Diesel Fuel Costs Hurting Shiney Wheels

[wkmac]

I think this may be the report your article is referring to. After reading it I took a slightly different message from it.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Wkmac do you think this is the same report your article refers to. It may not be since it says the Iraqi government had clear ties to terrorist organizations and they shared a common enemy in the United States.

Haven't had a chance to read it completely but something did grab my attention that makes an excellent point at what I've believed all along.

On page 15 under Executive summary, first paragraph, it sez:

The regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. (this next sentence IMO is a very important point) The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Baath movement.

Now I want to also include something from President Bush's Office to not only back up the fact that Saddam was involved with global terror groups but even supports fully the assertion that Saddam was backing Pan Arab terrorist.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

BTW: The above is found within a larger document entitled Iraq, Denial and Deception which was put out by the WH. Here's the opening page with Table of Contents which links to those chapters.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html

Let's take the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization first. Who or what are they.

The fall of Saddam Hussein‘s regime affected the circumstances of the designated foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The MEK was allied with the Iraqi regime and received most of its support from it. The MEK assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime. The National Liberation Army was the military wing of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. continuing in same source
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm

Now why would you think Saddam would be hooked up with these guys? Internal Iraq security over who? Maybe a large Shia population that has roots not in "ARAB" Iraq but rather "PERSIAN" Iran.

Here's more on them from the Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/#2

Being from Iran meaning Persian roots I guess we can rule out Pan Arab so this would most likely be a Pan-Islamic movement. I think we can both agree that these guys were just "useful idiots" for Saddam or at least that's MO. Being Saddam was Sunni Arab I can't see Saddam throwing in at the end of the day with a bunch of Shia Iranians.

Next is the PLO. What's to say that isn't already known. Sunni Arab for the most part and if you study Pan Arabism it's clear IMO that the PLO's purpose in truth is to force out Isreal so a Pan-Arab State from the North in Syria down to Egypt and then across the the Arabian Pennisula and around Iraq and Jordan. You know the area promised to Abraham in Genesis that the Arabs believe their direct heir Ismael was really given.

Next we have the Abu Nidal Organization which is an offshoot of the PLO. I'll defer again to the Council on Foreign Relations on this matter.

Abu Nidal is a terrorist organization widely known for deadly attacks in the 1980s on Western, Palestinian, and Israeli targets. They were attempting to derail diplomatic relations between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the West, while advocating for the destruction of Israel. The organization was named for a former member of the PLO who split off in a dispute over establishing diplomatic ties with Israel. Abu Nidal has been on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations for more than twenty years but is currently thought to be inactive, according to the 2006 State Department. continuing Abu Nidal—is a secular international terrorist group that has been sponsored by Syria, Libya, and Iraq, and has attacked a wide range of Western, Israeli, and Arab targets. continuing Abu Nidal, which means “father of the struggle” in Arabic,.... In the 1950s, he joined the Arab nationalist Baath Party, and in 1967 he got involved with the PLO.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/

What is the Baath party? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party

Look, no argument that Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism but it was for his own purposes, not unto some religious cause or crusade. This is why he and Al Queda or Bin Laden don't fit because Saddam's motive was secular and Al Queda and Laden were purely religious and neither side could effectively use the other for it's own gain. Sure they may gain when the other acted independently but it wasn't something that would form a relationship because at the end of the day if they won, they'd be out trying to kil one another because the motives were so different.

Saddam suported the Pan Arabism of the Baath party meaning a reuniting of all the Arab lands as one but with a bit of a twist. Instead of being ruled from Arabia as Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, the late Sharif of Mecca envisioned when he dreamed of departing from the Ottoman Empire. Saddam envisoned rebuilding ancient Babylon and ruling from there.

http://architecture.about.com/cs/countriescultures/a/saddamspalace.htm

This is also why the powers of Saudia Arabia feared Saddam as well as Bin Laden when Iraq invaded Kuwait as they saw themselves next in Saddam's drive of his new Babylon.

