Article

2005-10-19 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

EU troops practice defending "oil rich country under attack"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2005-10-19 12:18|| || Front Page|| [12 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 France and Belgium? Yeah, I'm scared...

Posted by Raj 2005-10-19 12:30|| 2005-10-19 12:30|| Front Page Top

#2 hypothetical enemy=could be US

Posted by raptor 2005-10-19 12:34|| 2005-10-19 12:34|| Front Page Top

#3 The US should hold a similar exercise: Naval defense of the UK, while Delta Force extracts TGA & JFM from deep within enemy territory.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-19 12:35|| 2005-10-19 12:35|| Front Page Top

#4 Good luck with that all, especially the UN mandate. After Iraq I wouldn't count on support from us, ever.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-19 12:39|| 2005-10-19 12:39|| Front Page Top

#5 If European nations get all worked up about the deaths of just over 100 troops, how are they going to feel about losing tens of thousands of their forces? Or do they think that Uncle Sam will pull his punches just because they are European?

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-10-19 12:40|| 2005-10-19 12:40|| Front Page Top

#6 A fantasy mission for a fantasy force.

Posted by Mark E. 2005-10-19 12:41|| 2005-10-19 12:41|| Front Page Top

#7 I honestly think the EU politburo are gearing up for a fight with the U.S.

As I am EUnihilist living in Blairistan; this does not seem to be a good idea.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2005-10-19 12:44|| 2005-10-19 12:44|| Front Page Top

#8 Ya, good luck with that EU. Have fun getting dick-stomped.....with golf cleats.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-10-19 12:54|| 2005-10-19 12:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Hmmmmmmmm. Do they win?

Posted by tu3031 2005-10-19 12:54|| 2005-10-19 12:54|| Front Page Top

#10 Question for the lemmings: Who is going to fly these forces in and in what airplanes? Every NATO plan called for extensive use of U.S. airlift and relied little on European airlift. Maybe France thinks that we should fly them into Iran so they could defend it against the U.S.? But then only someone like Weasly Clark or Dick Turban could envision such a plan. But on the flip side i really doubt that the un would give anyone a mandate to do anything except cringe.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-10-19 12:57|| 2005-10-19 12:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Surely it doesn't take much organisation for 3000 troops to wave white flags - or do they wave in unison, Nork-like?

Posted by Jake-the-Peg 2005-10-19 13:05|| 2005-10-19 13:05|| Front Page Top

#12 The transport issue is of course real.

What is interesting here is the significant rampup of offense against the US on the part of the France/Belgium/Germany axis. Note the story about France and Venezuela here today, in that context.

This is, I suspect, a PR effort: to sell French planes, to lock in a relationship with Iran - and China - and to tell their citizens they are "doing something" about their economies and oil.

At a deeper level, I've become convinced that if they could, they would indeed take on the US militarily.

Posted by lotp 2005-10-19 13:06|| 2005-10-19 13:06|| Front Page Top

#13 ...flown in...

Good luck with that plan.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-10-19 13:18|| 2005-10-19 13:18|| Front Page Top

#14 I wouldn't read too much into this. While I do think that the European elites have been demonizing the United States as a means of distracting their citizens from the steady collapse of Western European socialist society, I find it very hard to believe that France / Germany / Belgium are actually planning on fighting the United States over Iran.

Since the Europeans are very dependent on Persian Gulf oil (even more than the United States) and desperately desire stability in that region, it's just as likely that this represents any number of other scenarios that Europe would not like to see come to pass (Iranian invasion of Iraq, Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, a Chinese or Indian attempt to gain control of the Gulf, etc.)

Posted by Pat Phillips 2005-10-19 13:26|| 2005-10-19 13:26|| Front Page Top

#15 Better not take too extreme evasive manoeuvers with the Airbus 400 transports. The vertical stabilizers may get a bit loose, which would be a figurative and literal drag.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-10-19 13:30|| 2005-10-19 13:30|| Front Page Top

#16 a little f*&king late wouldn't you say, Jacques? Where were you when I needed you? Always there with the contracts and the bribes, but when it hit the fan, you ran

Posted by Saddam Hussein">Saddam Hussein 2005-10-19 13:31|| 2005-10-19 13:31|| Front Page Top

#17 Belgium? Belgium would set up a nice place just outside Brussels for the off-site meetings, and a very good caterer for lunch.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-19 13:32|| 2005-10-19 13:32|| Front Page Top

#18 It's a nice feel good exercise but without the capacity to deploy, coordinate, and support a large force 5000 km away or, in the first instance, the determination to actually do it, all the practice in the world matters little. Practice for a debacle or self-esteem booster I wonder?

