mr2mk1g

Actually, all he really has to do to prove the accuracy of the quoted statement is to show that refining capacity is predicted to outstrip supply in 1, 2, or 10 years... I'd bet that's not actually that hard to do. Can I get in on the bet too?

Don't think y'all top that one. Hindsight is 20:20

Doesn't it also mean that any worker on a federal project (be they a local or from out of state) can be paid less than what workers for local companies would normally get for such work. Thus is it not the case that all people working on federally funded projects will be paid less than the normal going rate for their labour in that region?

oh well. In that case the his post simply made no sense in context.

Yeah I think I rejected the last one on behalf of the Queen.

I started off by saying that you had a good point and that I didn't have a rebuttal... but then as I wrote I actually talked myself into making one. Sorry. It would indeed appear the SAS troopers were dressed in civvies, at least in part although I don't know how much if any uniform they were wearing. It is quite possible they were wearing enough insignia to be afforded protection, although the SAS is pretty much left to its own devices to dress in local garb as they see fit for tactical reasons. I can well imagine them being in complete Arab dress, though that is pure speculation. You do touch on the important point that if we are to snatch and detain Iraqi's based on the fact that they're fighting in civvies, we should at least hold our own troops to the same standard and allow the Iraqi govt. to deal with our troop so captured as we deal with their citizens. If that's the case then any action to attempt to release the troopers could have been illegal as were legally in the custody of the Iraqi government who could stick them in their own version of Gitmo for ever amore and we wouldn't have any right to complain (well we the Brits would perhaps, but not the US... certainly any argument put by the "coalition" would be undermined). That part of your point is certainly well made and is something to bear in mind. However; and here comes the rebuttal part - the Iraqi government sent direct orders to the police commanders to release the prisoners in the British custody and thats where things start to take a different path. The troopers are in the custody of the Iraqi govt. and if there are orders from above to the police to release them to coalition forces then the police action from this point onwards was against orders and illegal. This of course assumes the Govt. official who gave the order had the power under their constitution to do so. I think he was the equivalent of the Home Secretary so he ought to have had. It is unclear when the troopers were handed over to the illegal militia force (before or after govt. orders were received) but either way not retrieving them is defiance of the order and handing them over in the first place was clearly illegal. Does that mean British military actions to force the police hand were therefore legal? I don't know... but it certainly puts them in a much better light doesn't it. I presume there probably is the power to use force against illegal action by Iraqi rogue security forces which place British troops at risk... and if there isn't there ought to be.

I've explained it to you many times John; this really does get quite tiresome. There's a nice big friendly paragraph at the start of the police stats which says they cannot be relied upon to show trends because of changes in reporting standards and that instead you should look to the BCS, which also carries a nice big friendly paragraph about how they are the only reliable source for information on crime trends in the UK. It's not my value judgment - it's that of the people who create and use the statistics. (btw the survey you cite in this thread is also prefaced by an almost identical paragraph).

This is a list of US shipping sunk by Hitler's forces before the attack on Pearl Harbour... in which another 20 ships were damaged or sunk and 2395 were killed. How on earth do you conclude that WWII wasn't America's problem? Date Ship Type Cause Result Location Deaths 10/09/39 SS City of Flint Hog Island freighter Capture by pocket battleship Deutchland Released NAtlantic None 2/18/40 El Sonador Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk Shetland Islands Crew Approx 17 06/12/40 Exochorda Freighter Shelled Slight damage Med-Black Sea None 11/09/40 City of Rayville Freighter German mine Sunk Australian coast Crew 1 12/21/40 Charles Pratt Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk SAtlantic Crew 2 05/21/41 Robin Moor Hog Islander Torpedo & Shelled Sunk Caribbean None 08/11/41 Iberville Freighter Aerial mine from German aircraft Damaged Red Sea None 08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24 (3 survivors) 09/05/41 Steel Seafarer Freighter Bombed by German aircraft Sunk Gulf of Suez None 09/11/41 Arkansan Freighter Shelled Damaged Indian-Red Sea None 09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 26 09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 13 09/27/41 I. C. White Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk South Atlantic Crew 3 10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 17, (17 survivors) 10/19/41 Lehigh Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed None 11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown North Atlantic Unknown 11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx. 38 11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx 33; German POW 1 11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk North Atlantic Crew 9 11/19/41 Del Pidio Unknown (Philippines) Mine Unknown Philippines Crew 6 11/19/41 Edridio Mindoro (67 ton) Mine Sunk Philippines Unknown 12/02/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 37 12/03/41 Sagadahoc Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed Crew 1 12/07/41 Cynthia Olson Steam Schooner Torpedo Sunk Pacific Crew 33; US Army 2

Right - cheers for that. Perhaps some of the anger some are showing here ought to be directed towards those below, as well as to those who they think ought to have changed who you give and sell arms to given their stance on world tyreny: Congress ("Congress appropriates grants to finance foreign nations’ purchases of American-made weapons") and Whoever allocates these ESF grants ("ESF is not intended for military expenditure, the grants are frequently used as a de facto military aid"). and The Pentagon [who do they report to?] ("FMS) are government-to-government agreements negotiated by the Pentagon and the purchasing country.") and Congress again [at least in part] ("Congressional approval must be sought for weapons sales of $14 million or more"). and The State Department [who do they report to?] ("(ITAR), a list of all the categories of goods that are considered munitions. ITAR also names those states ineligible to receive U.S. armaments.") [it seems this quite an important one as if the receiving country isn't on the ITAR list it's not allowed any arms] and The US Government [by which definition?] ("U.S. government transfers weapons from its stocks for free or at greatly reduced prices through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program.")

