thank you so much for faving my Freya fanart!

thanks a lot for your commnets.....so welcomed dude!

--
..::LiVe To LeArN::..

Your pictures wereare always so incredible to meeeh. Even if you say you're gone Im still watching youuu incase you suddenly show up w ith more pictures.

Thank you for your comments. As far as focal length, right now I'm just using a Sony point-and-shoot (I'm new to the game) ... so I can't really answer the question (more like, I have no idea ).

In any case, thanks again ... I'm looking to broaden my horizons when it comes to photography and I know I have a lot to learn.

--
Driving down the 405 again.

:: photography
:: poetry

Thanks for your comment's!! iam too tired to say anything more right now....

all of your pictures are so cool, I love your gallery, now I shall stalk you, that's what you get for having such awesome pictures

--
Sexy Marshmallow

Have you ever had a dream, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire deviant life, that there's something wrong with the story. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.

You take the blue pill, the story ends. Your browser closes and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland. And, I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I offer only the truth, nothing more.

Take: The Red Pill
Take: The Blue Pill

spyed, nobody has ever done this before.
I know. That's why it's going to work.



--


Random Deviant

Also: If you're going to respond to my last post, please do so through e-mail. I've just realised how much space these posts take up.

Re: Oil in Iraq.

Whether or not you believe the threat of terrorism and Saddam possessing WMDs contributes to the war or not, you cannot deny that corporate interest in Iraq's oil exists.

So think about this:

-Iraq is currently sitting on top of 112.5 billion barrels of oil (that means it has the second highest amount of oil reserves in the planet, about 11 percent.) This does not factor in the number of undiscovered reserves that may also exist (experts have predicted it could be TWICE that.) If economic sanctions were removed and new technology introduced, oil production could be significantly increased.

-The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated the total possible amount of Iraq reserves Iraq's possible reserves to be a whopping 220 billion barrels (which is about 80% of current proven Saudi reserves.)

-If somehow US relations with Saudi Arabia or Venezuela disrupts, this oil supply would be extremely important to the US.

-Exxon-Mobil is the largest oil company in the world, based in the US. In fact, as far as corporate oil activity goes, the US measures number one in the world (with the UK ranking as second.) The US and the UK have essentially acted alone to advocate sanctions in Iraq (and up until recently, have been the only two countries to really voice their support for the war.) It's difficult to say that there isn't ANY sort of link between the military and these corporations

-Up until 1972 (when the Iraq government attempted to gain total control of its oil reserves,) the US and the United Kingdom had a three-quarter share in the production of Iraqi oil.

-The US could very well develop an oil dependence problem. Cheney's National Energy Plan predicts that the US would depend on imports for 2/3ds of it's oil consumption by the year 2020.

-"If you are trying to talk about Iraq and if you were not encumbered by the fear that your actions would be linked to ExxonMobil or the oil industry," said one Bush adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity, "you'd be talking about oil issues." - New York Times, November 26, 2002

-"Executives of US oil companies are conferring with representatives from the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department to figure out how to jump-start Iraq's oil industry after the war." - Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2003

-In a 1998 speech, Kenneth Derr (the CEO of Chevron) stated: "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to."

-Condoleezza Rice was once a board member for Chevron. There was even a supertanker built in her honor.

-Jack Straw, British foreign Secretary included "the security of British and global energy supplies" on his list of seven "medium to long-term strategic priorities."

-General Anthony Zinni stated to the congress that the US "must have free access to the region's resources. As long as we are dependent on oil, we are dependent on this region."

-Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress has stated: "U.S. oil companies will almost certainly benefit from a regime change in Iraq."

-You might also be interested in this article: [link]

Do you honestly think that oil not in the least bit contributes to a fraction of the US and the UK's interest in the region?

As for the arguments on Weapons of Mass Destruction, there has not yet been proof that Iraq has chemical, nuclear or biological WMDs. SCUD missiles have been discovered, and while Iraq was not allowed to possess them, they are technically not lethal enough to be considered as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In 1998, UNSCOM could not find any weapons of mass destruction. It has reported that all of Iraq's nuclear weapons programs had been annihilated, Iraq did not contain any fissile material (something which isn't exactly easy to get,) and any new nuclear activity would be easily detected.

Any chemical weapons that existed from the last gulf war would have expired. Inspectors have also stated that Iraq currently does not have the industrial infrastructure to stabilize chemical or biological weapons.

No WMDs have been found, and it would certainly be difficult to hide them. Contrary to what the Bush administration wants us to believe, it is impossible to mass-produce chemical or biological weapons in a mobile lab (a truck) or basement.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq currently does not have a military that could pose a significant threat to the United States, or any of its neighbouring countries. 80 percent of

Iraq's military was annihilated after Desert Storm. After the weapons inspections that followed, 90 percent of it's military was destroyed. To add to that, Iraq had been paying indemnities to US oil corporations and Kuwait since 1991. Do you really think Iraq had the economic capability to build an army that would threaten the US?

Just take a look at how well Iraq has been fighting in this war. And come to think of it, there have been NO weapons of mass destruction used by Iraq in this war so far. You would think that if they had some, they would have attempted to use them on the US by now?

"Iraqi civillians seem to be taking this with great joy. Except for the ones with republican gaurds holding guns to their heads, that is. "

These are, of course, the Iraqi civillians only reported on the news, and the ones who are still alive after bombing campaigns (after all, you cannot liberate dead people.) And as the US has only recently advanced into Bagdhad, we have yet to see if the Iraqi population will take kindly to military occupation.

"And, although now in the future, we realize that helping out those people perhaps wasn't the right thing to do, when we did those things, it was the right thing for us at the time. "

That's precisely my problem. It was the right thing for us at the time, but we were not acting in the interests of the nations we were interfering with. So unless the Bush administration has the ability to see 10 years in the future, I will not be convinced that we are picking the right people to lead Iraq.

And while you're right on saying that we're enforcing UN resolutions, the US is still acting outside of UN approval. Which in my mind, still sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to follow suit.

One other thing: Be careful comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Saddam Hussein does not have the military strength that Hitler did in Germany. In the events during and preceding World War 2, Hitler could have taken over the world. There is NO chance that Saddam Hussein could pull this off.

"As if "International Law" had any real significance in the first place. International Law does not apply to the US or any other soverign nation. Who is the UN or any other organization to tell US when we can or can not defend ourselves and our interests?

The United States is only accountable to the U.S. Constitution and any other laws passed by the U.S. Congress. It is not accountable to international laws because if an international law comes in conflict with U.S. law, it is immediately null and void. It's called the 'supremacy clause.' So yes, the U.S. is above international law.

As for the US policing the world without international community backing, well, so? The US has to do whatever it needs to to protect it's citizens and it's interests. And there's nothing wrong with that."

But don't you see something inherently wrong with that? That a country can do whatever it pleases solely because it's the strongest? That "might makes right?" That the US can decide it's going to be the judge, jury and executioner of the ENTIRE WORLD solely because it can?

"They protest this war because of

1. Mindless and unrelenting anti-bushism.
2. Mindless and unrelenting anti-conservatism
3. Group mentality (all my friends are protesting, I'll go too)"

Please, whether you agree with us or not, it's quite insulting to try to oversimplify our position. Couldn't I say that the only people support this war do it because:

1. They are imperialistic war mongers.
2. They are racist anti-Muslims.
3. They are CNN whores who believe everything the media tells them.

Of course not. It's incredibly arrogant of me to say something like that. And, of course, if I genuinely believed that those three reasons are the sole drive of the anti-war argument, I would be entirely incorrect. So by the same token, trying to sum up our position like that is incredibly offensive (and quite condescending.)

And you know what? I would love to be proven wrong by the end of this. If the war turns out perfectly, if civillian (and coalition soldier) deaths are kept at a bare minimum, if the nations of the world stick around help rebuild Iraq (and not abandon them like we did in Afghanistan,) if the person who is put in power after Saddam is a fair and democratic leader, if it helps stop terrorism instead of igniting it, I will be perfectly okay admitting I was wrong. I will have no problem saying that I was being too pessimistic, and I will be glad that everything turned out peachy-keen. But until then, I see nothing wrong with keeping a strong level of skeptecism to how effective this war will be, and how beneficial it will be to the people of Iraq, and the world.

I'm perfectly okay with you keeping your opinion. In fact, I'm perfectly okay with not hearing a single word from you ever again. I firmly believe you are an intelligent person, who has formed his opinion based on fact. But just try to keep in mind that it's OKAY for other people to disagree with you, and that the pro-peace position is just as valid as the pro-war one. In fact, that was the point of my initial response.