So taking the Que from the President himself, I'm completely cool with his assessment of Saddam's terrorism links as he listed in the above linked document. It would at least for now seem that the President's assesment and the one you linked confirm one another just from what I read in the executive summary. I will read more as time allows and if I see otherwise to my thinking I'll consider those points.

Saddam was a nutjob, no arguement but he was all about himself and his own power. Al Queda and Bin Laden are about a pure Arabian Pennisula and if that is achieved they would retire to that area never to be heard from again content with their own heaven on earth. Bin Laden was silent until we entered the Arabian pennisula in 1990' to defend the Saudia dynasty from Saddam's Pan Arab Babylon.

Pan Arabism is an interesting study in itself and the history from Sayyid Hussein bin Ali to today is very worthwhile IMO.

Well time to go clean up some storm damage as we had a hell of a night last night. Downtown Atlanta is trashed. I'm just glad we didn't lose power at work because I always have to stay until it comes back on no matter what or how late. I've threatened for years to buy a hot stick from the power company because I know the exact jacks that blow out and I'd just walk down the street and latch em back in. The power company guys don't grin when I say that!


Thanks again for the link there AV.

 

[av8torntn]

Psst: AV, 116 republicans voted with the democrats in the house to raise the minimum wage and President Bush signed it into law!

Not sure why you direct this at me but since you did I think a minimum wage is stupid. I think it does more to harm the poor and working class families than some of these social programs the Federal government loves. It was either you or one of your fan club posting how the Republican party either hate the poor or try to destroy the middle class so they should have all voted for the minimum wage increase if this were true. Did Ron Paul vote for this increase?

 

[wkmac]

Not sure why you direct this at me

http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/so-much-for-raising-taxes-on-just-the-rich.144183/

See post #3

but since you did I think a minimum wage is stupid. I think it does more to harm the poor and working class families than some of these social programs the Federal government loves.

I agree with that!

It was either you or one of your fan club posting how the Republican party either hate the poor or try to destroy the middle class so they should have all voted for the minimum wage increase if this were true.

I never said anything at all about raising the min. wage as I'm not only against that but also against child labor laws, compulsory school attendence laws or about anything else of a mandatory nature of gov't period including paying taxes. (That otta stir the pot! LOL)

As for my fan club, I doubt I have any fans here as I try and piss everyone off equally. You seem pretty easy, sadly D has wised up and Tie just thinks I'm hopeless.

My ultimate goal is to unite this website where you all as one demand of Cheryl that I be kicked off! My gift for world peace!

Did Ron Paul vote for this increase?

You are having to ask me how "Dr. NO" voted on the minimum wage? I'm really beginning to question just how politically informed you really are.

 

[wkmac]

Psst: AV, 116 republicans voted with the democrats in the house to raise the minimum wage and President Bush signed it into law!

My Bad AV,

It was 82 not 116 republicans voting for HR-2 which was the initial effort to raise the minimum wage in Jan. 2007'. Just wanted to correct that for the record. Here's the vote breakdown and Ron Paul did vote against it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll018.xml

HR-2 legislation passed by House in Jan. 07'
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110EITjk8::

The house passed the legislation but it got hung up in Congressional games via the Senate and in May of 07' was attached to HR-2206 after the democrats gave in to republican demands for tax cuts and other economic concessions. After Bush signed it became Public Law 110-28 and is cited in 121 STAT. 112. Here is that Pulic Law.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...110_cong_public_laws&docid=friend:publ028.110

The rollcall vote on HR-2206 is as follows:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

The breakdown on this was

Yeas Noes
Democrat 86 Democrat 140
Republican 194 Republicans 2

The 2 lone republicans who voted "NO" were Duncan of California and Paul of Texas. Paul also voted no on HR-2 which was consistant with his record.

