Dr. Win_the_War

[emcon5]

Originally posted by fastpat
I think you missed the point entirely. Oil is precisely the same as any other thing, it's reased to importance by it's desireability, but that shouldn't give the federal government any power whatsoever.

That was the point.

There is some truth to that statement, however the difference is that if the supply of Chinese clothes, Japanese electronics, or German cars suddenly dries up, our economy as a whole does not suffer. If there is a shortage of shirts, the price of the available shirts will rise, due to good old supply and demand. If OPEC jacks up the prices and/or reduces production the cost of everything goes up, as every step of the supply chain for damn near every product now costs more.

As our economy stands right now, oil does not have "desireability", it has long since passed that point. It is now a necessity.

Tom

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Far to the right of the left.

Meaningless gibberish.

Your tired leftist style regurgitations,

You only think they're leftist, you're confused. You are a neo-con, neo-cons are Trotskyites. Trotsky was a communist. Get it?

your support of the UN's supremacy,

That's a lie. Since you've made the accusation, prove it big boy.

and your attacks on Bush, only further the left's objectives...You offer nothing but friendly fire, putting you in league with the socialists.

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... - Theodore Roosevelt

[fastpat]

Originally posted by emcon5
There is some truth to that statement, however the difference is that if the supply of Chinese clothes, Japanese electronics, or German cars suddenly dries up, our economy as a whole does not suffer. If there is a shortage of shirts, the price of the available shirts will rise, due to good old supply and demand. If OPEC jacks up the prices and/or reduces production the cost of everything goes up, as every step of the supply chain for damn near every product now costs more.

As our economy stands right now, oil does not have "desireability", it has long since passed that point. It is now a necessity.

Tom

So because it's a necessity, and I'd argue your point on that as well, that grants a power to the federal government to go abroad and steal it at gun point, or arrange for others to steal it for us?

[FrayAdjacent911]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

It's a neccessity, so the .gov should regulate it to keep prices low so poor people can get gas, too.

But it's a neccessity, let's not defend our interests abroad to keep it available.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[emcon5]

Originally posted by fastpat
So because it's a necessity, and I'd argue your point on that as well, that grants a power to the federal government to go abroad and steal it at gun point, or arrange for others to steal it for us?

No it doesn't. Good thing it hasn't happened. The oil in Iraq is no longer controlled by a dickhead who uses it to bribe UN officials and to furnish his palaces in splendor while shoving red hot pokers up the asses of dissidents, it belongs to the people of Iraq. What they do with it is up to them.

Tom

[FrayAdjacent911]

Well said Tom. But Pat will probably deny any of that bad stuff ever happened. I mean, the UN is the highest moral authority on the planet! They can't do wrong! And Saddam Hussein was just misunderstood!

[snowman]

Rodeo,

There are ONLY 2 sources of energy (meaningful, usefull sources) they are hydrocarbons (Oil, gas, coal), and nuclear. THERE ARE NO IDENTIFIED ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES. If anyone knows of one please step forward. Its IMPOSSIBLE to develop an unknown energy source. There is NO alternative energy source at this time and there is not likely to ever be one. All other "sources" of energy consume more oil, gas, coal or nuclear to make than they produce.

So what kind of politician goes down the course of alternate energy, when there is none? Clinton, the ultimate con man, but not any honest man.

Global warming- There is not ONE shred of evidence that it is man made at this point. And even if it were there is not a single shread of evidence that we can do anything to counter it at this time. Maybe, someday, when we actually understand global warming, we will be able to counter it and control it. If we cannot, then we do not understand it. The current rage against global warming has nothing to do with global warming anyway. It s all politics of the left and people who want us to starve, because this is what they predicted 200 years ago. Nothing to do with reality. Not to mention global warming is still far from fact.

Thats my reading of the FACTS and I have a minor in Nuclear Physics.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by snowman
Rodeo,

There are ONLY 2 sources of energy (meaningful, usefull sources) they are hydrocarbons (Oil, gas, coal), and nuclear.

