MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I hope that oil will cost $ 100 per liter soon!  (Read 38087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2012, 12:53 »
0
Please dont get us wrong!  ofcourse we sympathise with you and its horrible, I agree, only sooner or later these discussions always leads up to the US and Great-Britain, being the bad guys, etc.
and its totally unfair, they have saved our @sses, plenty of times and will probabaly do so in future as well.

To be absolutely fair towards historic truth, USSR "saved" our asses from Nazi Germay. USA invaded Europe in June 1944 when the German Army was in full retreat across Poland, having effectively lost the war against the Red Army the previous year. The west front arguably just sped up the inevitable collapse of the German war machine.

Well its a truth with a slight modification, ofcourse they participated and did it very well, just look at Stalingrad!  however, Stalin, was unfortunately not much better then Mr. Hitler, on the contrary, late evidence proclaims him even worse.
Your right though, they did a lot during WW2.

best.


RacePhoto

« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2012, 13:23 »
0
Please dont get us wrong!  ofcourse we sympathise with you and its horrible, I agree, only sooner or later these discussions always leads up to the US and Great-Britain, being the bad guys, etc.
and its totally unfair, they have saved our @sses, plenty of times and will probabaly do so in future as well.

To be absolutely fair towards historic truth, USSR "saved" our asses from Nazi Germay. USA invaded Europe in June 1944 when the German Army was in full retreat across Poland, having effectively lost the war against the Red Army the previous year. The west front arguably just sped up the inevitable collapse of the German war machine.

Well its a truth with a slight modification, ofcourse they participated and did it very well, just look at Stalingrad!  however, Stalin, was unfortunately not much better then Mr. Hitler, on the contrary, late evidence proclaims him even worse.
Your right though, they did a lot during WW2.

best.

Some people have a very narrow interpretation of the truth, to serve their own purposes. This is a good example. The denial of the concentration camps and the millions of people murdered is another. But I'll stick to the first inaccurate attempt at the revision of history.

Until the attack on Pearl Harbor, ( Dec. 1941) the United States had maintained formal neutrality, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union and China with war material through Lend-Lease. During the war over 16 million Americans served in the United States military, with 290,000 killed in action and 670,000 wounded. That doesn't look like someone who just joined in after the Germans were on the run, in 1944?   >:(

That's the thanks people get for helping. Denial and hate? People in the UK would be speaking German now if it wasn't for the US, plain and simple.

« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2012, 13:26 »
0
Well its a truth with a slight modification, ofcourse they participated and did it very well, just look at Stalingrad!  however, Stalin, was unfortunately not much better then Mr. Hitler, on the contrary, late evidence proclaims him even worse.
Your right though, they did a lot during WW2.

best.

Stalin's attitude is irrelevant to the question: did USA save Europe from Nazi Germany? The answer is no. You could argue that Stalin would have done even worse in Europe, but there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to go beyond Germany and conquer Western Europe, there is actually evidence of the contrary in the form of Kremlin's plans for securing Eastern Europe after the fall of Germany. Stalin, USA and UK were allied at that time, till well beyond Yalta, and even if plans for a follow up war were being drafted by all parties, they were more precautions than anything.

But coming back to today, a long term rise in oil price is inevitable and it is a Good Thing. India, China, South America are seeing a huge influx of cars, for example, that drives oil demand up, which drives oil price up, given that oil production can not rise much further, but will likely slowly fall. More expansive oil means more investment in better cars that consume less gas (something that has been hindered by oil companies for decades), more research and investment in renewable energy, higher tech industries. This will produce more jobs, especially high-tech, which will also require better education, driving school standards higher. Even if I now live in USA, I welcome the rise in oil price, by looking beyond my immediate needs.

« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2012, 13:35 »
0
Some people have a very narrow interpretation of the truth, to serve their own purposes. This is a good example. The denial of the concentration camps and the millions of people murdered is another. But I'll stick to the first inaccurate attempt at the revision of history.

