So did Isreal do the right thing?

[trollgirl]

Our gas dollars fund these regimes. If we’d been paying more attention to where our money was going and tried to make it buy infrastructures, schools, hospitals, roads, information flow…instead of lining the pockets of authoritarian rulers to contain nations aligned with governments we don’t like, you wouldn’t have a reason to fed up. But, whatever, drive on.

edit: relevant link added

Those of you who are old enough may recall that before the wells were capped, the North Slope (of Alaska) oil fields were said to contain sufficient oil to fuel North America for 200 years. However, they were capped and we now have rich Arabs, desperate Jews, unending war, expensive gas, and happy oilmen. Dead Lebanese are just icing on the cake. I'm sickened. I ask again: Did Israel make the right decision? Browse the web for some photos of dead Lebanese children before you answer. How can you say "Let God sort them out."?? Have you not considered that God will sort you out, too???

BTW "Peak Oil" is a scam to kick up oil prices. The Russians proved years ago that oil is being produced all the time, way down there. Americans can not drill as deep, and say oil is not down there. Lies...

BTW A military invasion takes TIME to plan and organize. Therefore, the recent invasion of Lebanon was decided on BEFORE the two IDF soldiers were captured. Duh. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were also planned prior to 9/11. If military action was really prompted by 9/11, Saudi would have gotten the hit. Lies...

BTW The US/UK/Zionist invasion of Iran will take place on schedule. The fallout will be dire. There will be more Lies...

BTW I see that no one has yet questioned the Albert Pike quote. Did anybody read it?

Laz

[rant over] Forever Autumn, I don't believe in Unicorns (bad translation in the OT) but YHWH did tell Noah to take examples of EVERY air breather on board the ark. Yes, the ark was very large, and had three levels. To save even more space, young, not mature, animals were taken. The Book of Jasher says more than Genesis on this. From time to time, an animal turns up that was thought to have gone extinct a LONG time ago. Most recently, the Laotian Rock Cat turned up - looks vaguely like an otter. The taxonomical family to which it belongs was thought to have been extinct for 11,000,000 years. This sort of thing happens more often than you may realize. Not too long ago, a species of tree was found in some remote part of Australia which was believed extinct for some tens of millions of years. The antediluvian world was not so long ago. Moist tissue has been found inside petrified T Rex bones, still red, still elastic, still with intact cells. Just don't hold your breath waiting for some big-name science publication to trumpet this news - they have theories to protect...

Laz

[noddin0ff]

I ask again: Did Israel make the right decision? Browse the web for some photos of dead Lebanese children before you answer. How can you say "Let God sort them out."?? Have you not considered that God will sort you out, too???

Which God? And, why not look at photo's of Israeli dead too?

BTW "Peak Oil" is a scam to kick up oil prices. The Russians proved years ago that oil is being produced all the time, way down there. Americans can not drill as deep, and say oil is not down there. Lies...

conspiracies

BTW A military invasion takes TIME to plan and organize. Therefore, the recent invasion of Lebanon was decided on BEFORE the two IDF soldiers were captured. Duh. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were also planned prior to 9/11. If military action was really prompted by 9/11, Saudi would have gotten the hit. Lies...

They would've been idiots not to plan this ahead. And, It's no super duper secret that the neocons had plans for invading Iraq before 9/11, but then I think one has to be daft to connect Iraq to 9/11. They weren't connected. Although the Bush Admin tried very hard to imply a connection. As for Afghanistan, um, Bin Laden who has accepted responsibility for 9/11 was being supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. So your point is...it was a conspiracy to invade Afghanistan? What for? To get a US monopoly on opium??

BTW The US/UK/Zionist invasion of Iran will take place on schedule. The fallout will be dire. There will be more Lies...

I think it more likely that the nuclear attack by radical islamic fundamentalists funded by Iran is far far more likely.

From time to time, an animal turns up that was thought to have gone extinct a LONG time ago. Most recently, the Laotian Rock Cat turned up - looks vaguely like an otter. The taxonomical family to which it belongs was thought to have been extinct for 11,000,000 years. This sort of thing happens more often than you may realize. Not too long ago, a species of tree was found in some remote part of Australia which was believed extinct for some tens of millions of years. The antediluvian world was not so long ago. Moist tissue has been found inside petrified T Rex bones, still red, still elastic, still with intact cells. Just don't hold your breath waiting for some big-name science publication to trumpet this news - they have theories to protect...

