Overworked, exhausted, and in 'fuck this fucking job' mode here seen on his last day before being blacklisted from the oilfield AND trucking industry, not to mention being barred form ever returning to the state of ND after serving time there.

A condition referred to as, 'full-tilt' and he'll be lucky if they give him the spoke key to a bicycle after this.

(bet he has some hardcore metal or most likely, some sheit ghetto-rap cranked-up to 11 on his stereo and couldn't even hear the thunks from the beams on his boom....at least you'd like think so.)

Beat me by 5 hours-First and last day as anchor. I can sympathize and identify completely with this guy, I may have lasted a week.

On the flip-side of quality, you'd think they'd be able to find some local talent in North Dakota for the local news, eh? Point two- both anchors have horrible public speaking skills- Their diction and command of the English language are total sheit. I'd can both of em and offer the lead anchor job to the lady at the feed store who speaks clearly and confidently, HAS a personality, and never went to university and wasted thousands of dollars on a Radio/Television Communications degree.

He needs to lose the suit and go get a better-paying gig more suited for his skills-HELLO!!?? Oilfield industry is booming in the Dakotas right now A.J., fucking-shit man, land you a job with a future where you can really develop that potty-mouth!

>> ^longde:

South Sudan has announced a withdrawal


Thanks for both the update and the video Longde. Here's a few lines from Al Jazeera's coverage of recent changes there:

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has said his troops have defeated South Sudanese forces who occupied his country's main oilfield, but added that the battle was not over.

"They started the fighting and we will announce when it will end, and our advance will never stop," Bashir told a rally attended by thousands in Khartoum on Friday.

He dismissed a statement by his southern counterpart Salva Kiir that the troops which had invaded Heglig - which accounts for about 50 per cent of Sudan's oil - had withdrawn.

"There is no withdrawal. We beat them by force ... Until now, their people are running," Bashir, wearing an olive army uniform, said at military headquarters.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in.
"Just" is a matter of perspective.
Vast sums were made by war profiteering during the war, but that paled in comparison to the influx of wealth following WWII and american global domination.

For you to say; "WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in." leaves you in the unenviable position of being an utterly ignorant commentator on issues you don't understand. Shush.


really? you think WWI started simply because franz ferdinand was shot, ...or WWII had nothing to do with Hitler's push into the middle east and western russian oilfields? or that vietnam and korea had nothing to do with the collision of economic systems (communist totalitarianism and capitalism). or Iraq has nothing to do with oil and Afghanistan has nothing to do with rare earth deposits? good vs. evil is just fine for star wars and the lord of the rings, but on planet earth, it's about competing economic interests.
"Just" war is another term for wrapping brutality in red white and blue and selling it to the masses.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

I read your stuff Yogi!

FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.

In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!

They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!

In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.

Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em

But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!

Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.

>> ^bareboards2:

Was that on purpose??????


Not the fire that started on the ground causing everyone to start running for life.

My brother explained it to me somewhat, there was liquid fuel in the lines and when they opened up the valve to start the flare stack thus supplying it with the fuel source ( vapor to be burned). That liquid is from a fuckup of theirs as the fuel condensed in the lines and was pushed out by the vapor and it landed causing pools and the flare was shooting out globs of liquid on fire and it fell onto the ground lighting the pools of fuel on fire.

THIS is how ya learn the hard way

That sound at 2:11 sounds very much like a rifle shot in the Forrest. When I worked oilfield I would hear that all the time out of the blue.

Didn't know if you watched this already by Rachel Maddow:
http://videosift.com/video/Maddow-The-More-Spills-Change-The-More-They-Stay-The-Same

In reply to this comment by notarobot:
Apparently almost exactly the same oil problem/breach/leak happened about 31 years ago in the same oilfield, just a few miles away, at a lesser depth, closer to 500 feet. I haven't had a chance to search to confirm this rumor yet.

Apparently almost exactly the same oil problem/breach/leak happened about 31 years ago in the same oilfield, just a few miles away, at a lesser depth, closer to 500 feet. I haven't had a chance to search to confirm this rumor yet.

Fails as in how? Not that Im for it or anything but Houston does have the largest port in the country. Or second largest according to wiki not to mention Beaumont and Corpus Christi which are 4th and 5th. Also we have NASA and heres a bit else we have here from wiki.

