'The War Is Not Over'

[interested Observer]

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Time for coffee.
The difference is that GJ is very rich, self admittedly, thus is not affected by the toils and tribulations of us common folk.
He is happy to see people suffer, as they all deserve it. Economic, physical, makes no difference.

Sipping as we speak :)
GJ is in a class all by himself in many ways, but I was responding to Crusty.....who was, it seemed to me, generalizing!

[arbitrageur]

Agamemnon wrote:

<quoted text>
I must say that I am not optimistic either and also smell more cordite in the air.
My question is, is it ever possible to be truly independent of oil. After all oil is not only used for power generation. Many other products require oil such as plastics for example or if I am not mistaken, in the past I have heard that certain medicines are derived from oil. Is it not the case that all we can hope to do is to just use it up less quick. Oil is the mainstay of ALL economies large and small and unless there is a drastic or even revolutionary change in our way of life there is no way I can see at least that we can lose our dependence on it.
My feeling is that ultimately we are doomed, or at least there is not really the will to affect such changes that are required to turns things round. If economics dictate that more oil is needed then it will always be worth drilling for it and extremely lucrative too. Clearly biofuels are not the answer, or at least not the complete answer. It will always be oil.

Investors don't seem to care one way or the other.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUST1...

[interested Observer]

Agamemnon wrote:

<quoted text>
I must say that I am not optimistic either and also smell more cordite in the air.
My question is, is it ever possible to be truly independent of oil. After all oil is not only used for power generation. Many other products require oil such as plastics for example or if I am not mistaken, in the past I have heard that certain medicines are derived from oil. Is it not the case that all we can hope to do is to just use it up less quick. Oil is the mainstay of ALL economies large and small and unless there is a drastic or even revolutionary change in our way of life there is no way I can see at least that we can lose our dependence on it.
My feeling is that ultimately we are doomed, or at least there is not really the will to affect such changes that are required to turns things round. If economics dictate that more oil is needed then it will always be worth drilling for it and extremely lucrative too. Clearly biofuels are not the answer, or at least not the complete answer. It will always be oil.

With all of the accomplishments of humankind, are you telling me that we can't get away from fossil fuels?
I agree the absence of will is a huge barrier to progress.

[Agamemnon]

Yahoo wrote:

If you are interested in Wars, here is a book to read.
It is great and gives the reader an insight into what is going on today.
"Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam," by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothman

Let me ask you a question.
The Romanians, Albanians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, all had their own indigenous SS brigades that were used to send jews to concentration camps in their hundreds of thousands. Their brutality often exceeded that of the german SS itself and is amply documented.
How many jews did the arabs send to the gas chambers? Does that book tell us? How many Arab ss divisions gassed and cremated jews?
Or is it that the murder of millions of jews is again cynically exploited for anti arab effect.
Fine, let us condemn all romanians ukrainians and certain baltic and balkan states.
I won't expect to see that book soon.

[interested Observer]

Yahoo wrote:

If you are interested in Wars, here is a book to read.
It is great and gives the reader an insight into what is going on today.
"Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam," by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothman

And Paris 1919...Margaret McMillan

[interested Observer]

Likearock wrote:

<quoted text>

Yet, put into perspective, a hard time in the US isn’t as hard as sometimes may be envisioned.

And you know this?
How?
Do you work two or more jobs to provide the basics for your family?
Has your property been devalued and your taxes risen because of the mortgage defaults?
I could go on, bit I'm sure you get the picture.

[Agamemnon]

interested Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
With all of the accomplishments of humankind, are you telling me that we can't get away from fossil fuels?
I agree the absence of will is a huge barrier to progress.

I can't see how IO. The way I see it, the moment we had the industrial revolution humanity consumed but did not sustain, because the earth was regarded as an open infinite system. Yes we might put the brakes on, but can we stop the crash? If we see everything in terms of energy balance, then does a solar panel and save more energy than is used to make it? The hybrid cars certainly do not. What exotic materials are used in making a solar panel and what is the associated waste. Can you recycle solar panels or do they need more energy to re-condition.
The energy has to balance and I am not sure that all the solutions on offer do that.

[arbitrageur]

Now, if we can just get rid of the farmers, we can move from recession to depression. Too bad they get in the way.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/i...

[Likearock]

interested Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
And you know this?
How?
Do you work two or more jobs to provide the basics for your family?
Has your property been devalued and your taxes risen because of the mortgage defaults?
I could go on, bit I'm sure you get the picture.

And how would you know anything about life in the US? From a Book?

I live here Mister.

I’ve worked two and three jobs, yes.

And, I’ve had to go without things I’ve needed at times.

But, you know what?... I’ve always managed to provide a way for my family to live at least a modest lifestyle.

And, you don’t hear me crying about it and I’ve never asked anyone to give me anything.