Wow.

So geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind are only figments of imagination... like evolution?

[emcon5]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
I mean, the UN is the highest moral authority on the planet! They can't do wrong!

I don't get that vibe from Pat. My guess is Pat and I are in absolute agreement on the UN, that what started out as a decent idea turned into the largest most useless bunch of corrupt self-serving assclowns ever to grace the planet, and they make Detroit and New Orleans politics look downright scrupulous by comparison.

Just a guess.....

As a somewhat related tangent for the folks who claim that the only reason we went to Iraq was to steal their oil, lets do some math. A quick web search shows me the cost of oil peaked at about $25/barrel before the war. According to one anti-war site we have spent just under 237 Billion dollars on the Iraq war so far. If it was just about oil, it made a lot more sense to just stop the sanctions and buy the 9.4 billion barrels of oil directly from Hussein. We will end up paying market price for the oil in any event, whether the cash goes to Hussein or a democratic Iraqi government doesn't matter, if all we care about is the oil.

Tom

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
That's a lie. Since you've made the accusation, prove it big boy.

1. The US government joined the UN under a treaty signed by a sitting president, ratified by the Senate. That makes it binding, under the Constitution, on the US government. One of the clauses of that treaty is that no member nation may attack another member nation, unless expressly authorized by UN resolution. No such resolution exists, in fact the Bush Junta began to seek such a resolution in the fall of 2002, and when it became apparent that either or both France and Russia were going to veto it in the UNSC, and it would be heavily shot down in the General Assembly; Bush dropped that approach and invaded unilaterally.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by techweenie
Wow.

So geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind are only figments of imagination... like evolution?

They never will and never can be more than a drop in the energy bucket...Their possible energy produce is insignficant and inefficient.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by fastpat
I see, well you've got enough problems with your own government, no sense burdening yourself with ours, dangerous though it may be for you all.

Pat,

I have this funny feeling going on. I actually agree with you for a short period of time. I have brought up this same issue with several people on the forum who do not live in our country yet get their jollies off by criticizing our country while sitting warm and cozy in theirs.

Victor is one, and he as well does not even own a Porsche, yet loves to come to the OT forum and throw barbs and anyone who does not agree with his view of the world.

Unfortunately there is no Pelican forum in Australia, so we cannot go to his home countries area and tell them how messed up their world is, but should one appear, everyone can be sure that several of us would do this, just to make Victor "feel at home" so to speak.

Joe A

[Victor]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Pat,

I have this funny feeling going on. I actually agree with you for a short period of time. I have brought up this same issue with several people on the forum who do not live in our country yet get their jollies off by criticizing our country while sitting warm and cozy in theirs.

Victor is one, and he as well does not even own a Porsche, yet loves to come to the OT forum and throw barbs and anyone who does not agree with his view of the world.

Unfortunately there is no Pelican forum in Australia, so we cannot go to his home countries area and tell them how messed up their world is, but should one appear, everyone can be sure that several of us would do this, just to make Victor "feel at home" so to speak.

Joe A

Ha! You're kind of cute Joe. Of course there is an Australian Pelican forum. Come on over some time the water is fine! You may be out of your comfort zone here though. We are much more easy going than you lot.

Regional Forums > New Zealand / Australia

Greetings from downunder, throw a Barbie on the shrimp, etc. etc.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
1. The US government joined the UN under a treaty signed by a sitting president, ratified by the Senate. That makes it binding, under the Constitution, on the US government. One of the clauses of that treaty is that no member nation may attack another member nation, unless expressly authorized by UN resolution. No such resolution exists, in fact the Bush Junta began to seek such a resolution in the fall of 2002, and when it became apparent that either or both France and Russia were going to veto it in the UNSC, and it would be heavily shot down in the General Assembly; Bush dropped that approach and invaded unilaterally.

I was stating what the law is, M-dose. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on the UN.

