better yet produce alternative fuels so they won't need to be deployed at all. In the future if these invasions continue I would like at least a little truth from the government. I am tired of the cover up stories that we are going to remove a dictator, or give "freedom" to those who do not want it, or to remove nuclear weapons that we knew damn well did not exist.


I hope a new, low cost, fuel source is discovered or developed also. That would make life a lot easier when it comes to the mideast, that is for sure. For the short term, I would even support drilling in the Arctic if it would mean less dependence on mideast oil. Don't get me wrong... I'm not crazy about the idea, but wouldn't protest either. :-?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

TheRE ALREADY ARE MULTIPLE COICES FOR ECONOMICAL, LOW COST, CLEAN FUELS!!!

But noone with the resources to produce them EN MASS (read: DETROIT) has any interest in producing them. why? because they dont want to spend the money on reconfiguring their production lines :roll:

So, in order to save their pocket books, they put the economy of the entire nation under the controll of Discruntled A-Rabs.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> TheRE ALREADY ARE MULTIPLE COICES FOR ECONOMICAL, LOW COST, CLEAN FUELS!!!
> 
> But noone with the resources to produce them EN MASS (read: DETROIT) has any interest in producing them. why? because they dont want to spend the money on reconfiguring their production lines :roll:
> 
> So, in order to save their pocket books, they put the economy of the entire nation under the controll of Discruntled A-Rabs.


That has got to be the most ignorant statement you have made in recent weeks.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Realy.

Explain yourself O' Mighty and intelligent Tigre.

Since mass production of hydrogen fuel cells would lower their prices to economical levels, and the fuel can be made at home for a few pennies of electricity, and produces only water vapor when burned.

I guess being able to cheaply produce our own non poluting fuel wouldnt reduce our dependancy on oil...

I guess mass producing existing technology would be impossible...

I guess Car companies are chomping at the bit to spend the millions nessisary to convert production lines. President Bush Must be stopping them...

I guess Its OK to continue letting foriegn nations controll our economy...

I AM SO GLAD YOU HAVE EVEORYTHING FIGURED OUT! Please enlighten us with your infinite wisedom!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If you insist, but I doubt it will do any good. You see the American people have never been willing to accept any alternative fuels readily, nor have they been willing to buy cars which use less gasoline. Look at the Honda hybrid line, the sales are not very good here in the states. This is because we would rather have an unnecissary 100 more horsepower under the hood than a car with enough power to do necissary tasks, while using far less gas. Next the government has never been willing to accept or promote alternative fuels. They shut down the first ethenol program in the 80's very quickly. The government and the people are the ones standing in the way of progress, not the automotive industry.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

i personally think everyone could lower fuel usage.

EXAMPLE: I live in the country and my cousin lives in the city... When i went to his house like every car i saw was some huge SUV's and such with 4 wheel drive and other unesacery things. these so called vehicles would usually get around 20 miles a gallon due to there heavy weight. now its not the gas price its what kind of vehicle u have and where u live


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

the reason people dont want to buy them is probably because they dont know about them, or have missconceptions. Electric isnt the best solution becase of the horsepower problem. hydrogen engines can be made for the same horse-power as gassoline engines and still be the same size. NOONE is willing to invest in this technology, because noone sees the need for clean fuels.

The reality is there are MANY factors involved. my earlyer statements were not intended to be an ALL-inclusive list of WHYs.

people dont want to change because they dont see any problem with the way things are.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> the reason people dont want to buy them is probably because they dont know about them, or have missconceptions. Electric isnt the best solution becase of the horsepower problem. hydrogen engines can be made for the same horse-power as gassoline engines and still be the same size. NOONE is willing to invest in this technology, because noone sees the need for clean fuels.


People won't buy it because most of the technology isin't there yet (hydrogen par example). Government won't fund it because it is run off oil and has many connections to the oil trade. People won't buy it because they think it won't have enough power. None of this can be attributed to the manufacturers themselves. If the market was there, I assure you they would be making more by now.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> People won't buy it because most of the technology isin't there yet (hydrogen par example).


 once again you are confused............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3323527.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3082953.stm
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.as ... d=&teaser=

http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/e-news/hydrogen.html

http://www.fuel-cell-trends.com/reykjav ... l-cell.htm



Militant_Tiger said:


> Government won't fund it because it is run off oil and has many connections to the oil trade.


there may be some truth there.



Militant_Tiger said:


> People won't buy it because they think it won't have enough power. None of this can be attributed to the manufacturers themselves. If the market was there, I assure you they would be making more by now.