[Likearock]

interested Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes of course....thats why we're in Afghanistan is it not?
Time for YOU to rally against your CURRENT government.
Breaching the Geneva Conventions, trampling your Constitution, habeas corpus suspended, the politicization of the justice system to reward Republicans and punish Democrats, the manipulation of regulatory bodies and scientific commissions.
To say nothing of the abuse of ' executive privilege'
When Nixon tried to go that route, he was slapped down by the Supreme Court, but GWB appears to have succeeded where Nixon failed.
And you wonder why Congress is ineffective!!!
If you continue to refuse to impeach this lot of brigands, it will happen again...now that the precedent has been established.
It shouldn't matter what your political convictions are, this is a bad lot!

It's time for YOU to furgeddabout telling Me

what it's time for ME to do

and just stick to YOUR own business.

[Devils Advocate]

Geothermal power is based on the idea of “mining heat” from within the Earth. You drill a well and inject water, or pump out steam from deep down. Then you use the hot water or steam to spin a turbine and generate electricity. Then you re-inject the water or the condensed steam. There is no carbon dioxide involved at any step – it is “clean and green” energy production. The geothermal power industry is underappreciated in the U.S. A lot of us, and most politicians, don’t know what geothermal is. But this means just that geothermal power production has plenty of room to grow over the coming years. Eventually, people will start coming around to the benefits of “instant” energy with almost zero pollution from the depths of the Earth. The IEA’s World Energy Outlook predicts that total world energy demand would “grow from the current 85 million barrels of oil per day to 116 million barrels per day by 2030.” In other words, World oil production will have to increase by 37% between now and then to meet projected demand. Or, in absolute terms, the world will have to produce 32 million barrels per day more than it is currently producing. Even if such a dramatic increase in crude production were geologically feasible, the IEA’s Outlook implies that it would not be environmentally desirable. On current trends, we are on course for an expensive and dirty energy system that will go from crisis to crisis. It can mean more supply disruptions, meteorological disasters or both. This energy future is not only unsustainable, but it is doomed to failure.

[Likearock]

Agamemnon wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't see how IO. The way I see it, the moment we had the industrial revolution humanity consumed but did not sustain, because the earth was regarded as an open infinite system. Yes we might put the brakes on, but can we stop the crash? If we see everything in terms of energy balance, then does a solar panel and save more energy than is used to make it? The hybrid cars certainly do not. What exotic materials are used in making a solar panel and what is the associated waste. Can you recycle solar panels or do they need more energy to re-condition.
The energy has to balance and I am not sure that all the solutions on offer do that.

It takes more energy to produce energy

than the energy which is produced.

In others words...

One cannot produce more energy
than that which is consumed in the process.

At least that is what Physics would have us believe.

[Charlie 72]

Now I know for sure, that bush is gonna do it.

[Devils Advocate]

Likearock wrote:

<quoted text>
People everywhere just need to understand that the US and other nations overthrew Saddam just because he was a murderous tyrant and we hated him for good reason.
The sanctions weren’t working, the Iraqi people wanted and needed their freedom and Saddam provided enough good reason for the US and other nations to attack.

The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance, as knowing so many things that ain't so! The success of sanctions is a matter of degree, and that the utility of economic sanctions must be judged in relation to the costs and benefits of alternative policies. The question, therefore, is not "Do sanctions work”? But rather to what degree do they work, with respect to what goals, at what costs, and in comparison with what alternative courses of action? In 1991-1998, the US sought to use sanctions to promote compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687. The UN introduced the Oil for Food Program to mitigate the human suffering caused by sanctions policy, although it languished for five years until Saddam Hussein agreed to its implementation. Bringing down the regime was never a goal of the UN sanctions. In 1998, the US State Dept. made a mistake by starting to talk about regime replacement was a goal of US policy. Weapons inspectors were withdrawn, followed by four days of aerial bombardment. The administration appears to have adopted such a policy because the costs of alternative policies (an occupation of Iraq) were considerably higher. Sanctions must be viewed as a tool, not a strategy, but sanctions have been used all too much as a substitute for strategy, to the neglect of other tools like diplomacy, military force, and covert action, all of which have been used poorly in the Iraq case. The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq. The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer (Duelfer Report) said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons.

[Frankie]

interested Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing at all wrong with that statement Francis.
This whole issue is beginning to sound like the drumbeat to war.
One can only hope that sanity comes to the fore....and soon!