Until the attack on Pearl Harbor, ( Dec. 1941) the United States had maintained formal neutrality, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union and China with war material through Lend-Lease. During the war over 16 million Americans served in the United States military, with 290,000 killed in action and 670,000 wounded. That doesn't look like someone who just joined in after the Germans were on the run, in 1944?   >:(

That's the thanks people get for helping. Denial and hate? People in the UK would be speaking German now if it wasn't for the US, plain and simple.

USSR lost 20 million people in WW2 and fought a bitter war in their territory for three years, defeated and drove back the German Army, twice at Moscow with Operation Blue at the end of '41 and at Stalingrad at the beginning of '43. When USA invaded Europe, the German Army was retreating in Poland, defeated. This is not interpretation, this is a fact. And can not really be revisioned to serve an ideological purpose. English people speaking German without USA doesn't make any historical sense: Hitler was fixated with invading USSR and there was no way he could invade Britain, with or without USA. Pearl Harbor is a whole different story that is not quite the same as what is promulgated by the propaganda. But this topic would lead us even more distant and I wouldn't pursuit it. As a last interesting point, Britain is still paying back the Lend-Lease today. I wouldn't even need to go in details about what Plan Marshal represented for USA economy in the 50's and 60's. WW2 was a very good business for USA.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 13:39 by Fran »

RacePhoto

« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2012, 14:00 »
0
Some people have a very narrow interpretation of the truth, to serve their own purposes. This is a good example. The denial of the concentration camps and the millions of people murdered is another. But I'll stick to the first inaccurate attempt at the revision of history.

Until the attack on Pearl Harbor, ( Dec. 1941) the United States had maintained formal neutrality, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union and China with war material through Lend-Lease. During the war over 16 million Americans served in the United States military, with 290,000 killed in action and 670,000 wounded. That doesn't look like someone who just joined in after the Germans were on the run, in 1944?   >:(

That's the thanks people get for helping. Denial and hate? People in the UK would be speaking German now if it wasn't for the US, plain and simple.

USSR lost 20 million people in WW2 and fought a bitter war in their territory for three years, defeated and drove back the German Army, twice at Moscow with Operation Blue at the end of '41 and at Stalingrad at the beginning of '43. When USA invaded Europe, the German Army was retreating in Poland, defeated. This is not interpretation, this is a fact. And can not really be revisioned to serve an ideological purpose. English people speaking German without USA doesn't make any historical sense: Hitler was fixated with invading USSR and there was no way he could invade Britain, with or without USA. Pearl Harbor is a whole different story that is not quite the same as what is promulgated by the propaganda. But this topic would lead us even more distant and I wouldn't pursuit it. As a last interesting point, Britain is still paying back the Lend-Lease today. I wouldn't even need to go in details about what Plan Marshal represented for USA economy in the 50's and 60's. WW2 was a very good business for USA.

So what was the USA doing from Dec. 1941 until D-Day, sitting on their hands waiting? Seems you are l;leaving out something?

No denying that the USSR and numerous other countries were heavily involved, that wasn't the original claim. Nor did I say anything of the sort.

What started this was, The US didn't join until 1944 when the German's were already on the run. Which is a flat out, lie! There's your revisionist history.

Yeah we need more expensive fuel so we can have electric cars that explode in the garage, will kill people with a shock, use batteries that are full of toxic waste and use more energy because it takes coal plants to make the electricity to "fuel" them. Seems the same people who want to get away from oil (not a bad thing by the way) are also against nuclear energy which is cheap and clean. Instead we get coal fired plants, spewing acid, CO2, dirt and dust into the atmosphere. Nice plan??? Trade one form of pollution for another. Stupid politics.

Oh wait, the evil oil companies have a 100 MPG carburetor, but they are hiding it from consumers. Since the 1950s  ::) Sure and your car can run on water.  People believe all kinds of lies and perpetuate them. Things like the US didn't join WW II until 1944!

I think propane or natural gas vehicles would make the most sense, considering science and resources. Renewable resources are a nice dream, but not just around the corner and not going to magically appear because something else goes away. Engineers have been trying for about 50 years to find cheaper energy, maybe longer, if it's as easy as turn off the oil faucet and we'll have something else, then why not now?

