I Don't Get It.....

There were more than a few nazi sympathizers in Britain, also, including, as I recollect, amongst the peerage. Plenty of fools and kooks to go around. Did you have a point?

Hey, I was just reading the news headlines... murderous damn Swedes, eh?

I hope you don't mind me suggesting that that is a stupid comment. The US has Iraq under military occupation and controls all sources of information - there are _no_ credible direct sources. What we do know is that the US occupation has handed control of Iraqi oil resources to the Oil Corporations and that they are extracting oil and removing it from Iraq.

Iraq.

That really is _your_ problem. They clearly are not individuals.

When the action is harmful to the US as a whole, your government should be acting to protect it's citizens, including other corporations.

even your own!

You can't sell Hollywood to us - why would we buy your toxic waste? ;-)

You're capitulating from reason? Why is it too late to change a situation that is obviously wrong?

Regards, Greg.P.

They won't get it!

(sic)

(sic)

I red engulsh berry good.

Several reasons.

1. Follow the money. Corporate funding of election campaigns (both major parties) precludes any radical change, and it would require a complete overhaul of society. Of course the 9th District Court does sometimes (often) surprise us before the Supremes overrule.
2. Most people (here in the USA) are too ignorant to understand the concept.
3. Individuals are now treated as products of the state, so things are beginning to at least be more equal. (I'm not saying that this is good, just observing).
4. As long as people are not starving in the streets in large numbers, there will be no change. As long as the economy creates enough wealth, the disparity doesn't hit home.

Oh, piss off.

I just did, apparently. Note that there is a difference between ignornace and stupidity.

Regards,

DAve

Duly noted.

"Steve Caple" <

By the time the P51 came into front line service, the RAF were using 20mm cannon in all their single engined fighters.

When the P51 was first introduced, it was a failure. As you point out, it was only after they fiited the Rolls Royce Merlin that it became one of the best allied fighters and arguably the finest piston engined long range fighter of all time.

Some Lancasters were equipped with 20mm cannons, but not many and, I don't think, and of the Dam Buster aircraft. However, IIRC, the Dam Buster aircraft had to have the mid upper turret removed to make room for the small gasoline engine that spun the bomb.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

salvé "Brian Paul Ehni" skrev i meddelandet news:BC21B4CF.5236% snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net...

I type it even worse :) Beowulf

Well, the clip was short, and I don't have the opportunity to see it again, but it certainly could have been 20mm - did look a little big even for .50 caliber.

And if memory serves, the front turrets of the 617 Sqdn a/c were also removed and the opening faired over, as a weight saving measure. But I believe that Roger is correct, I can remember seeing some Frazer Nash turrets that had been removed from scrapped Lancs, and these were armed with 20mil cannon - Hispanos, I think.

Also, the Lancs used by the French Aeronavale in the Pacific post-WWII were armed with .50cals. One of these is now preserved at MOTAT in Auckland NZ, and another transitted through Sydney on its way back to the UK many years ago.

The trouble with so many documentaries these days is that they often use footage that is not related to the topic, or wildly anachronistic. You'll catch a glimpse of something, as Steve has done, and think: "Wow, I never knew they had/did/flew/ran those!", only to realise later that you have been led astray by the film-makers.

All the best,

Mark.

found and the oil yet to be discovered is less

pumping technology hasn't got a lot further to

The laws of physics have been revoked for oil companies?

Let's play with some imaginary figures. Say for example a 1950s pump and motor are each 50% efficient to pump oil up

1000 feet. - that comes to 25% overall efficiency If by 1970 the pump and motor are 70% efficient and oil has to be pumped from 2000 feet the overall efficiency is 49% so the energy expended is the same per barrel. By 2003 we're at a point where 90% efficiency is possible - still only 81% overall. As you approach 100% mechanical efficiency, those gains are harder and harder to achieve, so there's not a lot to be gained in that direction. Unfortunately, the oil is further down after you pump from the top and each new find is further down or more akwardly situated

are fundamentalist Moslems - ie diametrically

decades while it suits you, but the urgency to

- that sounds like _you_ are the problem and not

So you accept that you have bad ideas! You had another one through the 1990s with sanctions that hurt the average Iraqi while Hussein built more palaces. If you'd noticed the trend, why follow them up with another idea that everyone said was also bad?

trained within the borders of Iraq but the only

_against_ Hussein.