Posted by MunkarKat 2005-10-19 13:55|| 2005-10-19 13:55|| Front Page Top

#19 EU:Buy weapons from us!!!

Sheik of Qatar, or Bahrian, or UAE: I need to buy from the US - i neeed to keep them happy - if say Iran were to attack me, id need the Americans to protect me, and so i cant anger them in the slightest.

EU: Lookie here, we've held an exercise, we could defend you even if the US is pissed at you. Buy from us! Buy from us!

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-10-19 13:57|| 2005-10-19 13:57|| Front Page Top

#20 While I do think that the European elites have been demonizing the United States as a means of distracting their citizens from the steady collapse of Western European socialist society, I find it very hard to believe that France / Germany / Belgium are actually planning on fighting the United States over Iran.

You find it hard to believe?

Why?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-10-19 14:01|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-10-19 14:01|| Front Page Top

#21 Flying in what? A340s or 380s for the personnel, perhaps, but what about the vehicles, POL, and munitions? You can lease Antonovs from the former USSR, I suppose, but there's only so many Antonovs. And who's gonna fly cover for the transport stream?

Airbus or An-22 versus F-16 or F-18 . . . I think I know how that one comes out.

Posted by Mike 2005-10-19 14:05|| 2005-10-19 14:05|| Front Page Top

#22 Instead of practice, why don't they do a live excersize right now in Iraq.

Posted by NYer4wot 2005-10-19 14:23|| 2005-10-19 14:23|| Front Page Top

#23 "why don't they do a live excersize right now in Iraq?" Silly! They don't want to actually shoot or get shot at by anybody. What they want to do is show up with a few people and conduct negotiations. How many countries in the world would sleep safe knowing France and Belgium are providing security?

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-10-19 14:30|| 2005-10-19 14:30|| Front Page Top

#24 Not Cote d'Ivoire, that's for sure.

Posted by lotp 2005-10-19 14:32|| 2005-10-19 14:32|| Front Page Top

#25 Brits taking orders from Paris? That'll work well. Almost as rich as the Germans.

Posted by Flaimble Clart5294 2005-10-19 14:51|| 2005-10-19 14:51|| Front Page Top

#26 The other articles lotp was referring to regarding Venezuela has France and Chavez lining up oil contracts for Europe in case European supplies are cut. Another posting has Abbas meeting with De Villepin. France, Belgium, and Germany have always been in cahoots with the jihadis so this defense exercise makes me wonder if they know something we don't. Iran is only one of the possibilities. Are they worried about Al Qaeda blowing the wells in the Kingdom? Binny has no loyalty to anyone.

Posted by Danielle 2005-10-19 14:58|| 2005-10-19 14:58|| Front Page Top

#27 When left all alone without adequate air cover AMX's, Leclercs and Leopard II's flame up just as well as anything else under the sun in an oil rich country under attack.

Posted by AbuJoeFlyingCarpetBrigades 2005-10-19 15:23|| 2005-10-19 15:23|| Front Page Top

#28 After considering all this I wonder why we should really care?

Re French "deals" with Hugo Chavez? Does the EU have a way to protect it's oil on the high seas in our backyard if they act against our interests in a way that is an act of war? I guess those French and German CBGs can protect them? What they don't have any? Then what about the French and German Long Range Naval patrol Aircraft? Oh don't have too many do they? How about the French and German long range bomber groups? Oh I forgot they don't have any. French and German mitilary sea lift? Not much there either.

I think it's time for the immature French and German "democracies" to grow up and learn to live in the real world.

Maybe France, Germany and the UK should worry more about the shit holes they created in Africa. the Middle East and, Asia and less about screwing with the USA and our stratigic interests.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-19 16:07|| 2005-10-19 16:07|| Front Page Top

#29 Pretty safe it won't be us they are defending against. They have to have UN approval, which is hard to get if one of the veto's on the security council is the U.S. Hell, we could be gone five years than approve it.