I'm not filing a suit - I have no right to nor do I care much. I'm not even a US citizen. I'm just posting for the sake of it. Remember you have to have a right to exercise in order to be guilty of laches in failing to exercise it. Yes you could easily argue that Congress is also culpable for not changing the laws to prevent the US giving military aid to tyrannical despots. The US people though would be a bit of a stretch - that would probably be too remote (kingdom for a horse etc). Bush and Congress though - this stuff is their job. A lot of people in Washington have made it their business to take on world tyranny - it's certainly valid to question why they've not wanted to do anything about something like this which goes right to the very heart of their self selected crusade. I’m sure there are other arguments out there against such questions though (I've even thought up a couple myself). But I don't think this is really one of them. Open question for all on here (as I honestly don't know the answer). Who decides which countries get military aid and in what quantity? Who signs off on that order? (Note I'm asking about aid not sales).

It applies to everyone. It's a perfectly bona fide legal principal. You should keep an eye on it – if you don't believe it exists maybe you'll find yourself on the wrong end of legal argument based on it one day and lose your shirt. While you're laughing you can try googling it - here's the I'm feeling lucky version: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

It's pefectly valid logic. The same logic is even the basis of an perfectly valid legal doctorine called "laches". He's been in power fighting worldwide tyrany and an axis of evil for years now. If there's something about his country that runs completely counter to that desire it's a bit rich to say there's nothing he could have tried to do about it already.

I'll take a look next time I have it out. There are some kites which provide the ability to adjust the trim. Remember things aren't so critical as with a parachute so finger trapping and sewing isn't necessary. It's common for the bridle lines to be larks headed over a knot on the suspension line. Thus if you have a series of knots in the suspension line you can adjust the angle of attack of the whole wing simply by moving the larks head attachments on all the lines up or down one knot on the suspension line. (mine doesn't have this feature though so I should be able to give you factory setting figures).

No, merely that if he didn't like the law he could easily make a stink about it and try to get it changed. Guess he must like the law.

Are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States doesn't have any input on who the US gives military aid to and who the US sells military weaponary to?

I always thought that was a rather graphic term given its religious origin....

Whether or not the SAS did anything wrong in the first place to warrant arrest is immiterial to what went on. Iraqi law requires coalition soliders to be handed over to coalition authorities if they are arrested. The police regulations require this also. The Iraqi police were clearly under a legal duty to hand the SAS troopers over to the Brits and refused to do so. The Iraqi Govt. got involved and sent a direct order to the Iraqi police to release the troopers into British custody. They also ignored direct orders from the Iraqi government. The police then released the SAS troopers into the hands of insurgents who had been attacking British Troops and refused to tell the British where they were. Only when they had a 30mm Rarden cannon pointed at them did they fess up to what they had done.

The insurgents weren't in the police station. They were in a house in Basra where the two SAS troopers had been taken and filmed. The police had released the two troopers to insurgents who had taken them away from the detention centre. These insurgents are the same one's who had recently been attacking British troops out there. When the Commander was informed that the SAS troopers had been handed over and taken away from the centre sent in 6 negotiators to speak with the police about where their soldiers were. They were then held hostage. The commander then ordered a Warriors armoured vehicle to break into the compound and the police then released the 6 negotiators and point out where the captured SAS troopers were. They were then rescued from the house in Basra where they were being held. There's a lot more to this story than is being told.

Build it to almost exactly the same design as a higher aspect ratio than usual HP main. I recently bought a Crossfire power kite. It has 9 cells, cross-port-venting, a partially formed nose, crossbracing, A,B,C,D lines, seperate break lines, the lot. It's even made of ZP and came with spectra lines. It is in effect identical to a parachute... so just scale down your favorite canopy and build it in miniture.

yeah, I guess some of the terminology might be region specific - but the exposure was positive and it was a nice light hearted report.

Just listened to this. Not at all bad mate. Click here if you want to listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/wordofmouth.ram Starts at about 18.30 on the clock and runs for 10 minutes.

Freelance millionaire.

flicking the bean

The CCI (essentially S&TA) would probably go: "Ah, you're Quade; nice to meet you". Or if your reputation didn't precede you things would probably not be any different than a visiting UK jumper. The CCI would simply look at your licence (which in your case would be USPA and it wouldn't really make any difference that it's not FAI), note you held a "D", and tick a couple of boxes in the "for office use only" section of the membership form you filled in and essentially send you on your way. If you had 201 jumps things might be a little different... but I don't think there would be any differences between a visiting UK jumper with 201 jumps and a visiting US jumper with 201 jumps. I guess there might be a difference if you were a visiting Slovakian (eg) jumper mind but only because the DZ wouldn't know the licencing requirements for Slovakia and would probably ask the jumper themselves what they needed to do to get the C licence they were holding. I think "cleared by a CCI" is generally interpreted as "we know he's not a liability so he'll be alright" or "he's already jumped camera elsewhere so he'll be alright"... that's if the DZ actually realises you're jumping camera for the first time of course... which I bet most of the time they don't. If they didn't know you and you wanted to jump camera there for the first time they might want to see your helmet to make sure it's not a death trap. Some places would want to know if you had a cutaway or maybe see it. They may even send you to a local camera flyer for a quick brief and some advice. But then they may be just as likely to say "have fun" and send you back to the office to buy tickets... especially so the more you get away from having the minimum 200 jumps required. That's the best I can do I'm affraid when answering for a country where the exact answer you'd get would change greatly from one DZ to the next... and even at the same DZ depending on who's on duty. But I think the key point is that I doubt the fact that you don't have a UK licence would make any difference at all... but then, I'm not the CCI booking you in.

and also nothing would happen during a no-pull... the time when an AAD is of most use... in fact, that's the very situation that 99% of jumpers bought a cypres to guard against.