Thinking something is extinct is not a theory. Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life on earth for 40 days is an act of faith. Presenting this as a logical argument for creationism is silly.

[trollgirl]

Which God? And, why not look at photo's of Israeli dead too?
Um...one man's perp is another man's victim.

conspiracies Yeah, no kidding.

As for Afghanistan, um, Bin Laden who has accepted responsibility for 9/11 was being supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. So your point is...it was a conspiracy to invade Afghanistan? What for? To get a US monopoly on opium?? The Bin Laden family has had business dealings with the Bush family for years. The Khobar Towers were rebuilt by Bin Laden Brothers Construction. Yeah, no kidding. Remember when the men who became the Taliban were heroes in the West? However, they refused to give permission for a vital oil pipeline, and they were quickly demonized. You know the rest.


I think it more likely that the nuclear attack by radical islamic fundamentalists funded by Iran is far far more likely. We shall see...


Thinking something is extinct is not a theory. Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life on earth for 40 days is an act of faith. Presenting this as a logical argument for creationism is silly.

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

Laz

[ForeverAutumn]

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

Laz

Finding evidence that a boat existed over 2000 years ago, doesn't prove that Noah saved the animals on the word of god. It only proves that a boat existed over 2000 years ago.

[trollgirl]

Finding evidence that a boat existed over 2000 years ago, doesn't prove that Noah saved the animals on the word of god. It only proves that a boat existed over 2000 years ago.

[inserts tongue into cheek]

So I assume that if you found some flint arrowheads, you would deny that Indians hunted with them...

Laz

OK, OK, I'll take the slap...

[ForeverAutumn]

[inserts tongue into cheek]

So I assume that if you found some flint arrowheads, you would deny that Indians hunted with them...

Laz

OK, OK, I'll take the slap...

If finding arrowheads was the only evidence, then I would say that finding the arrowheads does not prove that Indians hunted with them.

You could certainly build a theory around what purpose the arrowheads might have served, but it would not be proof. The proof would come in other empirical evidence... As examples: Drawings or artwork by the Indians of them using arrows to hunt; animal DNA found on the arrows; or markings on animal bones or remains that are consistant with the arrows.

If someone were to actually find evidence of a boat on Mt. Ararat, you could design a theory about how it got there. And you might even convince me to believe your theory (not likely, however), but it's not empirical proof that it was Noah's boat.

[JoeE SP9]

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

Laz

What credible scientist has argued in favor of creationism? Please state name, credentials and papers published for peer review in a reputable journal.
If creationism is fact then the evidence is totally misleading. That doesn't say much for a supreme being who would plant false or misleading information. I once tried to discuss carbon dating with a "creation" science believer. He didn't believe in carbon dating. I tried to explain, if radioactive decay did not occur as science says then atomic bombs and power wouldn't work.

[trollgirl]

If creationism is fact then the evidence is totally misleading. That doesn't say much for a supreme being who would plant false or misleading information. I once tried to discuss carbon dating with a "creation" science believer. He didn't believe in carbon dating. I tried to explain, if radioactive decay did not occur as science says then atomic bombs and power wouldn't work.

JoeE, the whole problem here is that you have one paradigm, and the creationist you were talking to has another. I gather that you are not well versed in creationist literature and ideas. I am familiar with both paradigms, and I know where this fellow is coming from. You put him down for his (to you) weird ideas, but keep in mind that to him YOUR ideas/concepts are weird. Two theories. Two worlds. Two universes. The two sides seem to, but do not entirely speak the same language.

Conventional Science is going down, and the struggle between Evolution and Creation is really old hat. The new battles forming up are between Classic Physics and Hyper Dimensional Physics - few even have heard of it. Also, the Electric Universe Hypothesis is rapidly gaining ground, and is so new, the alarms are probably not even ringing yet in ivy-clad academia. Stay tuned...

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

JoeE, the whole problem here is that you have one paradigm, and the creationist you were talking to has another. I gather that you are not well versed in creationist literature and ideas. I am familiar with both paradigms, and I know where this fellow is coming from. You put him down for his (to you) weird ideas, but keep in mind that to him YOUR ideas/concepts are weird. Two theories. Two worlds. Two universes. The two sides seem to, but do not entirely speak the same language.