Let me be clear about that for the second time. It is my desire to see the UN removed from American soil, the association of the US government with the UN completely ended, the buildings housing the UN in New York and elsewhere in America bulldozed, and salt sown on the ground so that nothing will grow there for a long time.

I don't know how to make that more clear to you. If you're not a dolt, you'll get it this time.

However, that isn't the case today. The US government signed a treaty in joining the UN that stipulates that one member nation may not invade another member nation without certain express events having taken place. Iraq did not meet any of those stipulations, so the invasion violated the treaty signed by the US government, and that makes it a violation of US law. That's what the Constitiution says about treaties, no matter how much you may wish that it did not. That's why the federal government shouldn't be allowed to enter into treaties without a unanimous vote by the Senate. A treaty becomes law governing the federal government. The federal government must be held to obey the law at all times.

Last, I'd have no problem removing the treaty capability from the Constitution altogether, we don't need government agreements to do business with other people that happen to live outside the fifty states.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

First, let's drop this we crap. The federal government isn't made up of a team on which you're a player. The federal was created by the states to do certain things for them best done by one entity, and nothing more. Unfortunately, over the years the federal government has granted itself more and more power, that must not only end, it must be substantially rolled back to zero.

It's a neccessity, so the .gov should regulate it to keep prices low so poor people can get gas, too.

No, the Constitution authorizes no such power to the federal government, so it cannot lawfully do such an action, which is idiotic when it is practiced.

But it's a neccessity, let's not defend our interests abroad to keep it available.

If all market forces are allowed to work as they should be, there will be plenty of oil. It has only one use, there's nothing oil is good for except sending to a refinery.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by emcon5

No it doesn't. Good thing it hasn't happened.

It is happening right now, best you do some reading, and quickly. The federal government is taking Iraqi oil and spending the money. That's theft, pure and simple.

The oil in Iraq is no longer controlled by a dickhead who uses it to bribe UN officials and to furnish his palaces in splendor while shoving red hot pokers up the asses of dissidents,

It's still controlled by a dickhead who authorizes torture of those who resist him. His name is George W. Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

it belongs to the people of Iraq.

Nice socialist sentiment, but it's garbage nonetheless.

What they do with it is up to them.

Tom

I aqgree that those in Iraq that own the oil fields should do what THEY want to do with it, yet another reason for the murderous US government to have left them alone, and should leave Iraq immediately now.

[emcon5]

Originally posted by fastpat
I was stating what the law is, M-dose. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on the UN.

You started by stating what the law is, then departed from reality when you got to the "No such resolution exists" part.

The President went to the UN as a courtesy to the our "allies" europe who later turned out to be in bed with Hussein. The fact that they pussed out is irrelevant. We don't need UN approval, because we already had it.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

There is a chronology of applicable security councel resolutions here, including the "subsequent relevant resolutions"

You note by its absence a resolution removing 678's requirement to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions"

Hussein started a war which he lost. Part of the terms for him losing was he had to comply with a certain conditions put forth by the security councel, which he did not do.

Whether or not the Iraq war was moral or ethical I am done debating, because everyone has their mind made up, and it is a waste of time. But the "illegal war" BS is and always shall be complete end utter nonsense. We had every legal right to remove Hussein from power.

Originally posted by fastpat
It is happening right now, best you do some reading, and quickly. The federal government is taking Iraqi oil and spending the money. That's theft, pure and simple.

OK, show me a link to someone credible, and I'll be happy to read it.

Tom

[fastpat]

Originally posted by emcon5
You started by stating what the law is, then departed from reality when you got to the "No such resolution exists" part.

The President went to the UN as a courtesy to the our "allies" europe who later turned out to be in bed with Hussein. The fact that they pussed out is irrelevant. We don't need UN approval, because we already had it.

No, that's clearly not true. First, Bush sought out a war resolution such as that obtained for the first Gulf War, then when it became clear that several countries on the Security Council would veto the resolution, he claimed that he could use an older resolution, the one you referenced. Unfortunately, that resolution doesn't contain the required language to enable one UN member nation to attack another member nation. The US governments unilateral invasion was and remains illegal under US law.