Would seem the republicans took the minimum wage issue, along with Katrina and grafted it to Iraq appropriations as an all in one bill so that come political season 194 of them can claim they support the war for those voters and at the same time for the voters who like a minimum wage increase or even Katrina support, they can wrap their arms around that. Also embeded are more Bush tax cuts and small business tax incentives designed to soften the min. wage increase. In other words, they can play all sides of the fence. And don't frown because the democrats do this crap also so it goes both ways. It just happens on this piece of legislation that is kinda seems to go a bit one way. It also shows that having a majority in Congress doesn't mean you can, as the Mick Jagger would say, "You can't always get what you want!"


It was also a smart strategic political manuvere on the part of the republicans becuase for those democrats that voted no because of Iraq war money or Bush Tax cuts, the republicans in effect not only have them on record on that but also have them on record as having voted against the min. wage increase. For the dems. who held their nose to support the min. wage, it has softened those democrats use of Iraq war, funding of Bush Tax cuts because they voted for them. How can you call out someone for doing something you did yourself?

Pretty smart ain't it!


And the bill also was a "I'll scratch you if you scratch me" kinda legislation as well. I keep telling you guys to look under the surface as there is a whole other world living there that we all are just clueless about and I include me in that we! They hate it when we dare look.

If you happen to be interested in any of Paul's postiions (I know, why waste my typing but others may feel otherwise) you can find a lot of Paul's writtings and speeches here on the right side of the page under Articles by Ron Paul on LRC.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2

Not exhaustive but it's a general idea.

 

[wkmac]

Getting back to fuel costs, none of this can help.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/619b6d18-f392-11dc-b6bc-0000779fd2ac.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/17/ccview117.xml

http://www.reuters.com/article/busi...Type=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

As the dollar weakens, oil will continue to rise and to make matters worse, we have so little manufacturing left in America to even reep the benefits of cheap costing goods on the global markets to benefit closing the trade gap. The manufacturing base was the biggest engine to middle class life which has been greatly effected by global labor markets as well as the cost of mandated gov't regulation on many fronts. I guess the good news is as the dollar declines the American worker becomes cheaper and cheaper so could this mean a return of manufacturing as balance returns to the global labor market?

Reading the first article about Greenspan's comments of worst condition since WW2 made we wonder if another "Bretton-Woods" conference is on the horizon and a return to that form of financial governance incluidng a return to some form of gold convertibility for the sake of stability which Nixon abandoned in 1971' thus killing Bretton-Woods?

For those not familar with the United Nations Monetary Conference otherwise known as Bretton-Woods this 2 quick articles from Wikipedia give a nice basic overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monetary_and_Financial_Conference

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

Neither article should be considered the all in all on the issue but rather as a basic intro and overview. This is not to suggest I condemn nor condone the articles but rather you should research from other sources to confirm not only the footnoted items but also those comments not confirmed with sources.

 

[wkmac]

I couldn't agree more on the diesel engine idea. Diesel powered cars get just as good, if not better, fuel economy when compared to a similar hybrid car. Hybrids are just a fad, and are not as fuel efficient or as reliable as a good old diesel engine. The only problem here is we have 6 states that have made it all but impossible to sell a diesel powered passenger car because they think diesels emit too much particulate matter. Its funny that they don't realize that the tires on a modern diesel let off more particulate matter as they wear than the engine will. VW will be releasing a 50 state legal diesel here in the U.S. later this year claiming MPG in the mid 40s for city driving and mid 50s for highway. That will come in the Jetta, and if they can get a diesel in the Rabbit you are talking 60+mpg average on the highway. VW sells a small diesel car in Europe called the Lupo that is capable of 75 mpg, but I doubt we will ever see it here.

Brett,

You'll enjoy this. http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/pagenum/all/#

Concerns how the Hummer is more enviro friendly than the Prius and I thought of you and your post when I read it.

Personally, I think there is not /will not be a one size fits all solution. It will have many faces IMO in the end. Good point about the VW Lupo and it does seem beyond belief that we don't have that being sold in America.

 

[wkmac]

Here's the link to the Joint Forces Command report on the documents.

https://web.archive.org/web/2013102....mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/pa032008.html

Looking at the Newsmax piece I notice a couple of things that caught my attention.

