Pangloss

Well that's your opinion, and more power to you. As a rule I try not to find fault in people's expression of opinion. Characterizing the US as an outlaw nation (and Iraq to be in compliance) is a standard extremist method, and in this case a vast and inaccurate overgeneralization. The United States is generally as cooperative as any other major western nation with regard to international treaty. Meaning you can show me (or rather I can show you -- I don't know how experienced you are on this subject, but I know quite a lot about it) plenty of individual examples of treaty violation by the United States. But what always gets conveniently left out of the extremist position in such discussions is that the US complies with the vast majority of treaties in which the US is signatory. As for that issue of enforcement, as anyone with experience in international law will tell you, enforcement is based more or less entirely on the cooperation of the nation that happens to be in violation. Other countries can put pressure on the offender to comply, but ultimately that's about it. After all, that's what happened in Iraq. They were in violation of 17 agreements, and only the US was ultimately willing to do anything about it. Had we done nothing, he would still be in violation today, and probably WOULD have WMDs by now. So isn't your position really a question of *selective* enforcement? The US has to comply, but other nations... don't? By the way, a "law" is not an agreement. It's a law. It's not open to negotiation. There's nothing like this on the international scene, because there is nobody to enforce it. Oh, except, of course, the United States. Another overstated generalization. Stalin killed 20 million, should I hate Russia the way you hate the United States? Australia was settled by British prisoners (or so the legend goes), should I assume that only criminals live in Australia? By the way, there are no UN sanctions against the United States. Nor any mandates for war crimes tribunals for Abu Graib (however it's spelled). Those are your opinions, and they're highly debatable positions. Show me some sanctions like the ones the US had regarding Iraq, and we'll talk. Iraq had a history of threat to the region and this country. By the way, you cleverly left Afghanistan out of all of this. I think it's relevent to point out that not only was nobody in the *entire world* willing to do anything about Saddam Hussein, it's also true that nobody in the *entire world* was willing to do anything about the Taliban or Al Qaeda either. Nobody. Anywhere. I agree with this statement, so I am perhaps not the best person to take the counterpoint here. Sorry. My main point: You've made a number of extremist statements here that I've clearly shown logical counterpoint for. You're welcome to maintain those positions -- that's your right, and I respect it. I happen to agree that Iraq was a bad idea. But I've answered your questions, so anything you say along the lines of "but that makes no sense" followed by reptition of your extremist position, will likely just be ignored. I give this little caveat not in an attempt to be rude, but simply out of boredom from endless reptition of conversation after converstion of people who aren't really interested in having a two-way conversation in the first place; they were just trying to stir up trouble. If that's not your intent, I apologize, and by all means, don't let a jaded former Republican like me shut you down. But I you wish to continue a conversation with *me*, you'll have to change the subject or add something *new* to the discussion. Again, I don't mean to be rude, and there are other folks here -- perhaps one of them might be interested.

(chuckle) I could have sworn you Euros said you didn't care about our election. I could have thrown a pebble and hit a dozen BBC reporters today.

Iraq is definitely on the other side of the world from the USA. We certainly know now that they posed no threat, but the intelligence community of the US, UK and Russia and a host of evidence suggested otherwise, and Hussein certainly violated his agreements, which actually renders *any* other point virtually moot. I certainly understand why *you* consider the war illegal. We share an opposition to it. But it wasn't actually illegal, because (a) there is essentially, in the final analysis, no such thing as international law, and (b) what passes for international law (such as UN 1441) actually supported the US position (individual UN member opinions are another subject). And finally, even the UN's chief weapons inspector believed that it was *possible* that weapons still existed just prior to the war, and said as much. Repeatedly. I have sources for all of this, it's all been discussed ad nausseum here in this forum, and while I welcome newcomers, I'd really prefer that you review those debates rather than try to draw me into a new one that will simply repeat old business.

Hell, it could almost feed my dog for a year. (You have no idea.....)

That's why I didn't bother answering your question. You've already made up your mind.

Reported on ABC News just now, the total advertising money spent by each side this year. Kerry: $358 million Bush: 229 million Total: 587 million A staggering sum. This is JUST by the two campaigns, so in fact in the end, adding in the 527 money, the pro-Kerry advertising probably outmatched the pro-Bush ads by 2:1.

It’s hard to believe, just one more day until the Vietnam War is over.