Not really - documents the US Military claim proves that their actions were right, documents we are not allowed to see and documents extracted from collections that in total might show a different picture.

The one I know of was an anti- Hussein training camp - you destroyed your allies.

were destroyed".

The access was denied by the US.

Because Hussein had a lot to hide - he needed to hide the fact that Iraq was basically undefended. He was after all a vicious dictator - or had you missed that point?

You're really not that stupid - Hussein's Iraq was surrounded by enemies waiting for opportunities to strike. Admitting he was undefended would ...

invade or retaliate.

Why is that irrelevant? Was the US or the UN offering to defend Hussein?

Of course not, he didn't have any.

I'm saying the _threat_ of having WMDs to defend Iraq was a deterent. You yanks should understand about deterents, you don't actually have to have the weapons, you only have to make your enemies think you have them.

LOL. After he was dead!

which you beat them)

Where were the high tech weapons to counter the US's?

he had WMDs hidden and the US kept up that

You did. (Kurds and Shi'i on separate occassions)

Of course we didn't know absolutely, that was the point of Hussein's and Bushes lies on the subject.

more or less inviting his neighbours to invade,

remote possibility that you might elect a

How many wars did Clinton start in Iraq?

potential enemy, in spite of the overwhelming evidence

"Much of the World" is what I was refering to.

What truth - you invaded a nation to rid it of weapons it didn't have.

dislike what you do but it's your paranoia that

suggesting that all Afghanis and all Iraqis would fly

all found and the oil yet to be discovered is less

and pumping technology hasn't got a lot further to

1000 feet. - that comes to 25% overall efficiency 2000 feet the overall efficiency is 49% so the

to achieve, so there's not a lot to be gained in

top and each new find is further down or more

"terrorists" are fundamentalist Moslems - ie diametrically

decades while it suits you, but the urgency to

hmmm - that sounds like _you_ are the problem and not

Iraqi while Hussein built more palaces.

said was also bad?

trained within the borders of Iraq but the only

_against_ Hussein.

right, documents we are not allowed to see and

were destroyed".

basically undefended.

waiting for opportunities to strike. Admitting he was

than insulting)

invade or retaliate.

the weapons, you only have to make your enemies think

which you beat them)

that he had WMDs hidden and the US kept up that

Bushes lies on the subject.

more or less inviting his neighbours to invade,

remote possibility that you might elect a

potential enemy, in spite of the overwhelming evidence

dislike what you do but it's your paranoia that

suggesting that all Afghanis and all Iraqis would fly

Greg, You have to except what will come into the hole. The pump jack only lifts what's in the pipe. You can not induce better production by adding a larger more powerful jack. The fluid that in most cases will be a mixture of oil and salt water will rise to a certain level in the pipe depending on pressure. You set the down hole pump to a level that is appropriate and then set the jack on a timer so that when the oil in the pipe is pumped down the jack stops for a period long enough for the pipe to fill back. To increase production recovery methods might be used such as a water flood.You would be injecting salt water into a well that is lower in structure to push un-recovered oil to the higher wells and would be moving more fluid. Much of that fluid would be salt water that would be separated on the surface and re-injected. Water flooding is not new and you must have conditions that warrant the cost. Fluid levels in the pipe will drop due to depletion of pressure. How much oil is in your formation depends on porosity, and how much salt water is down there with it. How much of it you can recover depends on the permeability of the rock the oil is in, how much pressure there is and what completion methods such as fracturing have been applied to increase permeability. No mater what there is a finite amount of oil within the rock and sooner or later the well is depleted. If using larger more powerful pumping equipment is all that is needed to increase a wells production show me the way. I have a big old Lufkin 320 we can fix up to get started with. We'll get rich.

Bruce

"Gregory Procter" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz...

You know more about the hands on stuff than I do, obviously.

I started at the other end by reading that US oil production is dropping year by year and applied not entirely faultless logic.