[“Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” the report’s authors at the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) state/QUOTE]

No doubt in my mine about that. I mean Saddam hated the US probably as much as the Iranian/Shia Hezbollah does and it's obvious those 2 would not play nice longterm.

Intriguing Analysis


An analysis by Newsmax identified several documents with critical evidence of Saddam’s close ties to al-Qaida that were overlooked or ignored by the report’s authors, however.

I appreciate Newsmax's work of analysis and it truly is of interest but I'd like to see what offical sources have to say now that these documents are out for public consumption. You would think and maybe they have and I've missed it, but you would think there would be a lot of politicos and policy wonks get face time on the news with what Newsmax has uncovered. Has me puzzled as to why not?

You know a potential confirmation of some of this might be found with the Jan. interview with FBI agent George Piro who spent a lot of time questioning Saddam Hussein that was broadcast on 60 Minutes. Even the FBI itself promoted the broadcast with it's own agency press release.
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan08/piro012808.html

Yahoo on Wednesday post the 60 Minute broadcast into segments dealing with various aspects of Hussein including the connection of Hussein to Osama bin Laden and in some respects one might say to movements driven by religious fanatism in general. In light of the Newsmax analysis, it is very interesting what Special Agent Piro has to say.

Thanks again for the Newsmax link and by all means pass on anything else you might find.

Be cool!

 

[av8torntn]

Hey thanks for the link to the supporting documents of that report. Of course I haven't had time to read them all but I did find some of the letters like the one below of interest. There also seem to be several about the weapons programs. ​

The Republic of Iraq
The Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Service
Your memorandum 1/1/1481 in 7/12/2001
We support assigning what came in your above mentioned memorandum to Branch 14 to
monitor the camps ofArab volunteer fighters with the exception of series number 141.
Respectfully,





This is also interesting in a slightly different way.

​

Area assigned​

1.​

​

Sari Sulayman Jasim B5/1
Area assigned​

1.​

​

Sari Sulayman Jasim B5/1 Palestinian
2. Muhammad Qabil Marfu B5/2 Lebanese
3. Samid Qadir Jamil B5/2 Moroccan
4. Hilmi Zaydan KhalafB5/4 Yemeni
5. Muhammad Vmar Ali B5/2 Sudanese
6. Tariq Ahmad Yasin B5/4 Egyptian
7. Adi Khalil Ibrahim B5/3 Egyptian
8. Ali Husayn Muslih B5/[illegible] Egyptian



If someone was capable of independent thought I wonder what conclusion they would come to by reading some of these documents.​

 

[brett636]

Brett,

You'll enjoy this. http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/pagenum/all/#

Concerns how the Hummer is more enviro friendly than the Prius and I thought of you and your post when I read it.

Personally, I think there is not /will not be a one size fits all solution. It will have many faces IMO in the end. Good point about the VW Lupo and it does seem beyond belief that we don't have that being sold in America.

I remember reading that article when it first came out. Its an interesting read, but ultimatly is just a play on numbers. I don't think a hummer is going to last over 300k miles while a prius only lasts 100k.

Personally, what I have read about the Prius's real world mpg ratings, I don't see why someone would want to pay an extra $6k-$7k for a corrola with a battery for anything other than to be recognized as a "green" person.

 

[wkmac]

Hey thanks for the link to the supporting documents of that report. Of course I haven't had time to read them all but I did find some of the letters like the one below of interest. There also seem to be several about the weapons programs. ​

The Republic of Iraq
The Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Service
Your memorandum 1/1/1481 in 7/12/2001
We support assigning what came in your above mentioned memorandum to Branch 14 to
monitor the camps ofArab volunteer fighters with the exception of series number 141.
Respectfully,​

This is also interesting in a slightly different way.​

Area assigned​

1.