Posted by plainslow 2005-10-19 16:10|| 2005-10-19 16:10|| Front Page Top

#30 Maybe defending an "oil rich country under attack" is defending Eastern Arabia against the Saudis? Just rewrite the protocols from "UN mandate" to "US mandate."

Sure, they'll deal with Chavez. What choice do they have? Diversify sources just in case: I'd guess its probably just a matter of time before Saudi production is disrupted.

Posted by James">James 2005-10-19 16:24|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-10-19 16:24|| Front Page Top

#31 I thought they were referring to Canada.

Posted by Brett 2005-10-19 16:38|| 2005-10-19 16:38|| Front Page Top

#32 Now we know how they're going to get Norway into the EU.

Posted by Sninesh Omomotch3972 2005-10-19 16:41|| 2005-10-19 16:41|| Front Page Top

#33 It suddenly occured to me which exact scenario this exercise is meant to address:

Imagine Columbia declaring war on Venezuela after the evidence of Venezuela's support of FARC reaches a certain tipping point. We're obliged to support Columbia, and now the EU is lining up to be obliged to defend Venezuela.

Sounds a little like the run-up to WW1 to me.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2005-10-19 17:12|| 2005-10-19 17:12|| Front Page Top

#34 If that is the case Abdominal Snowman most of their ships will be sunk before they reach the new world. All of their aircraft would be shot down before they entered the hemisphere. It's a game that they can't win. Should the EU feel they can "escalate" we have a throw weight that vastly exceeds theirs.

Refusing to arm themselves for even a token defense has left them subject to a ugly reality. That reality they long ago exceeded with the hot air they so love despense against the US and our interests. I have no interst in harming in soul in the EU but when the rubber meets the road that may be to only alternative to much worse happening here.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-19 17:34|| 2005-10-19 17:34|| Front Page Top

#35 The answer to the question is either defending Saudi Arabian oilfields from Iran, or defending Nigerian oilfields from insurrection. In either case, not entirely at odds with the US, but clearly watching out for EU interests at the same time.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-19 17:42|| 2005-10-19 17:42|| Front Page Top

#36 In a related story, 3000 white flags were ordered from a factory in Toulouse.

Posted by intrinsicpilot 2005-10-19 17:44|| 2005-10-19 17:44|| Front Page Top

#37 I think they're defending a North Sea oil platform; however, given Old Europe's shrinking armed forces, that task is equal to the US defending an actual country.

Posted by The Happy Fliergerabwehrkannon 2005-10-19 17:45|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2005-10-19 17:45|| Front Page Top

#38 Don't doubt that France,germany could nationalize their Airlines in a heartbeat to provide airlift for their troops.The purpose being in essence a "new improved human shield" to prevent the US from attacking.

Supposing it was Iran,the Euro Air Forces could stage across Europe to Greece and ther fly to Iranian bases which were originally equipped as US air bases-ie NATO standard.

Posted by Stephen 2005-10-19 17:59|| 2005-10-19 17:59|| Front Page Top

#39 Wonder what Israel would think about that opportunity?

Posted by Crereter Jick9771 2005-10-19 18:04|| 2005-10-19 18:04|| Front Page Top

#40 Mojo I am with you Air Assualt. Haaahahhahha

Trying to move into a US battle zone with 5000 men loaded on air transports would be suicide hell handfull of F-22's and they wouldnt make it across the Med. Sea Transport ehhh maybe N. Africa or Med they would make the EU has some pretty strong near shore naval forces but long range again would be suicide as soon as they moved out of land based air cover range and the deisel subs range.

I would not read this as a threat to the US after all 5K troops com on would not stop a marine anphib force. More likly I would say the EU are waking up to the fact that if you cant back up your talk game you can no longer get a free ride on the US military game no more with China, India common on strong as more powerful and important nation that can talk and back it up. The EU's bluff has been called and the US is no longer a shoe in to back them up, hence thier talk is just talk and even the little nobodys are starting to try them "seara leon""Congo"ect... not to mention the upstarts like Iran, Syria, ect...that just outright threaten or be billigerent with them.

