theloniusfleabag

Dear Toro, No, the argument of matter of currency is that the US dollar is a house of cards, and if confidence in it is compromised, it could be a long fall. I agree, but that is also my point. The flow could be retricted without the ability to out-bid. This was 'the status quo', and many have charged in the past that this ( and selling war materiel to Iraq) was 'prima facie' collusion with Saddam's regime which is now facing war crimes charges.daddyhominem, Every sentence herein has been thoroughly deunked. Any one in particular you need a link to?

Dear daddyhominem, I have read that some 50+% of Iraq's oil was sold to the US in the month before they invaded to 'top up the US' strategic reserve'. This is based on the assumption that nomal conditions are present. Again, here is where I differ on what a 'non-traditional' player in the game might do...your sentence could be re-written: "For oil to be an income enabler it must be consumed by a country to fill the human needs of citizens." Which is all the more urgent for a country expecting, or fomenting, rapid growth on an unprecedented scale.

I have to agree with August1991, As I understand it, Hitler pilfered the ancient sanskrit symbol for good luck, the svastika, and tilted it 45 degrees, while straightening out the last 'arm', into the symbol for the Nazi Party.

Dear daddyhominum, Well, let's suppose a country was intensely interested in procuring oil for their own domestic consumption. Then, we'll look at your wording of 'normal trade considerations'. What would happen if a 'player' did not come from a place where the 'normal parameters of trade' applied? Now, let's pick a country...say...China. They are attempting to secure contracts for supply (never minding the price) far and wide...from... http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/3258/ China is also not squeamish to pick up where Talisman left off in Sudan, crushing the local population to ensure favourable oil contracts with the local militia.from...(and why).. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-1...tent_289499.htm http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021230/hiro20021216 So, you are right, the price doesn't matter, what matters most is who is doing the selling, and to whom. China is in a position to 'illogically affect the markets', if they don't care what the price is.

Dear Argus, A loaded question, to be sure. 'Whose people' indeed. If you mean some of the people, I don't believe there are any countries in the world that fit that answer. If you mean 100% of the people, I doubt there are any either.

Dear Army Guy, Certainly not, nor in Vietnam...a really good read is "The Politics Of Heroin".http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/bookstore/poh.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_..._Southeast_Asia I read the original book years ago, very interesting. A few good photos too. Another link regarding Pepsi's involvement in the Heroin trade... http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/npoi3.html also... http://infocollective.org/mccoyabstract.html Another interesting bit from the book... http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/40.htm Now, would you want your enemies to control a billion+ dollar a year cash industry, or would you rather control it yourself...?

Dear jdobbin, The Taliban (pre invasion) had virtually stopped opium production in Afghanistan. The claim that they were 'druglords', or funded by drug money, was simply a ploy by the media and gov't to make them look as bad as possible, even if certain 'facts' were not true.from... http://www.unodc.org/unodc/newsletter_2001..._1_page002.html Hardly the actions of those who want to make money from it.

Dear Argus, Yes indeed, yet they still enjoy 'best friend status' with the US, simply because they are 'a drug dealer' that helps to feed (and stabilize the price of) the US' addiction to oil. There is a huge, glaring hypocricy about the US-Saudi (and Kuwaiti) relationship.

Actually, I was joking. I believe 'geoffrey' realized this, and zinged me with a wonderful double entendre. Well done geoffrey.

Dear August1991, There will never be an 'absence', so long as there is demand. It is the manipulation of demand that I fear. I also fear anarchy, which 'Mammon' would be foolish not to exploit. I temper my suspicions with a realization of what markets (or the monster of 'truly free enterprise') would do if given an absolutely free hand.

Dear Argus, I agree it would make some sense, but Israel would not allow it. They would likely prefer the status quo, 'occupied territories' or negotiate the Olso Accords ad infinitum rather than simply hand them over to existing countries. Also, don't you find it curious that you freely call a certain group of people 'Palestinians', yet deny that there was ever a country with that name? (I believe the Romans coined 'palestine') Britain thought so, and they managed it as one. I have an "Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year" from 1946 which lists 'Palestine's' currency (at the time, the pound sterling), it's gov't, population, etc. as though it was it's own country (though certainly under a mandate from Britain). Which begs the question...to whom must a country apply for recognition?

Dear Rue, No, it ... You are confusing the State of Israel with the people of Israel. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=110269 Most refer to ceding the occupied territories as 'expulsion', and were against it. It is a very sore spot for many Israelis. Most of them believe that all of it is theirs, by divine providence, and giving up any part of it is wrong. from... http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6477 A lot of them refer to the Oslo Accords (the creation of a Palestinian self-governing state from the occupied territories) as 'The Oslo War'.

Dear Black Dog, You are right, the German Paras took a sh#t-kicking on Crete, for the Airborne it was virtually a phyrric victory. Still, it was a victory. However, it would have been easier to land in the UK (provided the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain) because one can see the coasts from each other. No 'scattered (and dispersed) forces', as recon could have taken place in 'real time' and the drop planes could have made several sorties in a day. Mind you, I'll agree that the Brits would have fought tooth and nail, and they are tough. Had Britain been invaded and then surrendered, the war may well have been lost. Hitler's atomic ambitions might not have been sabotaged so easily.

Dear Army Guy, A large portion of any Sealion force would have been paratroopers, with ships (or barges) transporting mostly armour. On 'Battle of Britain Day', Sept 15, 1940, Britain gambled virtually all of their available fighters. From "The World At War: The Reader's Digest Illustrated History of WWII (1989) pg. 54... As to the use of airfields, certainly they could use a field for take-offs and landings, but fuel, ammunition and repair equipment were not so mobile.

Dear Rue, I have said before, "I believe the lowest form of communication is 'farting". So, fart away. The odd part is that religious beliefs have been, often are now, and could be in the future, the law of the land. Thus, it is important for you to 'air' your beliefs, because the rest of us likely have to live with them in some form or another, even if the form is gaseous. Wouldn't it be nice though, if everyone's religious beliefs were more like a friendly smile in a crowded elevating conveyance rather than an obnoxious odour?

Dear Charles Anthony, All 'rights' are attributed, or granted. The question here is: Should the 'right to life' be granted at conception or delivery? Anarchism would also accept infanticide, for the infant would be in charge of defending it's own 'rights'. Otherwise, 'society' (or a democratic majority) would be coerced into accepting that responsibility.

Dear Argus, While 'Kimmy-posts' are always great, I can simply click on her name, and 'find member's posts' if I so desire. (or I can log onto the webcam I installed in her outhouse party headquarters... j/k )

Dear Leafless, I don't know about 'muckraker', but he was the one to break the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. I have a book from Hersch called 'The Samson Option', about Israel's development of nuclear weapons. If Hersch lacked credibility, he would have been denounced as a crackpot long ago. Is Iran a potential target?...Yes. from... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iran.htm from...http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...trikes-2006.htm Israel marches to it's own drum, and generally has disdain for the USA (and operates spies there) even as it takes huge amounts of money and arms from them. Though the US may want to see the strikes happen, they will probably end up playing the role of political (and military) damage control.

Dear kimmy, Indeed, it only becomes a time to worry if you catch your coffee cup plotting against you. A chrysalis is not yet a butterfly, but it is an entity. I agree that the term 'innocent' should be viewed as sophistry, but for some divided on the issue, 'rights' are only given to one entity and not the other.

Dear Charles Anthony, What on earth are you blithering on about? 'Funny' is all subjective, and further, the only standouts for me are the 'funny queer'.

Dear Riverwind, The Dukabors are a very weird cult, even to this day. Check out 'The sons of freedom' in BC.

Dear Black Dog, Actually, the 'Blitz' was pretty much started by accident. During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was focusing on the airfields and fuel facilities of the RAF. London was forbidden as a target for fear of reprisal attacks on German cities. However, when german bomber pilots were ordered to bomb at night as well as 'business hours', one group of He111 bombers got lost (on their way to bomb aircraft factories at Rochester and Kingston and oil refineries at Thames Haven) and accidentally ended up bombing London. Britain bombed Berlin in reprisal. Then Germany shifted from bombing the RAF to bombing cities, and it changed the outcome of the war. The RAF was nearly finished. (Goering left the Battle of Britain to take an extended leave, and Hitler ordered the continued bombing of British cities, which may have been the greatest mistake of the war) source: "The World at War": The Reader's Digest Illustrated History Of WWII (1989) Argus, The point of this story is that, generally, history shows that attacks on civilians, or their infrastructure, only stiffens their resolve to fight against perceived aggressors. The British (and I'll make no comparisons of what the British stood for, and against, versus the Lebanese or the German civilians) civilians had but one thought during the Blitz, "We're all in it now". They didn't blame the gov't for not surrendering. Neither did the German civilians, nor the Japanese, nor the Americans.

Dear geoffrey, Not so long ago, the church and state weren't seperate. Schools were often run by the Catholic church, and Natives were expected to attend these schools. Nuns can be brutal. My brother was 'taught' to be right-handed with judicious application of a ruler across the knuckles when he was caught writing with his left hand. Not much different than the 'Originals', their language was called 'the Devil's tongue', and forbidden in schools. In short, their language and culture was deemed 'wrong and heretical', and it was beaten out of them.

Dear geoffrey, Au contraire, it is from themselves that they face their downfall.

Dear Rue, Some misunderstanding here, I think... This statement was from Krusty Kid, not Black Dog. This, I am sure, was a 'tongue in cheek' response to Krusty's comment.