Sari Sulayman Jasim B5/1 ​

Area assigned​

1. ​

Sari Sulayman Jasim B5/1 Palestinian​

2. Muhammad Qabil Marfu B5/2 Lebanese
3. Samid Qadir Jamil B5/2 Moroccan

4. Hilmi Zaydan KhalafB5/4 Yemeni
5. Muhammad Vmar Ali B5/2 Sudanese
6. Tariq Ahmad Yasin B5/4 Egyptian
7. Adi Khalil Ibrahim B5/3 Egyptian
8. Ali Husayn Muslih B5/[illegible] Egyptian​

If someone was capable of independent thought I wonder what conclusion they would come to by reading some of these documents.​

Now that is interesting. Looking over the names above I found interesting the listing as I take it of the nationalities of each person. Each one of these nationalities are within what is generally considered Arab lands so this would go right along with the mention in the first part about monitoring the camps of Arab fighters.​

A website given to me (don't ask by who or I'll have to kill you ) has proven very good in matching up a name with a specific terrorist organization.​

Up top is a dropdown list is about every known terrorist group there is and their known members and their present status. I did enter Al Qaeda into the Que and each of the names on the list but didn't get a hit. Now this means nothing because there are about 12 Al Qaeda groups in the que and I only searched one and they are specific to each organization. for example, you find Osama under Al Qaeda but not under Al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. I did plug in each name with no organization in the que and got nothing but it may also require an organization to do a proper search so IMO this means nothing as well.​

Let's start plugging in names and see what we come up with. Since these names at this point seem to be Arab guys, I'd stick to Arab associated organizations first, like Al Qaeda and it's various factions, then go to say Hamas, Abu Nadel, PLO, etc. before looking at Hezebollah which is Shia' or any of the Kurdish groups. If you are like me, these Arab names (people and organizations) leave me bleery eyed at times because they come and go all the time and from every direction. Lots of alias' to and this could also effect the names above as they could be an alias instead of a proper name and not in the que as such.​

Wikipedia is not perfect by any stretch but many articles give names (and some alias') as one possible source and tend to link out to others. The best articles are footnoted heavily which is where the real meat is anyway. Here's the Wiki article on the deceased AQI leader Abu Musad al-Zarqawi which lists a lot of organizations assocaited with Iraq that we might use to plug into the que to link to the names in the letter. Just an idea anyway.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi​

I've also found the Council on Foreign Relations as well as Rand Corp. and GlobalSecurity websites very useful. All 3 are heavily connected to gov't and often used by the gov't and military as source info and the info flows both ways. Also some of the National Intelligence Estimates released to the public and even the White House website can be a good source at times for mining names.​

I'm busy this weekend as my daughter has a paying gig so with reheasal and soundcheck today and performance tomorrow, I'm no longer a UPSer but instead a logistics manager, roadie and guitar tech or in otherwords, her flunky and gofer! LOL! But I will start plugging when I can and see what I come up with. Happy hunting!​

 

[av8torntn]

A website given to me (don't ask by who or I'll have to kill you ) has proven very good in matching up a name with a specific terrorist organization.​

Up top is a dropdown list is about every known terrorist group there is and their known members and their present status. I did enter Al Qaeda into the Que and each of the names on the list but didn't get a hit. Now this means nothing because there are about 12 Al Qaeda groups in the que and I only searched one and they are specific to each organization. for example, you find Osama under Al Qaeda but not under Al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. I did plug in each name with no organization in the que and got nothing but it may also require an organization to do a proper search so IMO this means nothing as well.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi​

I'd be willing to bet good money that none of these guys are Al Queada. I would make the guess that these guys were Iraqi military leaders who were put in charge of organizing foriegn fighters but it was interesting to me because I had the pleasure of meeting one of these men.

 

[wkmac]

I'd be willing to bet good money that none of these guys are Al Queada. I would make the guess that these guys were Iraqi military leaders who were put in charge of organizing foriegn fighters but it was interesting to me because I had the pleasure of meeting one of these men.

I would hope in that meeting that you dispatched him to the same place as Saddam? LOL!

