j_b

the entire argument of the paper is that we can't be out of cheap oil because prices have not risen yet. considering the various factors that influence prices (from economic to political) one can safely say that's not science. science would assess global reserves and rates of new discovery. "there is mounting evidence that the discovery rate for major oil fields with reserves of over 500mn boe has fallen dramatically over recent years. IHS Energy, on a map of recent discoveries it supplies to its clients, records 28 discoveries of over 500mn boe in the three years 2000,2001 and 2002. However,16 of the discoveries were in 2000,eight in 2001 and just three in 2002." http://www.odac-info.org/bulletin/documents/MEGAPROJECTSREPORT.pdf

i just don't believe you. you have expressed 99.9999% support for this administration policies toward iraq in countless posts on this board. and now you would only mention facts because you think they are 'interesting'? you posted a link to a piece that says that "the collateral damage is low" and everything is 'going great', and it's just for informational purpose? not very convincing. 40,000 people killed in 3 weeks is low? and again you persist in mentioning only the types of interventions that will result in people dying in great numbers. no. what is morally bankrupt is to suggest that the only possibilities were to either kill through sanctions or kill through war.

pp, the following quote is yours. the obvious implication of your post is that we either kill 160,000 per year through sanctions or 10,000 (40,000 including military) through war (up to now). you did not mention any possibility but killing people to reach your objectives, no rethinking of bankrupt policies, in fact you are telling me i should be ashamed of myself for not condoning your imperial venture. am i supposed to say "good job pp"?

everybody can read and see that this is exactly what you have been doing castro is still in power for the same reason that saddam remained in power during the sanction years. they were able to consolidate their grip during sanction/embargo years because lack of goods allowed them to control who got what. instead of pushing these countries to be open to outside influence via business, travel, media and whatnot, and eventually develop democratic constituencies, we gave them further opportunity to crack down on all forms of opposition. cuba makes all of this abundantly clear.

switch and bait

the 160000 dead versus 40000 dead is your dirty conundrum, not mine. i was against sanctions as well as against this war. stop supporting dictators (saddam) and terrorists (bin laden) and they won't be able to stay in power.

most of the casualties occurred during the inital drive over a 3 week period so i don't think that ~40000 people (military + civilians) is low. your trying to argue that "after all we only killed 40000" just shows the moral bankruptcy of your position.

who imposed the sanctions? the pope? "i think this year we'll do a lot better, instead of killing 160,000 people, we'll kill only ~40,000 (including the iraqi military)" it's really infortunate that your only perpective is how many people you ought to kill this year to attain your objectives.

suddenly you have nothing else to say about the kurds? i am not in question here and on the basis of my posting history, nobody with any integrity would question my motives. however, what is in question is the continual lies about the consequences of predatory foreign policy. it is obvious to the entire world that you, warmongers, can't win in iraq. yet, you'll attempt by any means necessary to make it not appear that you have been defeated. even if it kills countless more people. foul!

cut the crap, hypocrite. rumsfeld was shaking hand with saddam while the kurds were being murdered. all administrations have supported the turkish military in their bloody drive to squash the kurds.

"So far, however, the collateral damage has been quite minor." >10000 iraqi civilians murdered over the last year is minor? it's when one reads things like this (and the rest of the drivel in that "good short read"), that the extent of deceit becomes obvious. the neocons have no shame.

of course, killing 1000's of doctors, school teachers, farmers, etc ... is no biggy: http://www.rtfcam.org/martyrs/fullness_of_life/ben_linder.htm you are either clueless or deceitful.

barf! fairweather pushes the john birch society and then he wants to pass for a moderate . f**k what has the world come to, if extremists try to pass as joe average. the post where fairweather says jbs is cool! jbs strongly backed mccarthyism, was against the civil rights movement, believes that roosevelt, eisenhower and truman were communists, etc ... in short, a bunch of far rightwing loonies, back then as well as now. of course, now that he anointed himseld a moderate, he assimilates criticism of israel to antisemitism. weak!

if it's what it takes for people to realize what's going on, they have to be published (in their entirety btw, no the few we are going to see). the intent for publishing them is the deciding factor, which in this case does not amount to further abuse. when conservatives start mentioning the rights of us prisoners, you know they have to be doing damage control. you have got to be kidding. we did not see people jumping off that much but it's wasn't to protect the rights of these poor souls. it was more to not traumatize the population. yet, the tv use of the 9/11 events was the most intensive we've ever seen.

errr ... no! your point was that bush was responsible for a drop in terrorist events when, in fact, the number of us casualties due to terror has increased by 50% under bush (excluding 9/11, which is arguably due to this administration policies in afghanistan). moreover, terrorism has essentially continually decreased over the past 24 years (well that is, except for the last 3) which puts a serious dent in the justification for the "war on terror"

!! Yeah, I was laughing too! Isn't that good news! cherry picking of the data! the number of dead us citizens has increased by 50% since 2000 Total US Citizen Casualties Caused by International Attacks, 1996-2003 Listed by Year 1996 25 1997 6 1998 12 1999 5 2000 23 2001 1241 2002 30 2003 35 http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10315.htm with additions for subsequent years as found in other reports as far as number of incidents, here is what explain in part the drop since 2001: "The main reason for the decrease was the sharp drop in oil pipeline bombings in Colombia (41 last year, compared to 178 in 2001)." http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19980.htm finally here is an interesting figure that debunks the justification for the "war on terror": http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31751.htm did you notice how the previous high (mid-80's) was during reagan, another "tough guy" .... so .... terrorism is at lowest point in 24 years but it has continually decreased over that time period! yet the number of us casualties has increased by ~50% since bush2 also this same link was originally used by lars a few weeks ago ...

pretty sick justification if this is supposed to be one it is not primarily an issue of compassion but that of being effective. not only is it impossible to impose democracy (by definition) but it is even more so by using torture. sick. atrocities committed in the name of revenge, does it sound familiar? we are playing right into al-qaeda's hand.

i fail to see how discussing the application of the geneva convention is a tangent within the context of discussing the torturing of war prisoners ...

as if your self-serving certitude (or rumsfeld's) was ever proof of anything.

Article 5 The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

this still does not show they don't have leaders.

if there is doubt, only a competent tribunal can decide. in the meantime, they get the benefit of the doubt. the rest is ad-lib on your part. but more fundamentally why the double standard? guerilla armies may not wear uniforms, but regular armies often shoot or bomb civilians which isn't conform to the laws and custom of warfare. would you deny such armies the benefit of the pow status? let's face it, it's a question of humanity. using your enemies' failure to be human to commit inhuman acts of your own (such as torture of prisoners and shooting into crowds of demonstrators) is not advantageous to anybody's cause.

i don't know. how do you know they don't have a leader? the people picked up in afghanistan obviously had leaders. so do those in iraq. i agree that the issue of a sign is ambiguous. still your argument is no different than that of the germans w.r.t. the resistance in italy, france, etc ... you take the quote out of context. the above refers to journalists, supply contractors, etc ... on the contrary as shown in article 5, the burden of proof is on a competent tribunal, not the war department of the invading country during the course of an illegal war.

they aren't? how do you know? isn't carrying and pointing a weapon at you from a distance a visible sign? are the people in jails the same as the one strapping bombs to their bodies? do you have any evidence? same as above most of them meet all four criteria or are civilians resisting invasion (clearly mentionned as pows). for the rest, you can't prove they don't meet the above criteria, except for a very small few. in which case article 5 applies.

they fulfil either one or none of these qualifications. they fulfill these conditions as well. weren't these people carrying weapons when arrested? and don't forget article 5: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."