Rated as a beta world city,[6] Houston's economy has a broad industrial base in the energy, manufacturing, aeronautics, transportation, and health care sectors and is a leading center for building oilfield equipment; only New York City is home to more Fortune 500 headquarters in the city limits.[7] The Port of Houston ranks first in the United States in international waterborne tonnage handled and second in total cargo tonnage handled.[8]

Also I guess we have Dallas.
I actually think we would do well.

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

>> ^MaxWilder:
Looking forward to the day Texas finally secedes. And then fails.

interesting
but unapplicable title i think
a conventional explosive would probably be useless here.. it would just turn the rock to mush and would leave the possibility of making the problem worse
while a nuclear detonation will force the rock to compress around the detonation bubble
also, getting a comparable conventional payload to that location would be highly impractical

i'm not any expert on oil/gas issues though
the iraqis set the oilfields on fire as they retreated so there might be some good documentaries about that
werner herzog did a beautiful documentary about the oil fires of kuwait in 1992; Lessons of Darkness

The following is from a Newsweek article read by Sen. Byrd (D, WV) during a congressional hearing on September 20, 2002:

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by Newsweek. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.

Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions...

The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons...

The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand.

After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.

The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces.

The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.

Saddam was feeling cocky. With the support of the West, he had defeated the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. America favored him as a regional pillar; European and American corporations were vying for contracts with Iraq. He was visited by congressional delegations led by Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who were eager to promote American farm and business interests. But Saddam's megalomania was on the rise, and he overplayed his hand. In 1990, a U.S. Customs sting operation snared several Iraqi agents who were trying to buy electronic equipment used to make triggers for nuclear bombs. Not long after, Saddam gained the world's attention by threatening "to burn Israel to the ground." At the Pentagon, analysts began to warn that Saddam was a growing menace, especially after he tried to buy some American-made high-tech furnaces useful for making nuclear-bomb parts. Yet other officials in Congress and in the Bush administration continued to see him as a useful, if distasteful, regional strongman. The State Department was equivocating with Saddam right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

Mr. President, I referred to this Newsweek article yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Specifically, during the hearing, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sewn?"

The Secretary quickly and flatly denied any knowledge but said he would review Pentagon records.

I suggest that the administration speed up that review. My concerns and the concerns of others have grown.

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.

The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request.

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.

We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story.

The Russian German pact is one of the most interesting blunders by both powers prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

A core principle of Nazi ideology was the rejection of Communism and Bolshevism, yet cordial relations were maintained between Hitler and Stalin with regards to craving up parts of Eastern Europe. Right before the outbreak of Operation Barbarossa, various Russian spies sent information of tank and troop formations forming along the border. However Stalin dismissed those, believing Hitler would never attack him. This resulted the huge capitulation on the Eastern front, lots of military and aerial equipment was destroyed as no order came from above about the impending attack.

Hitler was after the Caucus oilfields, a resource the Nazi's were lacking in continuing their war effort, however instead of focusing on that one singular strategic goal Hitler started getting more involved in fighting political battles going after Moscow and Stalingrad. Deluded optimism based off earlier successes.

Numerous German officials and officer remarked at the start of the operation that invading Russia was a grave mistake, as the NAP allowed for single front warfare against France and England without opening another front with the Soviet Union.

Posted because it's interesting *and* because of the interesting commentary from the somethingawful.com folks connected to the posting:

Back in the day it was of great interest to both the government and citizens as to how effective a ... all » nuclear weapon that were made 15-20 years prior would be. The solution was to simply blow them up and measure the results, but detonating a bomb on the surface was not allowed anymore. So the solution was underground testing.

For these tests to be effective, three things have to happen. Dig a hole, put bomb in hole and blow it up, and then the gather of results.

My grandpa was the second man in charge of step one and three, digging holes. These were not your average holes, they were 24” to 36” in diameter, some up to 48” for a depth up to 2000 feet. As my grandpa was experienced in drilling holes in the oilfield (8-9 inch holes up to 16,000 feet deep) he had pretty applicable knowledge and experience of how one might accomplish this. As they were feeding in pipe (as the hole got deeper), by the time they got 2000” of pipe, the whole string of pipe weighed over one million pounds. By comparison, 13000 feet of 2-7/8” pipe in the oilfield weighs around 100,000 pounds.

So once the hole was dug, my grandpa and his crew had to leave as they placed a building over the hole (for secrecy/privacy) then lowered the nuke in. They then put so much concrete over the top of the device and filled the rest with dirt.