I'm not sure what relevence his (or our) "right to be there" has. Two wrongs don't make a right. The US shouldn't be in Iraq, AND there's no justification for Zarqawi's terrorist actions. He'll be taken down like the dog that he is, and I'll be the first one to spit on his grave and laugh as he descends into the lower depths of hell. And I have no doubt Bush is going in the opposite direction, dead Iraqi children notwithstanding. One of those people wanted what's best for society. The other wanted what's worst. Rationalizing terrorism is generally a bad idea. But I'm sure they're grateful for the assistance.

It's a reasonable conjecture. Ultimately I think it's more or less irrelevent. Terrorists have never been wanting for material to enrage followers about, and he's not going to pack it in if Kerry is elected.

Inconceivable!

I just voted, and there was no wait at all. Two minutes, easy as pie.

There was once a kingdom where most people could not see. Citizens coped with this cheerfully, for it was a gentle land where familiar chores changed little from day to day. Furthermore, about one person in a hundred did have eyesight! These specialists took care of jobs like policing, shouting directions, or reporting when something new was going on. The sighted ones weren't superior. They acquired vision by eating a certain type of extremely bitter fruit. Everyone else thanked them for undergoing this sacrifice, and so left the task of seeing to professionals. They went on with their routines, confident in a popular old saying: "A sighted person never lies." One day a rumor spread across the kingdom. It suggested that some of the sighted were no longer faithfully telling the complete truth. Shouted directions sometimes sent normal blind people into ditches. Occasional harsh laughter was heard. Several of the sighted came forward and confessed that things were worse than anyone feared. "Some of us appear to have been lying for quite a while. A few even think it's funny to lead normal blind people astray! "This power is a terrible temptation. You will never be able to tell which of us is lying or telling the truth. Even the best of the sighted can no longer be trusted completely." This news worried all the blind subjects of the kingdom. Some kept to their homes. Others banded together in groups, waving sticks and threatening the sighted, in hopes of ensuring correct information. But those who could see just started disguising their voices. One faction suggested blinding everybody, permanently, in order to be sure of true equality -- or else setting fires to shroud the land in a smoky haze. "No one can bully anybody else, if we're all in the dark," these enthusiasts urged. As time passed, more people tripped over unexpected objects, or slipped into gullies, or took a wrong path because some anonymous voice shouted "left!" instead of right. Then, one day, a little blind girl had an idea. She called together everybody in the kingdom and made an announcement. "I know what to do!" she said. "Here," said the little girl, pushing a bitter fruit under the noses of her parents and friends, who squirmed and made sour faces. "Eat it," she insisted. "Stop whining about liars and go see for yourselves." (An excerpt from David Brin's "The Transparent Society.") ---------------- GO OUT AND VOTE TODAY!

You're right, it's not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that the best he could do to disrupt our election was "issue a statement". No bombs, no planes, no destroyed buildings. A statement. Homer Simpson would have a field day with that. "Oh looooook, the evil terrorist is issuing a statement! I'm so skeeeered! Please, Mr. Terrorist Overlord, don't issue another one! I don't know what I would do!!!!"

For the citizens of Iraq, no, not really. Unless, of course, we count their own government. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be on the Iraqi soccer team. For the rest of the world, yes.

Of course it's determined by supply and demand. And yes, when there are interruptions in supply, the price goes up. But these issues are beside the point. Whether you believe the US controls a puppet regime in Iraq is a political matter. Of course, you're right, if that's the case, then yes, they control the supply of oil from that country. But that's a temporary situation. Bush isn't a dictator, he's a president, and even if he wins tomorrow he's gone in 2008. So these kinds of tin-foil-hat descriptions of the US's intentions in Iraq really don't accomplish anything at all, except to scare people who don't know any better. What's amazing is that people like yourself don't know what the US is *actually* doing to manipulate and control the world economy. Because when you hear about those issues, they don't excite and thrill you the way something like oil does (mostly because they are, for the most part, legitimate things that ALL governments are doing), so you need to make up something more interesting. That's unfortunate, because it's exactly how the neo-cons and their ilk win these popularity contests -- by making extremist positions look like the ONLY other positions, and they look moderate in comparison. Hence my personal crusade for moderacy. But I digress. As I said, whether it comes from a hole in the ground in Texas, or a hole in the ground in Kuwait, it makes no difference in the final price. TANSTAAFL.