Posted by C-Low 2005-10-19 18:21|| 2005-10-19 18:21|| Front Page Top

#41 Ohh and to add to a atempt to push a major EU reinforcement or defence across the Atlantic to venuzeula I would just reference the Falklands war were Britian by far the most powerful naval power in the EU was damm near taken down by Argentinia and her what 2 old mirrages armed with what 10 exorcet missles? Yeah that whole force would have lasted all of a day with one US carrier battle group and that is only becuase it took them a day to get out of land based air cover range europe.

I personally would like to see a strong EU military even with all the current anti-americanism I think the common EU guy considers the US a ally. I think alot of the current anti-america is alot of envy we have long passed them in every way while at the same time todays world with the new powers India, China, Russia, hell Brazil, Iran are fast passing aswell, the EU has just about zero military clout exept in parts of Africa today. They have potential but the massive socialist programs would have to go to rebuild even then they would be transition like the startups mentioned above.

Posted by C-Low 2005-10-19 18:41|| 2005-10-19 18:41|| Front Page Top

#42 The 5K troops sent by Europe would be reinforcing local troops.

Think of them as equivalent to the US special forces attached to the Northern Alliance that provided forward-air-controller functions and called in airstrikes, or like the 2nd ID in South Korea.

Now, there's one facet of the situation that argues against the ~~dictatorship~~ country-to-be-named-later being Venezuela: they don't have anything to buy the Europeans' help with. There are persistant reports that their oil production is consistently lower than is generally reported, and sinking:

PDVSA's collapsing crude oil production will continue for the foreseeable future. PDVSA is not investing enough in well maintenance and development of new production capacity. As a result, PDVSA cannot offset oil reservoir depletion rates that average between 20 percent and 25 percent annually, depending on the age of the oil fields. These natural depletion rates result from the loss of internal reservoir pressure levels as crude oil is extracted and no efforts are made to inject natural gas and steam to maintain pressure levels. As a result, PDVSA is producing fewer barrels of oil per well.

The Chavez government has an official PDVSA expansion plan that calls for investing more than $40 billion in the next five years to raise production capacity to more than 5 million bpd. But that plan exists only on paper. Since Chavez became president in early 1999, PDVSA has announced at least 15 expansion plans, but none of them have been launched to date.

Regarding Nigeria... now I suspect there's a lot that a brigade-sized European force could do to help stabilize and defuse the situation in the more unstable parts, IF they used the right troops... but it would almost be a more advisory role than a big production with tanks and APC's.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2005-10-19 18:48|| 2005-10-19 18:48|| Front Page Top

#43 Given the nations involved, the limited logistics, and their historical areas of concentration, more likely it'd be Afica. Using an arc 5000 km from Paris, that covers Sudan, Chad, and Nigeria.

Posted by Pappy 2005-10-19 19:04|| 2005-10-19 19:04|| Front Page Top

#44 or the Caspian fields Soros keeps trying to control.

Posted by 3dc 2005-10-19 19:38|| 2005-10-19 19:38|| Front Page Top

#45 Thank heavens that Algeria is stable, else it could be about them.

Posted by Shipman 2005-10-19 20:01|| 2005-10-19 20:01|| Front Page Top

#46 C-Low, fwiw you pursuaded me. :-) And the idea of European troops in Africa/Caspian fields is much more comforting than the thought of them entertaining dreams of hegemony in South America.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-19 20:15|| 2005-10-19 20:15|| Front Page Top

#47 Oil rich countries is what its all about. That's our foreign policy. Same with Englandistan. Our ally today. Do we care if cut-throats have a constitution. We have been defending the Saudis who bankroll killers of our people. Euros always jealous try now to correct their 1914 mentality which doomed them to third place or fourth place. Can't play unless you pay. In blood.

Posted by Bardo 2005-10-19 20:35|| 2005-10-19 20:35|| Front Page Top

#48 Oil rich countries is what its all about. That's our foreign policy. Same with Englandistan. Our ally today. Do we care if cut-throats have a constitution. We have been defending the Saudis who bankroll killers of our people. Euros always jealous try now to correct their 1914 mentality which doomed them to third place or fourth place. Can't play unless you pay. In blood.