Conventional Science is going down, and the struggle between Evolution and Creation is really old hat. The new battles forming up are between Classic Physics and Hyper Dimensional Physics - few even have heard of it. Also, the Electric Universe Hypothesis is rapidly gaining ground, and is so new, the alarms are probably not even ringing yet in ivy-clad academia. Stay tuned...

Laz

I didn't want to mention string theory or "branes".

[noddin0ff]

Which God? And, why not look at photo's of Israeli dead too?

Um...one man's perp is another man's victim.

Personally, I think they're all victims. Just curious why you don't seem to care about Israeli civilians who fall victim to suicide bombers and missles.

The Bin Laden family has had business dealings with the Bush family for years. The Khobar Towers were rebuilt by Bin Laden Brothers Construction. Yeah, no kidding. Remember when the men who became the Taliban were heroes in the West? However, they refused to give permission for a vital oil pipeline, and they were quickly demonized. You know the rest.

Yeah, I know the rest. That last part especially about flying planes full of civilians into tall buildings full of more civilians. That all came some time after bombing some marines in Lebanon though. etc.

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

I don’t doubt that ancient cultures built a box that they believed God resided in [edit: oops, wrong ark, my mistake]. But that has little to do with bombing civilians or with creationist ramblings.

You are confusing your use of the word 'theory' with the meaning it has when used in a scientific context. What you are calling a 'theory' would be more accurately referred to as a 'hypothesis', which is a stronger form of conjecture, which is stronger than speculation (which hovers around 'conspiracy theory'). A hypothesis is a notion based on observations, from which one infers statements of potential truth. (we can't find living birds but we do find evidence that they existed not long ago, they likely are extinct now). A hypothesis in a scientific context is a testable conjecture. Testing a hypothesis requires discipline, skepticism, and knowledge of the difference between bias, observation, and belief. In a scientific context the hypothesis, the methods applied to test it, and the conclusions drawn, are reviewed by other knowledgeable experts, most of whom would be happy to prove you wrong.

A scientific theory has more power. It is a notion that is derived from tested hypothesis, known facts, laws of nature. A scientific theory is well substantiated with repeated observations. It often creates an organized system of accepted knowledge that has power to explain phenomena in a variety of circumstances. Yes a scientific theory (like Gravity or Evolution) could be proved wrong, but because they are assembled from mountains off well tested and well reviewed knowledge it is highly unlikely. Theories are consistent will all known information and generally have predictive power as well. Creationism has none of that (but of course you’re free to believe that it does). Now if you want to argue that finding a missing bird invalidates the whole theory of evolution. I can't help you until you decide to start using your rational brain. Form a hypothesis about how finding animals once believed extinct disproves the theory of evolution and test it.

[Resident Loser]

...is quite popular and generates a great deal of traffic but, can we possibly get someone to correct the spelling of "ISREAL" to Israel...

Every time it pops up due to the addition of another post, it drives me nuckin' futs!!!

jimHJJ(...puh-leeeese...)

[ForeverAutumn]

...is quite popular and generates a great deal of traffic but, can we possibly get someone to correct the spelling of "ISREAL" to Israel...

Every time it pops up due to the addition of another post, it drives me nuckin' futs!!!

jimHJJ(...puh-leeeese...)

Ooops! My bad. I'd be happy to correct it if the software used for this forum would allow me to edit the thread title, but it doesn't. So, you'll have to see whether one of our esteemed Mods can do it. Otherwise, it'll be a short trip to the loony bin for you.

[trollgirl]

Personally, I think they're all victims. Just curious why you don't seem to care about Israeli civilians who fall victim to suicide bombers and missles.


Yeah, I know the rest. That last part especially about flying planes full of civilians into tall buildings full of more civilians. That all came some time after bombing some marines in Lebanon though. etc.



I don’t doubt that ancient cultures built a box that they believed God resided in [edit: oops, wrong ark, my mistake]. But that has little to do with bombing civilians or with creationist ramblings.

You are confusing your use of the word 'theory' with the meaning it has when used in a scientific context. What you are calling a 'theory' would be more accurately referred to as a 'hypothesis', which is a stronger form of conjecture, which is stronger than speculation (which hovers around 'conspiracy theory'). A hypothesis is a notion based on observations, from which one infers statements of potential truth. (we can't find living birds but we do find evidence that they existed not long ago, they likely are extinct now). A hypothesis in a scientific context is a testable conjecture. Testing a hypothesis requires discipline, skepticism, and knowledge of the difference between bias, observation, and belief. In a scientific context the hypothesis, the methods applied to test it, and the conclusions drawn, are reviewed by other knowledgeable experts, most of whom would be happy to prove you wrong.