Now that I'm no longer a "swing voter", I think I'm going to be a "heavy voter". That's all they talk about on the news these days, so it must be something important. And I wouldn't want to be one of those disenfranchised skinny voters that nobody is keeping an eye on. Those guys suck. It's the "heavy voter turnout" that matters, and everyone knows it!

Yes. Run from people who pawn terrorists off with confused and conflicted statements about their true intentions, and place responsibility for their actions on others. Do not pass "go". Do not collect $200. Just run.

By the way, anybody who's interested in learning more about the oil industry should read the definitive work on the subject, which is Daniel Yergin's "The Prize". It was first published in 1991, right at the time of the first gulf war, so it's a little dated now, but it really is the seminal work (it won a Pulitzer). It's incredibly well written and just fascinating to read. It doesn't have a whole lot about the current structure of the oil industry, but it's great background material. I would even go as far as to say that few people can really understand the history of 20th century western civilization without a thorough understanding of the history of the oil industry. (In American history, there is only one commodity that has been more important than oil.)

This particular mistaken belief never ceases to amuse. Oil is actually a commodity item. It's bought and sold on various exchanges around the world, just like oranges and acorns. It's not like the old days when the oil companies bought "consessions" which granted them ownership of the land and the resources under it. Countries posess their resources now, and typically sell oil through nationalized companies that sell oil to companies like ExxonMobil, which are now just distributors, more or less. So there's no free lunch here. We're going to pay the same price for gasoline whether it comes from a hole in Texas or a hole in some arabian desert. It simply makes no difference. In terms of what *businesses* benefit, of course, that's another issue. One can certainly make a case that American businesses benefit from our invasion, just as French and Russian companies were benefitting from the Saddam regime. The US produces about 9 million barrels per day, but it consumes over 20. So it imports the rest from overseas. WHERE that oil comes from, however, is really not a great concern. As OPEC learned in 1973, there's no benefit to cutting off oil to the US, for example, because the companies that distribute the oil are not beholden to the nationalized companies that sell them the oil. Again, everything is bought on the commodity market. There are no contracts to negotiate or deals to cut. A gallon is a gallon is a gallon. Bit of trivia: The first oil consession ever granted in the entire world was Mosul, to the French, by the Ottoman Grand Vizier. That same day, Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. After the war the Ottoman Empire no longer existed, and none of the League countries were interested in the Middle East except for France and Great Britain. France traded the Mosul consession to Britain in exchange for Transjordan (the entire country), and the two nations set about drawing lines on a map, creating virtually every country in that region except for Kuwait. Oil has always played a role in middle-eastern politics. This is nothing new.

Neither of those statements is true. He met with the national security council many times during those 8 months (what do you think a "President's Daily Briefing" is?), and he spent less than half of his time on vacation. Even Michael Moore quotes a 42% figure (which is highly disputed).

Hehe, I'm sorry YT, I didn't mean to exclude anyone.

Actually I believe what he said was (in effect) that it's astonishing that we spend so much money on defense without providing adequate protection to our soldiers. That's what I dimly recall, anyway. I Tivo'd over most of 60 Minutes last night, as it is my general policy to time-shift all commercials.

According to the September update from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the final spending for 2004 will be in the neighborhood of $2,293 billion. Read that again, would you please? Even worse, defense is expected to hit a whopping $536 billion in 2005 once the Iraqi war costs are factored in. Here's roughly how it breaks down: The fastest-growing areas are not healthcare or unemployment, folks. They're defense/war, and debt interest. This report actually shows that entitlement spending is the SLOWEST area of growth. Ultimately entitlement spending will far overwhelm anything else, thanks to baby-boomer retirements spiking Social Security. But people are so focused on that they're missing the fact that over the short haul our real problem is discretionary spending (things like the war and homeland security) and interest on the debt. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting. Couple links here if you want to read more: http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/10/17_guest_budget.html http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=0

Just guessing here, but I imagine he's referring to South Korea. Since NK can't actually hit the US with an ICBM yet (or at least not reliably, with a deployed weapon system), their logical target for a nuclear exchange is their neighbor to the south. It's a common speculation.

I've seen the documentary, I'm voting for John Kerry, and I'm quite comfortable labelling Farenheit 9/11 as "liberal propaganda". Are you still laughing?