As for these guys being Iraqi and more likely Baathist, I think that is a very good observation and a very real potential. I have found the datbase useful when I find a name and plug it in. I've been surprised to learn for example at Zarqawi (late head of AQI) before he pledged alligence to Osama and Al Qaeda in 2004' was all over the map in causes. He was imprisoned in Jordon for trying to overthrow the King and install a Islamic Caliphate which is the goal of Pan-Islam which does differ from Pan Arabism and even the goals of Osama who wanted to remove all non-arabs from the Arabian Pennisula and was a roadblock until 2004' for Zarqawi.

Oddly enough I even read a intelligence report of where Zarqawi worked with both Kurdish and Shia terrorist at a camp at Kirma around 2002' which really caught me by surprise and I'll try and find and post the article. Zarqawi to me was a man looking for a cause rather than someone operating on some kind of principle. I can understand why Osama never trusted him.

 

[av8torntn]

Oddly enough I even read a intelligence report of where Zarqawi worked with both Kurdish and Shia terrorist at a camp at Kirma around 2002' which really caught me by surprise and I'll try and find and post the article. Zarqawi to me was a man looking for a cause rather than someone operating on some kind of principle. I can understand why Osama never trusted him.

There are multiple documents in those reports from Saddam sending his intel guys to the Kurds to help train them in unconventional warfare. These documents were all dated in the 80's. Could middle east politics be complicated?

 

[moreluck]

Filled up at a Valero today in San Clemente, CA.

$3.61 regular
$3.83 super

 

[HazMatMan]

I remember paying 97 cents per gallon just in 1999. Had a Ford Escort and asked for a fill-up and gave the man a 10 and got change back. Clinton was President I believe.

 

[wkmac]

I remember paying 97 cents per gallon just in 1999. Had a Ford Escort and asked for a fill-up and gave the man a 10 and got change back. Clinton was President I believe.

I remember during the Nixon years paying in the 40 and 50 cent a gallon neighborhood and in the late Johnson/early Nixon years in the 20 cent range. The good ole days when we walked a 1/4 mile of highway and collected enough soft drink bottles (before the clean highway act and litter laws) to redeem for the deposits and then buy enough gas to ride our mini-bikes all day long. Man life was good.

So you have a republican (Nixon)with lower gas prices prior to the oil embargo than a democrat (Clinton)and now we have another republican (Bush 2) in which gas prices have risen dramatically. IMO it matters not who holds the White House but rather what is the economic policy along with foreign policy (see below) obviously but if you inflate the money supply regardless the rest, prices including gasoline will go up. There are many factors in play with oil but IMHO, chief among them is the fact that the overall money supply has been increased and therefore more dollars in ratio to goods and therefore prices naturally go up.

You know it's funny how history has a kinda funny way of rolling in circles when you consider the 1973' Yom Kippur War started on October 6th, 1973' when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel and the American gov't instead of taking a neutral stance sided with Israel for better or worse depending on POV. In response, the Arab oil lands on October 17th announced they would no longer send oil to the US because of the backing of Israel in the conflict. Our non-neutrality in effect caused the jump in oil price at that time.

Moving forward 30 years, one could beg the question if our involvement in the Middle East has done more harm to the previous stable price of oil or not? It would also be an interesting question to reverse time back to 1990' and follow what April Gillespie was told to tell Saddam about Kuwait and that was the US had no position when it came to Arab affairs and that meaning we would still be a friend of Saddam as we were at that time and no infidel presence on Saudi lands. What would the world be like today? Obviously we'll never know but it does present an interesting thought.

Here's an interesting chart on oil prices from 1970' to about 2003'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_price_chronology.gif#file

What really caught me eye was the dramatic price increase from 1970' to about 1980', around $2 a barrel to about $38 dollars a barrel. Now that's a hell of a jump over 10 years and for all purposes it was from 1973' on. Uh, what was it that happened that year?

I know, Darkside of the Moon came out!
LOL!

 

[wkmac]

https://web.archive.org/web/2008060.../money/15749952/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news

Some truckers are planning some type of strike action to protest fuel costs.