 :withstupid: if they manufacture them as they now manufacture gasoline power people will line up to buy them. i will be at the front of the line.

you sell a car for about the same money hydrogen powered as gasoline powered and people see free fuel at todays gasoline prices and you can damn well bet they will buy them.

if you build it they will come.....build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> if they manufacture them as they now manufacture gasoline power people will line up to buy them. i will be at the front of the line.
> 
> you sell a car for about the same money hydrogen powered as gasoline powered and people see free fuel at todays gasoline prices and you can damn well bet they will buy them.


You know they had hover cars back in the sixties as well? The technology to cheaply mass produce them is still not there. I did not mean that it could not be done with hydrogen, just not well. No one is going to buy a car for a two month gimmick where they give away free energy either, it would make things a lot easier if the pumps were in place though.



> if you build it they will come.....build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.


If that was true everyone would be running a hybrid car right now, if you build the better mousetrap everyone wants one, but if the majority still feel that their old mousetrap does the job better you have quite a delimma.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> If that was true everyone would be running a hybrid car right now, if you build the better mousetrap everyone wants one, but if the majority still feel that their old mousetrap does the job better you have quite a delimma.


once again you are wrong.....

the key word there is better..........i drive a z- 71 gmc and and a dodge 2500. don't think the hybrid is better..... with hydrogen you could deliver the needed horsepower.

just because you build any old mousetrap will not suffice. you have to build a better mouse trap and deliver it at an economical price. hydrogen could do this, but as someone stated general motors would have to do a revamp.

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> just because you build any old mousetrap will not suffice. you have to build a better mouse trap and deliver it at an economical price. hydrogen could do this, but as someone stated general motors would have to do a revamp.


Don't you figure that if it would sell like wildfire (as you suggest) they would be happy to revamp their plants or build new ones? That is just the thing, it wont for quite a long time.

As to the better mousetrap and any old one, who exactly is the mousetrap evaluator?


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

the mouse


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

the-rookie
Simple, but very true. You and I are the mouse.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Alternative fuels are a real issue for me. I have over the past few years read a lot about them and many of the studies done concerning them.

Hydrogen is only cleaner at the end user, same with ethanol etc, but when all the factors that go into production of these products are weighed in none are *GREENER* than fossil fuels. With one exception that being biomass ethanol made from grass or plant type products.

Of all of these Hemp has the best results so far with an perennial grass that I cannot find the name of right now. Our Gov has funded numerous studies and looked at Europe on this also. As of today no process is in place that gives us additional BTU's over what is needed to produce the product like corn.

The GAO has deemed ethanol a nonstarter and Hydrogen also, the reason we have these currently is simple politics. Dem's push it to maintain the Enviro wacko vote and the farmers. Rep push it to cut into the Dem's support in the farm belts and on the Left Coast!

Yet few seem to connect the fact that more ethanol from traditional food grains will result in a loss of wetlands and a reduction in air quality along with a ever increasing level of contamination of our ground water supply! All of this can be found in the GAO reports going back to the mid 90's.

In regards to the original thread topic MT you stepped in it again. Hard proof so you can understand would be a memo or order that Bush signed stating that we went to Iraq for oil.

In fact Bush Senior and Clinton had plans drafted to invade Iraq for a number of reasons, including but not limited to protecting the world oil supply. By the way Easter is getting closer are you!


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

exacly Plainsman


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron that was very informative, and right on. I don't remember the grass that could be used, but I think it was switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Your right on about that. This grass is perennial and you need not seed every year, it competes against weeds, it needs no cultivating. Win, win situation if they can get this one going.

Your post is just the kind of discussion we need. People need to be aware of real alternatives not partisan bs. Thanks .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Your post is just the kind of discussion we need. People need to be aware of real alternatives not partisan bs. Thanks .


You should talk.



> In regards to the original thread topic MT you stepped in it again. Hard proof so you can understand would be a memo or order that Bush signed stating that we went to Iraq for oil.


That would still be classified. As stated for the time being this is the best evidence around. Hell I bet even if I had the memo you wouldn't think it was worth a hill of beans.



> By the way Easter is getting closer are you!


Lost me on that one.



> Simple, but very true. You and I are the mouse.


Very simple, and yet with little meaning, I like it! If you are indeed the mouse, the mouse has rejected the trap of tomorrow in favor of it's old trap. It is because of them and the Mouse King who refuses to support any initiatives to promote a newer trap that the best trap has not yet been formed.


----------