A scientific theory has more power. It is a notion that is derived from tested hypothesis, known facts, laws of nature. A scientific theory is well substantiated with repeated observations. It often creates an organized system of accepted knowledge that has power to explain phenomena in a variety of circumstances. Yes a scientific theory (like Gravity or Evolution) could be proved wrong, but because they are assembled from mountains off well tested and well reviewed knowledge it is highly unlikely. Theories are consistent will all known information and generally have predictive power as well. Creationism has none of that (but of course you’re free to believe that it does). Now if you want to argue that finding a missing bird invalidates the whole theory of evolution. I can't help you until you decide to start using your rational brain. Form a hypothesis about how finding animals once believed extinct disproves the theory of evolution and test it.

Let me take this point by point:

First I'm sorry for the one post above, where I replied to one of your posts, got it
hopelessly garbled, and then could not manage to delete it.

I do care about Israeli civilians, and I know they die too, but the MSM covers their plight all too well. I just try to balance the bias...

Yes, we all know that planes full of people flew into towers full of more people, but there is much to ponder about 9/11, much more than that most of the "terrorists" were Saudis, and several of them are alive and well today (kind of like the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker). Consider that the WTC Towers were built to withstand such impacts, that the steel was UL rated to withstand more heat than the jet fual could generate, and for longer than the fuel burned. Most of it burned in external fireballs anyway, especially the second hit, for which the building went down first - inexplicable. My bottom line, I have seen controlled demolitions live and on video. I know what to look for. In videos of the WTC Towers coming down, you can SEE the cutting charges going off. There is no mistake, so don't even argue with me, just go watch one of the videos. I predict someone will post and say, "I watched it several times, and didn't see it." We're not all blessed with the ability to SEE what we're looking at - sorry! Besides, the Leaseholder spilled the beans when he admitted that he told the NYFD to "Pull" Building 7. That's industry slang for taking it down with a controlled demolition. I could go on for pages and pages with FACTS, but how many of you will believe it? I propose that some of you are deceived. You won't believe that, either...

The next paragraph I don't care to dignify...

Now, the theory thing. I can see that our scientific philosophies are very different. You seem to put "theory" almost on a level with a Law of Nature. I do not. To me, a theory should always be testable and falsifiable. If new evidence comes along which flatly contradicts it, the theory, however cherished, should go, not the evidence. That was my whole point,and you did not have to go into a sci/phil rant. I just said that the reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker chucks the theory that they are extinct. OR, in your view, since their continuted existence has not been (as far as I know) formally announced, we should still consider them extinct? Me rational? Oh, yes...

BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career. He wrote or co-wrote many of the classics in the Creationist Movement. He was well respected. Another is Duane T. Gish, who I have seen hold his own in debates with evolutionists. The whole trouble is that the theory of Evolution sits itself up as a gate-keeper, much as the AMA does against Homeopathy. Homeopathy is backed by a huge amount of research, their theory is sound, their method is sophisticated. But to the AMA, or the AMA-minded, they're just a little weird, you know... My bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are both scientific/intellectual/philosophical GIANTS duking it out, but one side is respectful, and the other side insists on treating the opposition as nut-cases. There are issues here, and not of the scientific kind. As I said elsewhere, money, power, and good science are a bad mix.

Please DO NOT read things I have not said into the above. Understanding what I do say seems rare without that...

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

[quote=trollgirl
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career.

What is a Hydologist? I can't find any reference to that title anywhere.

[trollgirl]

[QUOTE=JoeE SP9][quote=trollgirl
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career.

What is a Hydologist? I can't find any reference to that title anywhere.[/QUOTE]

I should have said/spelled "Hydrologist". Only one letter off, but as I get older, I must pay more and more attention to something I was once excellent at. String theory? It's too far "out there" to interest me. What about them "branes"? Wuzzat??

Laz

[kexodusc]

Those of you who are old enough may recall that before the wells were capped, the North Slope (of Alaska) oil fields were said to contain sufficient oil to fuel North America for 200 years.

I'm analyst for pipelines and utilities for our portfolio - all the companies I've visited agree nobody knows how much oil there is for certain, but the estimates I've heard put all of Alaska's oil at somewhere between enough for 5-12 years of fueling the USA. The problem being a sizeable portion is not recoverable. 200 years is a stretch of astrnomical proportions - think about it - that's more oil than the entire world has consumed so far. Ridiculous.

BTW A military invasion takes TIME to plan and organize. Therefore, the recent invasion of Lebanon was decided on BEFORE the two IDF soldiers were captured. Duh. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were also planned prior to 9/11. If military action was really prompted by 9/11, Saudi would have gotten the hit. Lies...

You really should take the time to understand how the military works - simple military strategy for an invasion can be thrown together quite quickly - hours even. It's the deployment of trops that takes the longest time - I'm sure the military has contingency, "just in case" plans to attack every country in the world, and probably every city in the USA. That's what they do.
In Israel's case, they know the area well and have been on standby for war for a few decades now, likely planning, and re-planning such attacks periodically. Same goes for the other countries in the region. These armies are entrusted to be READY for the order. An attack could be launched in minutes - a pre-emptive strike by Israel is a unsubstantiated contention.

BTW The US/UK/Zionist invasion of Iran will take place on schedule. The fallout will be dire. There will be more Lies...

Maybe, but as long as they keep threatening the extinction of Israel and removal of Israeli's from the region, they'll get little sympathy.

Most people know there's 2 sides to every story - but for whatever reason you appear to be only acknowledging America's contributions to escalation. Plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

I suppose next you'll tell us Kim Jong Il is just a poor, misunderstood, philanthropist who was only planning a 4th of July celebration...until the American conspiracy machine got involved?

[dean_martin]

I'm analyst for pipelines and utilities for our portfolio - all the companies I've visited agree nobody knows how much oil there is for certain, but the estimates I've heard put all of Alaska's oil at somewhere between enough for 5-12 years of fueling the USA. The problem being a sizeable portion is not recoverable. 200 years is a stretch of astrnomical proportions - think about it - that's more oil than the entire world has consumed so far. Ridiculous.

My son just returned from a visit to Central Europe where he had an oppurtunity to go to OPEC headquarters in Vienna. His group heard a speech from an OPEC rep then they were allowed to ask questions. My son asked if OPEC funded research for alternative fuel sources. The rep went into a rant about the US ceasing oil drilling and production in Alaska because the US was going to wait until the world's supply was spent then the US could control the distribution and price of oil. Interesting perspective, eh?

[kexodusc]

My son just returned from a visit to Central Europe where he had an oppurtunity to go to OPEC headquarters in Vienna. His group heard a speech from an OPEC rep then they were allowed to ask questions. My son asked if OPEC funded research for alternative fuel sources. The rep went into a rant about the US ceasing oil drilling and production in Alaska because the US was going to wait until the world's supply was spent then the US could control the distribution and price of oil. Interesting perspective, eh?

Well, I'm sure it's possible - I won't pretend to know the politics - but I do know Alaska is a super expensive place to get oil from compared to most alternatives, so it's not good business yet. If supplies goes down, demand goes up, or both, suddenly becomes more worthwhile...but relative some other drilling spots, it'd still be a the last option. Canada's sitting back on the second largest oil reserve in the world (and has several others) as well - Russia's got gobs of it too. I think the logic here is to take care of your own if push comes to shove and stocks start to dwindle before we figure out how to make flying cars run on water...

Hopefully by then (or long before then) we'll get somewhere with other technologies to a point where the caps are off and we flood the market with cheap oil during the "transition" from oil to whatever. This would help insulate any massive shocks to the economy, not to mention really stick it to some of those countries that are completely dependant on oil.

[dean_martin]

Well, I'm sure it's possible - I won't pretend to know the politics - but I do know Alaska is a super expensive place to get oil from compared to most alternatives, so it's not good business yet.

Hey, Kex - my understanding has always been in line with what you state. I guess I was surprised (probably shouldn't have been) to learn that OPEC's position is different.

[trollgirl]

I'm analyst for pipelines and utilities for our portfolio - all the companies I've visited agree nobody knows how much oil there is for certain, but the estimates I've heard put all of Alaska's oil at somewhere between enough for 5-12 years of fueling the USA. The problem being a sizeable portion is not recoverable. 200 years is a stretch of astrnomical proportions - think about it - that's more oil than the entire world has consumed so far. Ridiculous.

You really should take the time to understand how the military works - simple military strategy for an invasion can be thrown together quite quickly - hours even. It's the deployment of trops that takes the longest time - I'm sure the military has contingency, "just in case" plans to attack every country in the world, and probably every city in the USA. That's what they do.
In Israel's case, they know the area well and have been on standby for war for a few decades now, likely planning, and re-planning such attacks periodically. Same goes for the other countries in the region. These armies are entrusted to be READY for the order. An attack could be launched in minutes - a pre-emptive strike by Israel is a unsubstantiated contention.

Maybe, but as long as they keep threatening the extinction of Israel and removal of Israeli's from the region, they'll get little sympathy.

Most people know there's 2 sides to every story - but for whatever reason you appear to be only acknowledging America's contributions to escalation. Plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

I suppose next you'll tell us Kim Jong Il is just a poor, misunderstood, philanthropist who was only planning a 4th of July celebration...until the American conspiracy machine got involved?

Kex, your comments on oil are worth while, and the claim of 200 years may well have been hype or an urban legend. However the proven fact of abiotic oil makes it moot. There's oil aplenty. Your assumption that I don't understand how the military works might merely rest on not having noted that I said "plan and organize". I understand every thing you say in that paragraph. Remember what Brecht said: "When the leaders speak of peace, the mobilization orders have already been written out." "Maybe, but as long as they keep threatening the extinction of Israel and removal of Israeli's from the region, they'll get little sympathy." Yes, but like you say yourself, there are two sides - the Zionist State is now threatening the extinction of its neighbors and the removal of Palestinians from the region. They are running out of sympathy all over the world, and maybe you have noticed. They have cried "Wolf!" too many times. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around, but we Americans should face our share squarely, and be more humble. BTW, I don't care a fig for Kim Jong Il...

Laz

[kexodusc]

Kex, your comments on oil are worth while, and the claim of 200 years may well have been hype or an urban legend. However the proven fact of abiotic oil makes it moot. There's oil aplenty. Your assumption that I don't understand how the military works might merely rest on not having noted that I said "plan and organize". I understand every thing you say in that paragraph. Remember what Brecht said: "When the leaders speak of peace, the mobilization orders have already been written out."

Yes, but like you say yourself, there are two sides - the Zionist State is now threatening the extinction of its neighbors and the removal of Palestinians from the region. They are running out of sympathy all over the world, and maybe you have noticed. They have cried "Wolf!" too many times. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around, but we Americans should face our share squarely, and be more humble. BTW, I don't care a fig for Kim Jong Il...

Laz

I don't think anyone disagrees there's plenty of oil. The supply of which is "controlled" by cartels with self-serving interests. And before you blame it on the USA, remember who struck the first blow. Opec's been rigging their supply/production scheme for decades now - when supply is down, its rare that Russia, Venezuela (before joining Opec) or Canada or the US would boost production to compensate - they don't want their supplies depleted sooner because of an artificial, politically motivated decrease in supply. So they all sit on their oil, staring at each other, while the consumer pays a bit more. Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia usually plays the role of peace-maker in these situations.

Something will replace oil as the primary source of fuel long before all oil stocks are exhausted - I think a lot of companies are betting on this - There's a lot of reseves that are full of oil, but would be absolutely huge, capital intensive, decade or more long projects that would take years of revenue streams to pay for...What's more, the oil that we get out of the ground is getting more and more difficult to refine into more usuable forms. And refining is a massive part of the end-user costs these days - let's not forget that. So the decision to drill often requires over 20 years of accurate foresight. You honestly can't blame the companies - the consumers and governments ask them to find oil, pay for getting it out of the ground, so they want some guarantee that there'll still be reasonable demand for however long it takes to recover costs.

Is it unthinkable that oil demand in 20 years could be vastly reduced? I dont' think so - as long as there's an ambitious car company or technology firm that wants to take the money that consumers give to gas companies, there'll be work on more efficient engines and alternative energy sources.

What's all this got to do with Israel and Lebanon? Not much - as the vast majority of those folks don't benefit at all from Oil. This a centuries old religious and territorial war. The fundamental teachings of the religions on both sides create a sense of "Promise" or entitlement to the land. The only solutions I can see is to remove one side, or the other from the region - which both sides would die for to prevent - or to beat this sense of entitlement into submission and let these guys duke it out. Lose/lose situation. But we helped put Israel there, so we have to support them now. How many other countries have we meddled with, and then abandonned to slaughter (Iraq, Cuba, Rwanda, etc).

I find it ironic that middle east sympathizers point out that the reason people become "terrorists" and attack the US is because they can only put up with so many acts of provocation against them before they snap - US foreign policy or otherwise - and that we should expect strong retaliation from these people because "they can only take so much".
Israel's peoples' history is full of persecution and attacks, probably as much or moreso than any other people on Earth. It may not be justifiable, but at least I can understand their actions - they're not going to wait for things to escalate to a point where the international community justifies their decision to create war. History has forced them to believe they can't. And that history is in their blood, dating back even long before there was a United States of America.

[markw]

Actually, the terrorist orgsanizations are funded by the oil producing countries. So, while the desert dwelling peoples don't "benefit" from the oil monies, it's not because it's not there. They don't benefit from it because their rulers simply keep most of it for themselves and drop a goodly amount in making life difficult for the rest of the world by funding terrorist organizations. Educating their people is not high on their priorities.

It's not like these countries have anything else on which to base their GNP.

Actually, if they used theuir heads they might notice that Israel can rework the barran desert into fertile grounds that not only produce enough food to feed themselves, but actually produce excess food that can be exported. You would think they would want to learn from them. But no, they would rather destroy them

[kexodusc]

Actually, the terrorist orgsanizations are funded by the oil producing countries. So, while the desert dwelling peoples don't "benefit" from the oil monies, it's not because it's not there. They don't benefit from it because their rulers simply keep most of it for themselves and drop a goodly amount in making life difficult for the rest of the world by funding terrorist organizations. Educating their people is not high on their priorities.

That's exactly the point I was making...I think most of the people would prefer to live life without all the bloodshed (giving them the benefit of the doubt here, the Saudi's are UAE are fairly moderate) but the regimes in control of the state owned oil companies tend to rally the civilians to their causes...when you're poor and things aren't going as well - it's easy to believe the big bad US tyrant imperialists are responsible for this mess.

Actually, if they used theuir heads they might notice that Israel can rework the barran desert into fertile grounds that not only produce enough food to feed themselves, but actually produce excess food that can be exported. You would think they would want to learn from them. But no, they would rather destroy them

Hmmm, maybe. Israel historically was known as a very fertile land, but over thousands of years of intense war, capture, and recapture, the invaders and the losing sides of these wars salted/poisoned the lands to make it hard on the other side. Still, it always had potential, just needed some reconstruction Nothing like destroying the sacred ground.

As far as I know, most of the other desert lands are pretty much limited. Once oil loses is precious commodity value, these countries will have nothing left. You don't see Syria investing in mass infrastructure and technological development. Well, unless you believe Iran is developing high grade plutonium for "peaceful purposes".

[bobsticks]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]...when you're poor and things aren't going as well - it's easy to believe the big bad US tyrant imperialists are responsible for this mess.

. Kexo is correct.

Qu'ran:33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And he made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country that you had not transversed before."

Does anyone actually believe that the majority of Muslims would ascribe to this?
To place it in American context, how many would support unto the peril of their souls some of the headier excerpts from Exodus--the stoning of adulterers, the selling of daughters into slavery, etc.? Millions of Muslims throughout the world abhor what is being contorted from modernistic Islam.
But when the clerics in the madrassahs teach the above they are not speaking to enlightened minds. They are inculcating hate upon the poorest and most hopeless. There is no mention of science or mathematics, linguistics or engineering. This is the politics of power and manipulation. And the problem grows more complex when it is the case, as stated, that these regions lack the basic infrastructure and natural resource base to sustain any non oil-based growth. As we have seen in the American experience, it is also true that the lower classes have the most offspring, and thus the cycle continues.

Qu'ran: 8:39 " So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam"

That is the message inundating the youth of disenfranchised Islam, delivered by parents, political leaders, spiritual figures, and peers. Obviously effective but just a means to an end--the maintenance of the moneyed and powered elite...

[GMichael]

Whenever I go to the beach with the wifey, I always ask her if she's interested in off shore drilling.