Bio fuel would be even better. Hasn't been proved economical at this point. Maybe the high price will help that get back into the scheme. Unfortunately OPEC is smarter than a bunch of people on forums, and they will always drop the price to a level to make sure that their oil is cheaper than Bio_Fuel! Lets not insult their intelligence or marketing plan. They want to sell oil, until it's all gone.

Anything that replaces oil would be good for the planet and everyone, including the company that developed it and owns the rights. They would be wealthy beyond imagination or all the oil companies and OPEC. So why don't we have it NOW?

It doesn't exist except in science fiction, hypothetical science dreams and maybe the future. Get a grasp on some reality.

wut

« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2012, 14:15 »
0
If lobbies didn't shut Tesla down, we'd already have free transportation for a century, no need for oil, coal, gas etc. There's tidal, geothermal, that is clean and renewable and there's more than plenty to power the whole planet without using a drop of oil, gas etc

« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2012, 14:38 »
0
So what was the USA doing from Dec. 1941 until D-Day, sitting on their hands waiting? Seems you are l;leaving out something?

No denying that the USSR and numerous other countries were heavily involved, that wasn't the original claim. Nor did I say anything of the sort.

What started this was, The US didn't join until 1944 when the German's were already on the run. Which is a flat out, lie! There's your revisionist history.

Sorry, but that's historic fact, not a lie. USA entered the war in Europe on June 6, 1944. It's undeniable. Technically, though, the invasion of Europe started in the south of Italy in '43, but it was pretty much stopped cold there at the Gustav Line. For everything else, I urge you to remain civil and accept facts.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 14:45 by Fran »

RacePhoto

« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2012, 14:47 »
0
So what was the USA doing from Dec. 1941 until D-Day, sitting on their hands waiting? Seems you are l;leaving out something?

No denying that the USSR and numerous other countries were heavily involved, that wasn't the original claim. Nor did I say anything of the sort.

What started this was, The US didn't join until 1944 when the German's were already on the run. Which is a flat out, lie! There's your revisionist history.

Sorry, but that's historic fact, not a lie. USA entered the war in Europe on June 6, 1944. It's undeniable. Technically, though, the invasion of Europe started in the south of Italy in '43, but it was pretty much stopped cold there at the Gustav Line. For everything else, I urge you to remain civil and accept facts.

I hope I was civil, if not I apologize.

Have a good day.

sc

« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2012, 14:50 »
0

Sorry, but that's historic fact, not a lie. USA entered the war in Europe on June 6, 1944. It's undeniable. Technically, though, the invasion of Europe started in the south of Italy in '43, but it was pretty much stopped cold there at the Gustav Line. For everything else, I urge you to remain civil and accept facts.

We may not have have boots on the ground in Europe until D-Day but our Air Force was certainly involved as early as July 1942.

« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2012, 14:51 »
0
I hope I was civil, if not I apologize.

Have a good day.

Thank you, it's appreciated. Even if I enjoy a passionate discussion. WW2 is an incredibly interesting and complex topic, and I would discuss about it for hours. I strongly believe that no one country was at fault or was the savior, but it was a bitter struggle for economic dominance at the expenses of the soldiers and people of all countries who suffered enormously from it. USA won this economic struggle.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 14:56 by Fran »

lagereek

« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2012, 15:50 »
0
Well its a truth with a slight modification, ofcourse they participated and did it very well, just look at Stalingrad!  however, Stalin, was unfortunately not much better then Mr. Hitler, on the contrary, late evidence proclaims him even worse.
Your right though, they did a lot during WW2.

best.

Stalin's attitude is irrelevant to the question: did USA save Europe from Nazi Germany? The answer is no. You could argue that Stalin would have done even worse in Europe, but there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to go beyond Germany and conquer Western Europe, there is actually evidence of the contrary in the form of Kremlin's plans for securing Eastern Europe after the fall of Germany. Stalin, USA and UK were allied at that time, till well beyond Yalta, and even if plans for a follow up war were being drafted by all parties, they were more precautions than anything.

