the 4,435 lives lost freeing the American people was not worth rushing to war.
The 558,052 lives lost freeing African Americans was not worth rushing to war.
The 407,316 lives lost ending the holocaust was not worth rushing to war.
We know where liberals stand on the war in Iraq. Judging by their stance, we know where they would have stood during the liberation of Jews during the 1940's. We know where they would have stood on the liberation of slaves in the 1860's and we know they would have stood with Benedict Arnold during the American Revolution. If they don't believe Iraqis want freedom, how can you be sure they believe that you want freedom?
Just your reminder of how Iraq compares to other wars.
The amount of time it would take for us to lose equal amount of American lives in Iraq by war.
|Moncler Online |
April 17, 2012 05:57 AM PDT
I'd be interested in hearing. The TOS seems rather clear that it is not unless expressly approved by Amazon. I guess if the library got it in writing then they would be ok. ,445068,http://jeffblanco.blogdrive.com/comments?id=178
November 25, 2008 12:26 PM PST
God Blessed you
February 8, 2007 10:32 PM PST
It's now 2007! BUSH?
April 27, 2006 12:06 PM PDT
The owner of this blog is a nigglet piece of shit.
I wish death upon you, and a horrible one at that.
|PHIL PETERSEN SR |
April 17, 2005 02:49 PM PDT
I'M A NOO AWLINS BORN LOUISIANA AMERICAN REDNECK, AND I'M REALLY SURPRISED AT WHY VIRTUALLY NO-ONE QUESTIONS WHY LOUISIANA HAS FOR DECADES,EXPORTED BY SHIPS LOADED AT EVERY REFINERY OR STORAGE SOURCE EVERY DROP OF LOUISIANA OIL,"SWEET CRUDE", THAT WAS THEN TAKEN OUT IN THE GULF OF MEXICO,100 MILES OR LESS, AND THEN TURNED AROUND AND BROUGHT BACK TO U.S.REFINERIES AND THEN UN-LOADED BY THOSE TANKERS AS FOREIGN IMPORTED-OIL, WITH IMMENSE TAX BREAKS...
IT HAS VIRTUALLY BEEN ROBBERY
OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND AMERICA'S OIL AND GASOLINE CONSUMERS BY THOSE REFINING OIL COMPANIES THAT HAVE SO VERY SUCCESSFULLY CORRUPTED VIRTUALLY EVERY
ELECTED LOUISIANA POLITICIAN
SINCE LOUISIANA MADE IT'S FIRST BAD-CROOKED OIL OR NATURAL GAS DEAL..
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THOSE HORRIBLE DEALS WILL EVER END, OR EVEN JUST BE QUESTIONED???
JUST STUDY THE SHIPS OWNED BY ALL OIL COMPANIES THAT LOADED AMERICAN OIL, AND HOW LONG IT TOOK THOSE COMPANY-OWNED-TANKERS TO DELIVER THEIR EXPORTED AMERICAN OIL TO THEIR CLAIMED FOREIGN SOURCES..
THEN TO RETURN WITH THOSE SAME COMPANY OWNED
TANKERS LOADED WITH FOREIGN
OIL,,, AND YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT OIL COMPANIES HAVE HAD IN THEIR POSESSION OIL-TANKERS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF RUNNING ACROSS THE SEAS OF
THE WORLD AT 500 MPH TO 800
MPH SINCE EARLY IN THE 20TH CENTURY WHEN MODEL-T-FORDS
WERE GOING DOWN THE ROADS AT 40 MPH. IT'S VERY REMARKABLE
THAT THE OIL COMPANIES HAD THEIR TANKERS RUNNING FULLY LOADED OVER THE OCEANS OF THE WORLD AT 500MPH. TO 800MPH.EVEN WHILE THEY WERE BUILDING THE TITANTIC..WOW,
TALK ABOUT BRILLIANT..
LUV,PHIL PETERSEN SR.
P.S.:SEE SOUR AND CRUDE OILS:
E-Mail This Story
Chart: Sweet and Sour
• Find More Stories Like This
Crude Lessons About Oil
Low-quality $35-a-barrel oil is plentiful -- but refineries lack the capacity to handle it
All crude oil is not created equal. No one knows that better than the world's refiners. The markets generally track a type of oil referred to as "light, sweet" crude. But while this fast-flowing, low-sulfur variety is in tight supply and goes for roughly $50 a barrel, there's a veritable ocean of thicker, lower-quality crude being pumped out by Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and others that currently sells for as little as $35 a barrel. Advertisement
The problem is that the world can't just switch from one to the other. "Heavy, sour" oil is more complex and costly to convert into useful products such as gasoline and heating oil. And much of the world's refining capacity, particularly in Asia, simply can't process it. "There's no shortage of crude oil today," says Thomas D. O'Malley, chairman of Premcor Inc. (PCO ), a refiner based in Old Greenwich, Conn. "There is a shortage of light sweet."
The result is that the price of oil -- and of products made from it -- is higher and more volatile than it might be if there were more capacity for handling the heavy, sour stuff. In the meantime, refiners that specialize in the cheaper grades -- such as Valero Energy, Premcor, and Frontier Oil (FTO ) -- are reaping rich rewards. Valero Energy Corp. (VLO ) figures that lower-cost oil, together with higher refining volumes, helped boost its third-quarter income by $480 million. "It's a way we can increase our profits, but it doesn't cost consumers a penny more," says Valero spokeswoman Mary Rose Brown.
These higher profit margins are beginning to cause refiners to switch over existing capacity to handle the growing flow of lower-cost crude. New oil coming to the market from such places as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Canada is increasingly of this type. But upgrading existing refineries to handle low-grade crudes can cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility and take several years. That's a tough sell in a historically low-margin, cyclical industry. Timothy M. Donohue, a principal at Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., figures the $8 to $10 per barrel discount for heavy crude would have to remain for up to seven years to justify a large-scale shift.
Independent refiners such as Valero are willing to take risks. Unlike big integrated oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XON ), which control about one-third of U.S. refining capacity, independents don't have their own oil supplies. So while Valero already depends on heavy and sour grades for 70% of the oil it refines, the company wants to handle more. Last year the San Antonio-based company spent $340 million upgrading its Texas City refinery near Houston to allow it to handle greater volumes of the low-cost oil, thereby reducing the cost of its feedstocks, says Senior Vice-President Gene Edwards. Premcor is following suit by upping its capacity for low-grade crude by 30% with a $250 million investment in its Port Arthur (Tex.) plant.
Increasing refiners' ability to handle heavy, sour crude, while important, won't dramatically boost industrywide output. For that, industry experts say, what's needed is investment in brand- new refining capacity -- and few major additions are in the works. Even refiners' healthy profits of late don't justify the multibillion dollar costs of a new refinery, says analyst Jeffrey A. Dietert of Houston-based investment bank Simmons & Co. International. "In the long run," says William Hauschildt, vice-president of refining operations for ChevronTexaco Corp. (CVX ), "refining hasn't matched the return on capital employed compared to other industries."
As a result, analysts expect refining capacity to stay tight -- and margins healthy -- for the next few years. Analyst Jacques Rousseau of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. (FBR ) predicts that total U.S. refining capacity will grow by only 0.5% a year from 2004 through 2006. Meanwhile, U.S. demand for gas and other refined products will grow by 1% to 1.5% per year. Imports will take up the slack, but overseas refining capacity is expected to grow more slowly than demand, too. No matter how you look at it, heavy, sour crude won't offer consumers sweet relief from rising oil prices anytime soon.
By Wendy Zellner in Dallas
April 9, 2005 10:18 AM PDT
you are an ass.
April 9, 2005 10:18 AM PDT
you are an ass.
|Leo Kearse |
January 5, 2005 07:54 AM PST
Well I used to think the American led invasion of Iraq was a bad thing, but now that you've pointed out that more people died in WW2, I think it's wonderful!