There is a chronology of applicable security councel resolutions here, including the "subsequent relevant resolutions"

You note by its absence a resolution removing 678's requirement to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions"

All necessary means is not an authorization for aggressive war, sorry, no cigar. A key ingredient in the cease fire signed by the Iraqi's in 1991 is that it is with the UN, not the US government. There was no treaty with the US government because Gulf War I was a UN operation.

Hussein started a war which he lost.

What war are you talking about, the Iraqi's didn't start a war with the US government.

Part of the terms for him losing was he had to comply with a certain conditions put forth by the security councel, which he did not do.

Whether or not the Iraq war was moral or ethical I am done debating, because everyone has their mind made up, and it is a waste of time. But the "illegal war" BS is and always shall be complete end utter nonsense. We had every legal right to remove Hussein from power.

OK, show me a link to someone credible, and I'll be happy to read it.

Tom

The US government controls all Iraqi oil leaving the country, or didn't you know that? What do you need, copies of the ships bills of lading?

Who do you think is receiving payment for that oil?

[emcon5]

Originally posted by fastpat
No, that's clearly not true. First, Bush sought out a war resolution such as that obtained for the first Gulf War, then when it became clear that several countries on the Security Council would veto the resolution, he claimed that he could use an older resolution, the one you referenced. Unfortunately, that resolution doesn't contain the required language to enable one UN member nation to attack another member nation.

Sure it does. That was the resolution that allowed the Coalition from the first Gulf War to attack Iraq in the first place. The key part of the resolution is the "all subsequent relevant resolutions" part, the biggie being 687. The UN Security Council itself admits were violated by passing 12 more resolutions demanding compliance with 687.

The US governments unilateral invasion was and remains illegal under US law.

I think you need to look up the word "unilateral." The invasion of Iraq was supported by a coalition of 48 UN member states, many of which sent troops.

All necessary means is not an authorization for aggressive war, sorry, no cigar.

So what would you consider "All necessary means", harsh language?

What war are you talking about, the Iraqi's didn't start a war with the US government.

Invasion of Kuwait.

The US government controls all Iraqi oil leaving the country, or didn't you know that? What do you need, copies of the ships bills of lading?

How about something other than "because Pat says so". Link me to a credable source that confirms what you are saying. Ceasefire, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan or Aljazeera are not credable sources.

I'll help you out: Under a May 2003 U.N. Security Council resolution, all proceeds of oil exports must be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq, where that money is used to get the country moving again. Since the Provisional authority went away, the DFI is under control of the Iraqi government. Some details are available here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-23-iraq-oil-audit_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Hell, even Aljazeera, while critical of how the money is being managed/spent acknowedges that the Iraqi government is in control of the DFI.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E71DC00C-3D37-4683-B6DC-7378B360227A.htm

Clearly it isn't perfect, but it is a long way away from "The US stole the Oil".

Tom

[snowman]

Originally posted by techweenie
Wow.

So geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind are only figments of imagination... like evolution?

Check out todays, 2-2-06, Wall Street Journel, Editorial page on energy sources. Just like I stated there is NO alternate source of energy. And even the most significant source, hydroelectric is only in the 2 percent of the total range, and the tree huggers want to get rid of many of the dams that create that power. Explain that! Point is that source is nearly maxed out. Theres a bunch of other articles in todays WSJ related to Bushes proposed energy solutions. Then theres those famous electric cars. Set back the hybrid car industry over 40 years, politics wins over science. No one bothers to mention the witches brews of the most fowl, lethal, chemicals and elements that go into making all those high tech batteries. I suspect they are a major disaster waiting for a place to happen.

Alternate energy is the lefts version of Intelligent Design. Execpt Intelligent Design is at least theoretically possible, alternate energy sources do not seem to be at this time.