Posted by Bardo 2005-10-19 20:35|| 2005-10-19 20:35|| Front Page Top

#49 Interesting uber-simplification and over-generalization. Consider this a generic response, not a personal criticism of your post - for you have posted in the mainstream. You've stated the Conventional Wisdom. That it gives me heartburn, lol, is why I feel like a rant.

[rant]
To any and all...

Pray-tell, what would you do. Specifically. We get generic "everything is shit" and "we don't do anything" rants, but they're usually very short on the "what we should be doing differently" component.

I used to work at a place where you were not allowed to criticize if you didn't offer at least one alternative - a well thought out, workable, actionable, outline to fix what you were bitching about. I suggest the same should go here at RB.

The House of Saud. Remember the scene at the end of 3 Days of the Condor where the CIA guy (Robertson) is talking to the Book Reader (Redford) and the Book Reader is acting all surprised that they war-game scenarios - which is absurd, if he was half as intelligent as they had painted him to be up to that moment? The CIA Guy sez the magic words (paraphrasing) of Truth: What would you do? What would you do when they're freezing in their homes and there's no gas for their cars and the trucks aren't delivering food to the stores and you've lost your job because the factories have shut down because the trains aren't delivering the parts to the assembly plants, etc. You know what? The people won't care. They won't care what you have to do to get the oil, they'll just want you to do it. Period.

And there we are. There is not enough political will to do the logical things, such as get off the oil tit and, meanwhile, take away the oil that funds the terror shit and fuels our world. So, in a nutshell, most everybody's a gutless fucking turd when it comes to solving the actual problem, so we continue to poke at the symptoms, and sacrifice our best and brightest in that effort. Our great good luck to have a few leaders who had the stones to do the right thing are being left in the lurch.

Either it gets bloody enough to make us fold, give up, quit, act like good little dhimmis... and certainly we hear the masses of morons, both foreign and domestic, who are praying for that outcome - sans a clue what it would mean to them... or we take the fight to the source by taking away their fucking oil and, simultaneously, working our asses off to eliminate our dependence upon it as fuel. Save it for its other uses.

Until the politicians who haven't the stomach to save us either win a majority or are replaced by people who do, we will continue to bleed. Death by a thousand cuts. Little cut here by an IED. Bigger cut there by a container bomb.

Until we bare our bellies or fry 'em up.

Not much in the middle, there.
[/rant]

Posted by .com 2005-10-19 21:18|| 2005-10-19 21:18|| Front Page Top

#50 Well, .com, I am car-pooling as much as possible, and I mostly cut my grass with an old-fashioned rotary mower (no gas there), I'm gardening with locally native plants that don't need to be fertilized, sprayed or watered, and I've been replacing my incandescent light bulbs with halogen or compact fluorescents. My next vehicle will be a hybrid, when I replace the mini-van (as soon as the t.daughters get past the soccer stage), and Mr. Wife's new vehicle will get about ten more miles to the gallon (~1/3rd less). Oh, and Mr. Wife is combining his business trips, so while he isn't really away any less, he is doing less actual flying back and forth. Incremental I know, but lots of people in the suburbs are doing at least some of these things, and probably some others I haven't thought about. And whenever the opportunity comes up in conversation, I suggest to people that they check out Rantburg -- my bit for edumacating and changing minds. ;-)

But China and India are sucking up the oil even faster than we are reducing our use, so the Saudis, et al, are raking in ever higher profits. Syria and Iran are next in line after Iraq, and then come the Saudis -- we know it and so do they. The whole Arab world watched the election in Afghanistan, then the one in Iraq, and they are watching Saddam Hussein's trial now. Al Queda is complaining that the Arab League is undermining the jihad for the Caliphate, and it looks like their Home Office is under a bit of financial pressure.

I know you've been frustrated, waiting for the rest of us to catch up to where you've been for years, but we're getting there. And in the meantime, I do believe President Bush is doing the things that need to be done, in a step-wise progression to make sure they actually get done.