By the way, we do all know where liberals would have stood in WW2 - and it probably wouldn't be next to Dubya's grandaddy as he profited from dodgy deals with the Nazis.
|Rob W |
December 5, 2004 10:02 PM PST
This is comparing apples and oranges. Medical care in these other wars was far worse. The Chicago Sun-Times ran an article today that in World War two, for every soldier killed, there were three wounded. In Vietnam and Korea, the ratio was one to four. In Iraq, the number is one to twelve. Thus to make the comparision work, you must factor in the advances in medical care to get an idea of casualty comparisons. When you do that, the comparsions get significantly worse. The Administration has botched this war from day one. We need a new plan. But we won't get one.
November 24, 2004 01:15 PM PST
I loved the last comment, it is the party line of the left, name caling.
Anyway, great blog I have added you to my blogroll!
Red State whacko? Nah, Average American Patriot.
October 31, 2004 12:12 PM PST
Uh.. numbers are really only a part of it. Liberals are outraged at the numbers because of everything else regarding this war.
For one, why did we go after Iraq and Saddam when even the current administration has admitted there were no WMD? When Saddam was not linked to Al-Qaeda? Why did we give up chase of the person most directly tied to 9/11 (which, remember, was the supposed reason we went over there in the first place)? Why are we concentrating forces in Iraq when it's really Afghanistan we should be worrying about?
Don't worry, those are all rhetorical questions. So don't get your knickers in a twist over some numbers and expect to use them solely as 'proof' of your 'truth'. You might notice a big difference between previous wars -- circumstances and justification, mainly -- and this one.
|Dave Diamond |
October 31, 2004 06:01 AM PST
If George W. Bush had gone to Congress and asked for war authorization to free the Iraqi people, it would NEVER have passed. The President was lied to, the Congress was lied to, the American people were lied to. This war was not about freeing the Iraqi people and you know it. George W. Bush doesn't give a damn about them and if you don't know that, you'd better take a good hard look at who you're voting for before Tuesday. Some of the people supporting the President's reelection know what he's all about. But most don't have a clue. Not a clue. All they know is he's a man of faith and they seem to like that, even though he has no analytical ability whatsover. So which category are you in?
|Tony Mc |
October 31, 2004 03:01 AM PST
Great blog. I get some of the same response with my blog.
Keep thinking 'Right'.
October 31, 2004 02:15 AM PST
President Carter admitted in a recent interview with Chris Matthews on CNBC Hardball that the Revolutionary War was "unnecessary":
October 31, 2004 01:04 AM PDT
The 6' 5" tall Arab guy shows his face. This "War On Terror" is a joke. A whole army could just walk across the south west border of the United States and knock on your door. Osama makes this Administation look foolish. Bush is too busy making money to look for him. Osama is playing hide and seek by himself. He came out of hidding because no one is looking for him. He's saying "What the hell ---- remember me?" This Administration is a joke.
October 30, 2004 04:53 PM PDT
Wow, apparantly some people don't like it when the truth is displayed right in front of them.
For another post you could compare this Gulf War to Clinton's war in Kasovo which I didn't hear a single peacenik say squat about.
October 30, 2004 04:40 PM PDT
Oh please. Your post is almost laughable...except it is so pathetic. If this is how you have to make your argument...then it says so much more about you and your intelligent than it does about John Kerry and his supporters.
October 30, 2004 10:26 AM PDT
I guess no amount of sacrifice is too great...as long as it is somebody else doing the sacrificing. You and Bush are two of a kind; ignorant cowards letting others do the fighting, and dying, while cheerleading a war you have no intention of participating in.
October 30, 2004 01:07 AM PDT
first of all my hatefullness has nothing to do with the reason why i hate g w bush. i dislike the way he handles things, how he works etc. the reason why i want other people to know how i find him eventhough im not an american is because i care ... i am in disagreement with the war on iraq.. and that's one of the major reason why i hate bush. nuff said
October 29, 2004 11:41 PM PDT
We are still counting. How hard is it to find a 6' 5" Arab guy, dragging a kidney dialysis machine in the desert ?
|Jeff Blanco |
October 29, 2004 07:08 PM PDT
I was once told "if it makes you mad, it must be true."
Well namo, is it true?
|The Name |
October 29, 2004 04:24 PM PDT
What a hateful, ignorant sonofabitch you are. Did a liberal hurt your feelings one day? Did a liberal make better grades than you, or take your lunch money or something?
|Leave a Comment:|