It actually is a small excerpt of Al Gore's latest speech

[Likearock]

Devils Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance, as knowing so many things that ain't so! The success of sanctions is a matter of degree, and that the utility of economic sanctions must be judged in relation to the costs and benefits of alternative policies. The question, therefore, is not "Do sanctions work”? But rather to what degree do they work, with respect to what goals, at what costs, and in comparison with what alternative courses of action? In 1991-1998, the US sought to use sanctions to promote compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687. The UN introduced the Oil for Food Program to mitigate the human suffering caused by sanctions policy, although it languished for five years until Saddam Hussein agreed to its implementation. Bringing down the regime was never a goal of the UN sanctions. In 1998, the US State Dept. made a mistake by starting to talk about regime replacement was a goal of US policy. Weapons inspectors were withdrawn, followed by four days of aerial bombardment. The administration appears to have adopted such a policy because the costs of alternative policies (an occupation of Iraq) were considerably higher. Sanctions must be viewed as a tool, not a strategy, but sanctions have been used all too much as a substitute for strategy, to the neglect of other tools like diplomacy, military force, and covert action, all of which have been used poorly in the Iraq case. The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq. The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer (Duelfer Report) said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons.

Devils Advocate wrote:

“Sanctions must be viewed as a tool, not a strategy, but sanctions have been used all too much as a substitute for strategy, to the neglect of other tools like diplomacy, military force, and covert action, all of which have been used poorly in the Iraq case.”

Of course sanctions are a tool. But the sanctions imposed against Saddam cost over 500,000 Iraqi lives, so the sanctions were obviously not working.

Diplomacy with Saddam?- What would you suggest?
The man wouldn’t even cooperate with the UN.

Military Force cannot be as properly executed at any time when your enemy is dressed just like any ordinary civilian and even explode themselves.

Covert Action?- Well I’m not to sure about whether or not any covert action was used in Iraq or even what kind of covert action might have been used, but it was plain to see if there was covert action, it wasn’t working either.

So, as I have said…

Saddam was overthrow just because he was a murderous tyrant, a hated man, that wouldn’t comply or capitulate and these were reason enough to see him gone.

[Bush wants lethal-Injec]

Its time!!

for this b@$t@rd jr to serve some prison time!!

... so he can receive the same thing ..that he has been giving the American public for 7+ years!!!

[Likearock]

Bush wants lethal-Injec wrote:

Its time!!
for this b@$t@rd jr to serve some prison time!!
... so he can receive the same thing ..that he has been giving the American public for 7+ years!!!

Well just saddle up there cowboy and getter done.

Lasso that critter and drag him on in.

:-)

[Charlie 72]

Likearock wrote:

<quoted text>
Devils Advocate wrote:
“Sanctions must be viewed as a tool, not a strategy, but sanctions have been used all too much as a substitute for strategy, to the neglect of other tools like diplomacy, military force, and covert action, all of which have been used poorly in the Iraq case.”
Of course sanctions are a tool. But the sanctions imposed against Saddam cost over 500,000 Iraqi lives, so the sanctions were obviously not working.
Diplomacy with Saddam?- What would you suggest?
The man wouldn’t even cooperate with the UN.
Military Force cannot be as properly executed at any time when your enemy is dressed just like any ordinary civilian and even explode themselves.
Covert Action?- Well I’m not to sure about whether or not any covert action was used in Iraq or even what kind of covert action might have been used, but it was plain to see if there was covert action, it wasn’t working either.
So, as I have said…
Saddam was overthrow just because he was a murderous tyrant, a hated man, that wouldn’t comply or capitulate and these were reason enough to see him gone.

The reason is, is right when Saddam was meant to be captured sooner or later. Maybe USA was right, there was meant having to struggle 'WAR ON TERROR',

why?

Later we knew that 9-11 was a hoax!

except for 1 thing, innocent people died that day, friends of mine died in those buildings.)

Saddam was upto his neck,'cause of Bush, not USA. THE MASS DESTRUCTER HAS SHOWN HIMSELF! Sith is Bush, laugh everyone, because I'm laughing too, SLAVES to the politics of rubbish nonsense, cultivate your brains.

Could and get away from JFK!

But ya can't get away from killing 9/11 victims!

I blame Bush, his whole government, CIA/NORAD/FBI. Shame on you all!

[Likearock]

Charlie 72 wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason is, is right when Saddam was meant to be captured sooner or later. Maybe USA was right, there was meant having to struggle 'WAR ON TERROR',
why?
Later we knew that 9-11 was a hoax!
except for 1 thing, innocent people died that day, friends of mine died in those buildings.)
Saddam was upto his neck,'cause of Bush, not USA. THE MASS DESTRUCTER HAS SHOWN HIMSELF! Sith is Bush, laugh everyone, because I'm laughing too, SLAVES to the politics of rubbish nonsense, cultivate your brains.
Could and get away from JFK!
But ya can't get away from killing 9/11 victims!
I blame Bush, his whole government, CIA/NORAD/FBI. Shame on you all!

So why is it then that none of the leaders in the free world agree with you about the 9/11 hoax?

Can you explain?

Are they all in on the conspiracy too?