But then I am a naive, innocent Pollyanna who stays home and serves tea to her friends, and listens avidly to the tales of their adventures. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-19 22:01|| 2005-10-19 22:01|| Front Page Top

#51 Innocent and naive? Lol. Um, I don't think so... I agree Bush is doing what, in his world, he can and should do - he's one of those being left in the lurch by the instant gratification blinded US public. I sincerely appreciate how far out of the mold he has moved to try to do the right thing. It's never enough, of course, for the ankle-biting crowd. I am, however, very satisfied with his doctrine and efforts thus far. That support is dwindling, if the polls are to be believed, is what pisses me off, er, make that "irks" me. We should be standing with him, not falling for the obviously self-defeating BS of withdrawal timetables and such being pushed by the dhimmis-in-waiting. It boggles that those with multiple neurons could buy into defeatism so thinly veiled.

I don't think it's such a stretch to see where we are heading - the paths split clearly and the current indicators are the public is "tiring" and going the wrong way, the way down, but it gets lost in the smoke and mirrors and sheer repetition of memes and lies, so I take it upon myself to point it out periodically, heh.

So sue me, lol. :)

Posted by .com 2005-10-19 22:31|| 2005-10-19 22:31|| Front Page Top

#52 Lets fantasize rant for awhile. If we had a normal American leader who realized business interests support killers of Americans both civilian and soldiers. And that process is ongoing. Would not a normal leader stop that process by any means available. Especially if you are America. And in that America if economic forces become unmonopolized; would not that latent genius come up with technological marvels that once again ratchet up America relative to the out there. Would not a normal person, not the freaks that control us, act that way.

Posted by Bardo 2005-10-19 22:32|| 2005-10-19 22:32|| Front Page Top

#53 Hmmm. I think, if I read it correctly Bardo, that you support something similar to me, but I'm not certain because the post is unclear, IMHO.

My post was, indeed, a fantasy - that is clearly indicated by the [rant] ... [/rant] tags.

What Bush can and can't do as President is pretty damned muddled by the last 40+ years of reactionary legislative BS - mainly due to Vietnam missteps and somewhat due to opposition to actions in Central America. Executive power is hamstrung in 50 different ways from when Johnson was President and used the manufactured Bay of Tonkin "incident" to work his fantasy will. Hell, we can thank the Church Committee for kicking off the decimation of the CIA - which has left us blind to much important intel regards Iran and set us up for the WMD debacle stemming from Tenet's "slam dunk" assurances regards Iraq. Even if a President is willing, he's at least partially blind, today.

What are the motives of most war? Power, land, commercial interests. What were the motives for Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq? Principles and security. We sure as hell gained zero monetarily.

What about the Saudis? I stated what my "fantasy" is. Is your post different? I can't tell. Sorry, but I find it largely unclear.

Posted by .com 2005-10-19 23:21|| 2005-10-19 23:21|| Front Page Top

#54 the EU-3 turns PU-3

Posted by Captain America 2005-10-19 23:46|| 2005-10-19 23:46|| Front Page Top

#55 Friend .com, you know what is unclear to me, what does IMHO, LOL, etc. mean? Your narrative is factual. The constraints of action. I support the military geo-politcal positioning in Iraq. I would prefer more radical militaristic action in that area. We have the technology. Economic repositioning due to the politcal realities is necessary. An energy Manhattan Project for real, today. Really clear out the Intelligence Bureaucracy. The propaganda forces and propellant oil-money is enabling Islopunks to do more real damage. It is does not stop. It is planned as we communicate. Drastic action in economic innovation is needed. However we live in a Robber Baron Age. Its Standard Oil again. We are little (speaking for myself) people; big economic cliques turn the wheel only now American blood and guts get in the cogs. The details and strategies are for those smarter than me. We are being bullshitted. Its not happening yet. But I hope you get my drift.

Posted by Bardo 2005-10-20 00:21|| 2005-10-20 00:21|| Front Page Top

00:21 Bardo
23:46 Captain America
23:44 Captain America
23:43 BigEd
23:40 BigEd
23:33 docob
23:31 CrazyFool
23:24 Bardo
23:21 .com
23:19 DMFD
23:15 Edward Yee
23:12 DMFD
23:02 Bardo
22:43 Atomic Conspiracy
22:37 Unineck Glomonter5375
22:32 Bardo
22:31 .com
22:23 Hupinelet Glaising4546
22:17 2b
22:13 Oldspook
22:12 Silentbrick
22:12 2b
22:01 trailing wife
21:55 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom