Pangloss

So numbers are more important than intentions. I see. I'm no defender of Iraq, and you're changing the subject. The comment you made that I was responding to was that we are ourselves to blame for 9/11. That's a crock and I called you on it, and you haven't responded to that point. You're just spewing intellectually deficient "we can't beat the terrorists so let's beat the Americans" nonsense, and you know it. You also need to work on a few of your facts: - Iraq was, in fact, harboring terrorists (I agree it was not threatening the US) - You did, in fact, quote MLK Anti-Americanism is easy, but it's an intellectual void. Sure, pick on the country that's big enough to make mistakes as collosal as Iraq, then sit back and relax because (a) your country isn't big enough to ever make those kinds of blunders, and (b) if you criticize loud enough maybe the terrorists will think you're on their side and leave you alone.

Thank you! Why are we even discussing giving people something for nothing? What an entitlement society we've become. If the health insurance companies want to, they can easily attach riders that the signee can sign off on covering specific individuals in specific instances. That's a contract and easily resolved as such. Life Insurance can work the same way. ANYBODY can be the beneficiary. What's the problem? The government should just get out of the business of licensing and defining marriage.

Rush is a smart guy, and more importantly he offers a lot more than just liberal-bashing. He offers hope and motivational promise. That's the thing that Air America doesn't understand. But at the end of the day, it's (a) just entertainment, and (b) completely close-minded bias. He's a partisan ideologue, and therefore he cannot be taken straight as a political observer. You have to take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. That, by the way, is the road Michael J. Fox is headed down if he keeps supporting Democrats and attacking Republicans. He will destroy his credibility on the subject of ESCR and Parkinsons and become a partisan ideologue. He needs to take a page out of Christopher Reeves' book and avoid that sort of thing (Reeve only did it once, as I recall, and for reasons that were much more directly related to ESCR -- Bush v Kerry).

New Jersey's highest court today approved marriage benefits to same-sex couples, leaving it up to the state to decide whether to call it "marriage" or something else along the lines of "civil union". What's interesting about this to me at the moment is the timing. One of the reasons why Republicans are so concerned at the moment is the perception that social conservatives are feeling ignored by a President and congress they had pinned high hopes on. Many political observers have been saying that these folks will stay home (or actually vote Democrat, especially in light of the Mark Foley scandal). This sort of thing may well re-energize the right wing right when Republicans most need them. Google News Search: http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://rawstory.com/news/2006/New_Jersey_court_approves_gay_marri_10252006.html&hl=en

Wow that was rich. Nicely put guy.

It's a good point. The other side in the Missouri campaign has resorted to a number of questionable ads, such as having a 7-year-old girl ask "Who is he to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?" One thing that really bothers me about this is how it obscured rather than brings out the relevent issues. As Paranoia points out, embryonic stem cell research is legal -- this is about taxpayer funding. But you certainly don't get that impression from the ads spewing forth from EITHER side. They're too busy demonizing each other. And Fox is just as guilty of that as Limbaugh is. So much for "increasing awareness". He's just a partisan now.

I didn't hear any of this on the radio but I read about it online. Apparently Rush Limbaugh went on some sort of diatribe about Michael J. Fox on Monday, basically alleging that he was faking his Parkinsons for political reasons. Article in the Washington Post At first I found this abhorrent, but then I read that apparently Fox has admitted that he has deliberately refrained taking his Parkinsons medication before making political appearances. He says he does that in order to show what the symptoms look like. I can see how Fox might have a legitimate reason to do that when it comes to, for example, testifying before Congress about stem cell research, so long as he is up-front about what he's doing and not trying to hide it. But not taking his medicine before making a political ad for a candidate? I dunno, that seems to cross a line with me. Doesn't that make him fair game for criticism?

Interesting post. I don't accept that "something had to be done", but I understand where the sentiment is coming from. My fear is that people felt that way mainly because of media and political focus. That concerns me greatly. But I can't say that there's not a point to be made there, and I agree with the rest of the post.

What oil lines? Iraq was under a restriction of a million barrels per year under oil-for-food, if memory serves. Most of the investment opportunities for theoretical expansion of the SE field following UN sanction-lifting were falling under European control based on contracts, business ties and precidents (and, allegedly, corruption of the oil-for-food program). If Iraq was suddenly freed by assassination of Saddam, say in 2006, it would have been Europe's focus, not America's. I see no precedent or impetus whatsoever for the US to get involved in a sectarial civil war following, say, a hypothetical 2006 assassination of Hussein.

I'm not sure I understand how we would have been drawn into an internal conflict in Iraq upon Saddam's death. Why would that be the case?

(Hides behind a Somebody Else's Problem field)

I shudder every time I think of the money we're spending on Iraq. It just absolutely boggles the mind. I don't buy statements like "without Iraq we'd have balanced the budget" -- those statements belie an understanding of how big the budget is (not that anyone here was making that claim). But by golly, that is just a whopping amount of cash.

And yet, OPEC has cut oil production, not because we've peaked, but because demand is down (as reflected by the falling price). The end is not nigh, the sky has not fallen, and Peak Oil Man continues to insist that his speculations are undeniable fact. This thread was hijacked by a fanatic to spout unsupportable claims and boost the ratings of his fanatical web site. People can pray at the Altar of Hope for the End of Western Civilization on HIS web site if they wish. I'm not going to allow this nonsense to continue here.

I don't accept the premise of your argument, though I can certainly see how it prevents you from understanding the point of the original post.

That's fine, ParanoiA, but I think the original question stands. I think the point here is that we understood from the beginning that this was going to be about more than just regime change. We were aware of the inherent religious contrasts that existed that Saddam kept in check, and we knew that if we simply toppled and traipsed away then what would likely result would be a radical Shi'a Islamic state, puppet to Iran. Which is exactly where we're headed right now. I mean let's be blunt, that's what we're fighting to avoid at the moment. The OP's implicit question is whether we should have acknowledged that from the beginning, and not gone. IMO he's right.

Severian, "free market" is not the same thing as cheating on free trade. Sure you love it when your government drops billions into unrepayable subsidies to let European businesses compete with American ones, but when we do the same you get all upity and sue us in the WTO. (There are more complaints against the US in the WTO than against the EU.) You want free trade, you have to deal with the issues that come with that, not ignore them.

Well I definitely agree with the points that our actions have consequences and that we've bungled a number of actions in the Middle East over the years (as have many other "outside" participants). I was opposed to Iraq and still am, and every day I think about what might have been accomplished had we not gone there. But two wrongs don't make a right. Terrorists who find themselves dead and their country in ruins have nobody to blame for that problem but themselves. People stopped berating the British about the sinking of the General Belgrano years ago. Some day the world will stop heckling us about Iraq.

And what war of invasion did the United States commit that brought about the "retribution" of 9/11? That's just closed-minded, ideological nonsense. And you have NO business quoting a great man like Martin Luther King, Jr., who would NEVER have tried to make two wrongs a right as you have. Does the United States have something to learn from Dr. King? Absolutely. But excusing and absolving Al Qaeda isn't the lesson I think he would have had in mind.

You know, there's nothing unilateral about the United States' position with regard to North Korea. Some of the misconceptions that are flying around these days are just astounding, and this is only a tiny example. I can't believe somebody actually posted that if the UN were to approve a bombing campaign then it would no longer be a legitimate international body. Do people just not read history books anymore? One of the things that really irks me about our action in Iraq, as well as the REaction of the rest of the world to that event, is the way it's cast a gloomy shadow over every other action (or inaction) that takes place on the entire international diplomatic landscape. Every time a foreign diplomat stubs his or her toe some extremist somewhere screams for a bombing campaign, and some other extremist somewhere else insists that the Americans will begin bombing shortly. Do other nations not have diplomats anymore? Yeesh. It's like watching a reporter on the 6 o'clock news talk about the Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, or describe a solar eclipse as "the only time that the dark side of the moon faces the sun". You just wanna slap somebody silly.

We have an increased relationship with Canada? To be blunt/honest, I really have no idea what you're referring to there, although I admit I've been really out of touch the last two weeks due to the start of the fall term. Could you tell us more about that, Gutz? I'm always interested in foreign politics.

Tweak all the noses you want, your partisanship and closed mind are manifest every time you open your mouth. There's no lack of control -- I've said exactly what I wanted to say. As far as I'm concerned this thread has accomplished nothing other than to give you a platform for advertising your faith-based cause. Asking me to "tone down the sarcasm" is like asking this membership to go easy on Creationists. You have subverted your reason for a leap of faith. End of story. That having been said, I'm done with you. I don't feel I'm objective and impartial enough to issue bans or warnings, so you get to reap the benefit of the doubt on the part of the other mods and admins. It's disappointing, but I respect their opinions and that's how it goes sometimes in debate. (You should try it some time.) Debate is about listening and learning, not convincing others to see the light. But you're not here to listen and learn, you're here to preach from a pulpit. I have nothing to learn from someone like you. Which, if you knew me, you would know is the worst insult I could ever level at anyone. 'Nuff said. Part of this goes back to the historical politics of OPEC. The Saudis were part of the "lower prices" faction in OPEC. This faction, which included mainly nations with larger reserves, tried to keep prices down on the basis of maintaining consistent long-term business. The opposing faction, which included nations like Iran and Venezuela, were historically concerned about running out of oil, so they wanted to get as much for it as they can, thus the desire to push for higher prices. But I say "historical" because it's unclear whether these factions even exist anymore in the new (higher price) oil market (i.e. you could well be right). Up until recently the OPEC web site listed their desired price range as $22-28/barrel, even while prices were soaring past the $50 mark. But more recent OPEC behavior suggests a new environment within that organization, and I've not read a lot about how the politics of OPEC are currently playing out.

Isn't it funny how the critical time for peak oil is now 2008? Just a couple of years ago it was 2005. Before that it was 2002. Before that it was 1999. Before that it was 1997. The original prediction was 1995 -- eleven years ago! In 2005 ASPO decided that the end of the world would be in 2010. I guess they decided that that wasn't doomy and gloomy enough, so they changed it to 2008. Much more exciting that way, especially since it's a US presidential election year! Remember, the key tenet of peak oil is not that we're running out, but that there will be a peak production capacity. There were many predictions that we'd "peak out" at 70-75 million bpd. T. Boone Pickens famously renewed this gaff at 84 million bpd -- we're well past that now. Fair enough. I agree with the sentiment. Exactly, thank you. Succinct and absolutely on point. Bascule is doing just fine without my intervention, but a little common sense injected into the conversation from another perspective couldn't hurt. Some articles about OPEC talking about cutting production this week, the spike that caused in oil prices, and the decision to go ahead and increase production some more. None of which had anything to do with alarmism about peak oil. Lynch's infamous debunking of Hubbert. The section on misinterpretation of causality is particularly noteworthy. Whatever else y'all get from this, I sure hope you all read this: Isn't it nice to know that our governments are so carefully, thoughtfully, objectively, scientifically advised?

Where have I said that peak oil is fictional? Are you talking about someone else? Again, it's not a question of whether there is evidence that peak oil is a possibility. It's not a question of whether that point of view should be considered. It should be. But he's not asking us to consider the possibility, he's asking us to take it as FACT. And his "evidence" for that leap of faith is entirely on blinders and lopsided analysis. He presents us with a dozen experts, ignoring the vast majority of experts. He presents us with charts and graphs, ignoring other charts and graphs. When creationists behave that way, crying doom and gloom and putting up signatures like Peak Oil Man's, we don't hesitate to put a stop to it. The only reason it's tolerated here is because it is politically correct. I have a problem with that. I'm not saying I'm going to stop it as moderator, I don't think I'm qualified (or objective) enough to make that kind of call here. But I have no problem calling it out. It's nonsense, and people should see it for what it is.

I thought I was responding to POM and didn't realize that was from you. Sorry about that. I want to be clear that I'm not everyone who believes that "peak oil" is a possibility "nuts". Everyone should consider that possibility. But that's not what Peak Oil Man is doing. He's a walking billboard for doom and gloom, convinced of the utter certainty of it, that there can't be any other possibility. That's not science. It's religion.

You're trying to convince us that the profit margins of oil companies is a problem? Now? When the oil companies are the largest AND most profitable corporations in the world, setting new profit MARGIN records quarter after quarter after quarter? That's... an interesting argument. (cof) BTW, you said earlier you're not an alarmist, but look at your signature: You ARE an alarmist, you ARE leaping to *CONCLUSIONS* based on supposition and faith, and you ARE requiring that everyone agree with you in spite of a lack of evidence. You asked me for my definition of religion. There it is. Any more questions? BTW, I've already answered these questions: As I said before, everyone understands that the Earth is finite in size. But you've come nowhere close to proving that we can or will consume anything like the total amount of oil in anything like the near future. Much less the 2008 doom-and-gloom prediction in YOUR signature. This one sentence sums up your entire belief: Yup, that's what you're saying. And that's ALL you're saying.