But coming back to today, a long term rise in oil price is inevitable and it is a Good Thing. India, China, South America are seeing a huge influx of cars, for example, that drives oil demand up, which drives oil price up, given that oil production can not rise much further, but will likely slowly fall. More expansive oil means more investment in better cars that consume less gas (something that has been hindered by oil companies for decades), more research and investment in renewable energy, higher tech industries. This will produce more jobs, especially high-tech, which will also require better education, driving school standards higher. Even if I now live in USA, I welcome the rise in oil price, by looking beyond my immediate needs.


I dont agree with you on this one. No matter what without the US. Europe was broken, the Russian soldiers and people were starving alive, there was nothing left, the US, came in with fresh troops, modern technology. There is no doubt, without the US intervention, todays world would have been very differant.

Hitler and his entorage, in fact helped us, the Vermacht, fieldmarshals like Romel, Kesselring, von Paulus, etc, was turning against them and bad, lousy decissions were made, they gave priority to the extermination, instead of pursuing the war.
Later, the entire invasion, plans, blueprints, etc, eas masterminded by the chief in command, Eisenhower and Lord Mountbatten.

No, we could argu this for a thousand years but the US, did save our bacon. :)

best.

« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2012, 15:53 »
0
If lobbies didn't shut Tesla down, we'd already have free transportation for a century, no need for oil, coal, gas etc. There's tidal, geothermal, that is clean and renewable and there's more than plenty to power the whole planet without using a drop of oil, gas etc

Yep!
He was Croatian Serb, from war part of Croatia during 90-ies!
His motto was: "I am proud with my Serbian native, and my Croatian homeland ..."
Unfortunately, his charisma has not helped against awakening those defeated "quislings" ideologies from WW2 that have awakened in ex YU society, supported by some foreign lobbies...

P.S.
Marshal Tito had conquered nazzzis and quislings, only a small part was effort of Americans and Russians.... :) ;) ;) :P

He said historic "NO" to Stalin, and sold "space program" to Americans (they were on Moon several years later).. :o :P ;)
He also had to promise that "Cockta" will never be sold out of Yugoslavia, that couldn't jeopardize Coca Cola!
Ha! What you will say now?  :o :P :P ;)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 16:08 by borg »

« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2012, 16:32 »
0
I dont agree with you on this one. No matter what without the US. Europe was broken, the Russian soldiers and people were starving alive, there was nothing left, the US, came in with fresh troops, modern technology. There is no doubt, without the US intervention, todays world would have been very differant.


This is not factual. The Red Army was extremely powerful, in fact in '44, i'll repeat it again, the Wehrmacht was in full retreat across Poland, the Luftwaffe essentially gone and the only strategic objective was to slow down the Red Army to allow the german population still in Poland to evacuate safely to Germany. The main reasons why Americans had air superiority on the Western front was that the Luftwaffe had been wiped out by the Red Army. According to all military historians, at that point (mid '44) there was no way Germany could have asked for an armistice. The war was lost. Imagine only that the Red Army sieged Berlin with more men and artillery pieces than Germany used in the whole Operation Barbarossa!

Without the US intervention the world would have been very different, as you say, simply for the fact that USA wouldn't have such a huge market like Europe for their industry to flourish. But you can not claim that without US intervention in '44 Germany would have won the war. They wouldn't have even been able to request a conditional surrender. War was essentially lost at Stalingrad.

Here's an excellent book that explains what I'm arguing much better than I possibly could:
http://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-Retreats-Fighting-Modern-Studies/dp/0700618260
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 16:43 by Fran »

lagereek

« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2012, 17:31 »
0
I dont agree with you on this one. No matter what without the US. Europe was broken, the Russian soldiers and people were starving alive, there was nothing left, the US, came in with fresh troops, modern technology. There is no doubt, without the US intervention, todays world would have been very differant.


This is not factual. The Red Army was extremely powerful, in fact in '44, i'll repeat it again, the Wehrmacht was in full retreat across Poland, the Luftwaffe essentially gone and the only strategic objective was to slow down the Red Army to allow the german population still in Poland to evacuate safely to Germany. The main reasons why Americans had air superiority on the Western front was that the Luftwaffe had been wiped out by the Red Army. According to all military historians, at that point (mid '44) there was no way Germany could have asked for an armistice. The war was lost. Imagine only that the Red Army sieged Berlin with more men and artillery pieces than Germany used in the whole Operation Barbarossa!

Without the US intervention the world would have been very different, as you say, simply for the fact that USA wouldn't have such a huge market like Europe for their industry to flourish. But you can not claim that without US intervention in '44 Germany would have won the war. They wouldn't have even been able to request a conditional surrender. War was essentially lost at Stalingrad.

Here's an excellent book that explains what I'm arguing much better than I possibly could:
http://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-Retreats-Fighting-Modern-Studies/dp/0700618260


Fran, what youre in actual fact is saying, thanks to the red army, etc, we could have won this war without the US, right?  and then what, Hitler replaced by Stalin! not a very promissing prospect, is it, to replace one evil with another.
Dont forget , we are talking wars/peace on a global scale, not just Nazi Germany, wars with Japan, China, the entire world.
Towards 1944, Europe and Russia, was more or less bancrupt, to fight and win wars calls for three things, Like Napoleon said, to win a war, takes, money, money and more money. Europe and Russia, did not have any money but the US, did.

BTW. I did see a two hour of film footage from Staligrad and my God, it must have been the ultimate nightmare for both sides, it really makes todays wars look like a kindergarden.

Your book looks very interesting, Im definetely going to read it.

cheers  and best.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 17:49 by lagereek »

« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2012, 18:03 »
0
Fran, what youre in actual fact is saying, thanks to the red army, etc, we could have won this war without the US, right?  and then what, Hitler replaced by Stalin! not a very promissing prospect, is it, to replace one evil with another.

Kind of. I'm arguing that Germany lost every hope of not losing the war at Stalingrad, a yeah and a half before the D-Day. And there's also a good case for stating that Germany lost the war the day it started Operation Barbarossa: there was no way it could have won a war of attrition vs the higher industrial production of the USSR and there was no strategic objective except for a generic "Conquer Moscow and hold the line there". There's an interesting document reporting Hitler saying that if he knew about the tank production capability of the USSR, he would have never launched the attack!

Quote
BTW. I did see a two hour of film footage from Staligrad and my God, it must have been the ultimate nightmare for both sides, it really makes todays wars look like a kindergarden..

Stalingrad is gripping to say the least. I remember I spent a full year reading and watching everything I could about it. I want to visit it.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 18:06 by Fran »

lagereek

« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2012, 01:32 »
0
Fran, what youre in actual fact is saying, thanks to the red army, etc, we could have won this war without the US, right?  and then what, Hitler replaced by Stalin! not a very promissing prospect, is it, to replace one evil with another.

Kind of. I'm arguing that Germany lost every hope of not losing the war at Stalingrad, a yeah and a half before the D-Day. And there's also a good case for stating that Germany lost the war the day it started Operation Barbarossa: there was no way it could have won a war of attrition vs the higher industrial production of the USSR and there was no strategic objective except for a generic "Conquer Moscow and hold the line there". There's an interesting document reporting Hitler saying that if he knew about the tank production capability of the USSR, he would have never launched the attack!

Quote
BTW. I did see a two hour of film footage from Staligrad and my God, it must have been the ultimate nightmare for both sides, it really makes todays wars look like a kindergarden..

Stalingrad is gripping to say the least. I remember I spent a full year reading and watching everything I could about it. I want to visit it.

Did you by any chance see that movie, " the enemy within" or something like that, it was about two snipers, one German and one Russian, I think that was more or less based on a true account. although probably dramatized, there was a lot of sniper actions going on.
Yes, I would like to visit as well. The entire WW2. is fascinating, also there is this BBC, series, the world at war, in color, new footage that has never been seen before and apparantly theres lots of film footage from inside Stalingrad.
I think the series is staring again during this summer.

Really, the German high command must have been nuts, Tempratures were around minus 30 and they refused to sent their soldiers proper winter clothing, just the cold alone, killed them off in thousands.

best.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 01:35 by lagereek »

« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2012, 01:41 »
0
Did you by any chance see that movie, " the enemy within" or something like that, it was about two snipers, one German and one Russian, I think that was more or less based on a true account. although probably dramatized, there was a lot of sniper actions going on.

Enemy At The Gates with Jude Law, the first half an hour is brilliant. The rest of the movie is meh :S
It was the story of Zaitzev, there's still his sniper rifle in a museum in Volgograd.

Quote

Yes, I would like to visit as well. The entire WW2. is fascinating, also there is this BBC, series, the world at war, in color, new footage that has never been seen before and apparantly theres lots of film footage from inside Stalingrad.
I think the series is staring again during this summer.

I watched the old one last summer, and I'm waiting for the new one in color :)

lagereek

« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2012, 01:47 »
0
Did you by any chance see that movie, " the enemy within" or something like that, it was about two snipers, one German and one Russian, I think that was more or less based on a true account. although probably dramatized, there was a lot of sniper actions going on.

Enemy At The Gates with Jude Law, the first half an hour is brilliant. The rest of the movie is meh :S
It was the story of Zaitzev, there's still his sniper rifle in a museum in Volgograd.

Quote

Yes, I would like to visit as well. The entire WW2. is fascinating, also there is this BBC, series, the world at war, in color, new footage that has never been seen before and apparantly theres lots of film footage from inside Stalingrad.
I think the series is staring again during this summer.

I watched the old one last summer, and I'm waiting for the new one in color :)

yes thats right, that was the name, as you say, first hour, brillant then it turned into Hollywood, this new documentary clearly show that Marshall gregory Zukov, was one of the most brillant and cunning front figures during the entire liberation of the Red Army. In talking about these Generals, all thats mentioned really are the likes of Romel, Montgomery, McArthur and Eisenhower but we are forgetting Zukov, one of the most brillant strategists of all time.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #68 on: March 09, 2012, 04:18 »
0
Or Britain. Yes you can say, bad food even worse weather, but the ppl are great, I love their sense of humour, I love football which they invented etc

As an Italian and vegetarian, I have to disagree with your "bad food" part. Jacket Potatoes with cheddar cheese and beans - with a pint of bitter - are absolutely lovely. And so is Indian or Thai influenced cuisine. And that "V" label on vegetarian food is a great sign of civilisation, very hard to find in Italy. And I love rainy days, blue skies are boring (except for microstock).
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 04:26 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lagereek

« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2012, 04:35 »
0
Or Britain. Yes you can say, bad food even worse weather, but the ppl are great, I love their sense of humour, I love football which they invented etc

As an Italian and vegetarian, I have to disagree with your "bad food" part. Jacket Potatoes with cheddar cheese and beans - with a pint of bitter - are absolutely lovely. And so is Indian or Thai influenced cuisine. And that "V" label on vegetarian food is a great sign of civilisation, very hard to find in Italy. And I love rainy days, blue skies are boring (except for microstock).

Lived in Italy for 3 years, Rome and Florence,  fantastic country!  love everything about it, people, food, cars, countryside, cities, the lot.

wut

« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2012, 04:49 »
0
Or Britain. Yes you can say, bad food even worse weather, but the ppl are great, I love their sense of humour, I love football which they invented etc

As an Italian and vegetarian, I have to disagree with your "bad food" part. Jacket Potatoes with cheddar cheese and beans - with a pint of bitter - are absolutely lovely. And so is Indian or Thai influenced cuisine. And that "V" label on vegetarian food is a great sign of civilisation, very hard to find in Italy. And I love rainy days, blue skies are boring (except for microstock).

You mean the label? There's plenty of Italian vegetarian food, pasta (genovese, alla Norma, sauces like noci e ricotta etc), lasagnas, cannelloni, pizze, bruschette, you name it, so much variety. For those that also eat fish and eggs, the variety is endless, I absolutely love pasta con le sarde (but you can only get it in Sicily).

I guess they have a few good dishes, I mean they have world renowned chefs like Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey, they must have changed some things in their cuisine for sure. But when I was there in the late nineties, just for a couple of days on my way to NY, things were still mostly unchanged. When I think of typical British dishes, like British breakfast (how did they manage to come up with such an awful combination, beans, eggs and sausages. Really?!?:), which is also too "heavy" for my taste to eat for the first meal of the day, right after I wake up and fish and chips, disgusting, fat, super unhealthy (fish usually are healthy). You can grill some sardines for less money and if you can grill, they'll be awesome and even cheaper.

But it looks like it suits you perfectly. I prefer Mediterranean for food and weather. And the way of life of course :) (easygoing etc)

wut

« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2012, 04:54 »
0
Or Britain. Yes you can say, bad food even worse weather, but the ppl are great, I love their sense of humour, I love football which they invented etc

As an Italian and vegetarian, I have to disagree with your "bad food" part. Jacket Potatoes with cheddar cheese and beans - with a pint of bitter - are absolutely lovely. And so is Indian or Thai influenced cuisine. And that "V" label on vegetarian food is a great sign of civilisation, very hard to find in Italy. And I love rainy days, blue skies are boring (except for microstock).

Lived in Italy for 3 years, Rome and Florence,  fantastic country!  love everything about it, people, food, cars, countryside, cities, the lot.

I knew you're a man of great taste ;) . Have you been down south as well? I know they call everything south of Rome, Africa and don't think much of them, but for me south is the best part of Italy.

I wanted to ask you for a few days now, why do you live in Sweden? Isn't the cold unbearable, some warmth would do a man of your age some good :P . Or do you use Glenfiddich for that purpose as well ? :) Besides, as you colorfully described them, Swedish women are just old boilers, overrated ;D . Italian women OTOH, are really hot

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2012, 05:43 »
0
You mean the label? There's plenty of Italian vegetarian food, pasta (genovese, alla Norma, sauces like noci e ricotta etc), lasagnas, cannelloni, pizze, bruschette, you name it, so much variety.

I mean that little "v" near vegetarian dished on restaurant menus, found virtually everywhere in Britain. Being Italian, I have no problems finding good vegetarian food in Italy, but I often have to ask if a dish is suitable for vegetarians or not. I guess it's not easy for foreigners, especially when no one is speaking English (it happens in small restaurants).
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 05:46 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

jbarber873

« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2012, 09:47 »
0
    This whole thread is a little microcosm of the european continent for the last thousand years. And for the next thousand years. Selective memories, nationalism, and always blaming someone else. Borg, i really hope you get your wish for $100 per liter oil. Then you can figure out how the UK and America are behind it, and keep this thread true to it's original intent. As for America staying out of other countries and just concerning itself with it's own borders, I hope you get that wish too. The way it's looking from here in the US, I think you will get that wish as well. You may not be speaking Russian today thanks to the 50 years of efforts by the US and western Europe , but I think you better start brushing up on it, or maybe learning Mandarin. I, for one, have no interest in sending my kids into any war to benefit Europe, east or west. I also have always been dead set against our involvement in the middle east. Let them all kill each other, it's all they really know how to do anyway. All we hear is how we did nothing in WW2. Okay, message received. Have fun.

« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2012, 10:33 »
0
All of these concerns seem small compared to what surely is on the way:

Paul Gilding: The Earth is full
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 10:40 by etienjones »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3005 Views
Last post September 21, 2009, 16:12
by Dan
61 Replies
16788 Views
Last post October 16, 2011, 18:50
by pancaketom
0 Replies
3292 Views
Last post August 18, 2014, 08:51
by whatwolf
0 Replies
1522 Views
Last post April 26, 2015, 17:58
by Asthebelltolls
32 Replies
17210 Views
Last post May 25, 2015, 12:20
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors