BS: It's official...... it was about oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:28 PM

Teribus my old fruit - had you cared to read properly you would have understood that the piece was not about Scottish politics but about your ability to predict events. Which as you freely admit when it came to the Iraq War was - how can I put this in words of one syllable so you understand it- I know - wrong.

If you are making a plea for proportional representation by quoting the Scottish election result then fine - but people might understand you better if you said - "I believe in proportional representation as a better form of electoral system than the one we have."

But then you would be in good company - so does Arthur Scargill.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM

Teribus:

If you persist in humiliating these two foolish boys, you risk being accused of child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:52 PM

I assume that the majority of Mudcatters would prefer to see Iraq's oil controlled by Osama Ben Laden?

If it was only about oil, why didn't we just seize the oilfields and start shipping oil to the U.S.?

Alan Greenspan has a right to an opinion. Doesn't mean, however, that he is right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:56 PM

It's all in the perception, the point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:58 PM

DougR,

I think rather that they want the oil controlled by France, Germany, Russia, or China- You know, the countries that did not want to hinder Saddam's efforts to develop WMD.

Have to punish the Evil US for doing something when the UN wouldn't- Otherwise you get situations like Darfur and Burma where the UN expresses its displeasure, and gets ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:00 PM

Yeah, beardedbruce, but you got to admit when the UN "speaks" people listen. Why I cannot comprehend.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:49 PM

Well, Dougie, I sure nuff would rather see Iraq's oil controled by Osoma bin Laden if it meant that the last 4 years plus in Iraq hadn't happened.... Yes, Osoma would be a definate improvement... Plus, over a half million folks would still be alive, the region would be more stable and the pipelines wouldn't be gettin' blown up several times a month... Ahhhh, not to mention that the US wouldn't have thrown over a half a trillion $$$ (borrowed, I minght add) down a rat-hole...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:53 PM

Well Bobert, you have at last confirmed it. You are in real need of psychiatric help.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:15 PM

The huge (and phony) death count in Iraq was fabricated by two Johns Hopkins teachers who were connected to a school of international politics, not medicine. That figure was placed before the public by the publisher of Lancet for political reasons (a few weeks before the US elections). He has stated that himself.

The actual number should be about 38,000.

Had Saddam been left in power, at the rate of 159 dead per day (see Amnesty International) there would have been 250,000 dead since the beginning of the MAR 2003 military action. We have prevented about 200,000 deaths and may be able to establish a stable democracy which will be an asset to the world community. It was once the biggest threat extant.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 03:41 PM

pdq.... You seem quite an authority on Scottish Politics?

"The actual number should be about 38,000."....Did you shoot them yourself?

"We have prevented about 200,000 deaths and may be able to establish a stable democracy which will be an asset to the world community. It was once the biggest threat extant"

Teribus will you please tell pdq to DREAM ON!!

Was that post supposed to be some sort of American joke?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 03:55 PM

Eh? Folkiedave, the system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament is a form of Proportional Representation known as the Additional Member System (AMS). Each voter has two votes, the first for a Regional Member, there being 56 regional Members across 8 regions. The second vote is based on the usual "first past the post" system for the 73 Constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament.

In either case two-thirds of the people of Scotland rejected the SNP. That is what the figures tell me, but they only represent some form of substantive evidence of the overall political picture in Scotland based upon how they actually voted, or didn't.

If Akenaton wants to parley those figures into something that supports his contention that Scotland voted for the SNP he could only be described by any rational human being as being delusional. How else could you describe as a mandate to rule, a situation where only half the electorate turn out, and of that half, two-thirds do not vote for you.

Translated Ake, Folkiedave, that means through deliberate voting practice, or through apathy, 83% of the electorate of Scotland did not vote for the Scottish Nationalists - What kind of victory is that folks? - Momentous? Credible? Non-existent? Looks like another of those elections where a box marked "None of the above" would have more truly reflected the mood of the electorate as a whole. They should do what they do in Australia - You get fined if you don't vote.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:10 PM

Ake,

And we waited for the UN to act in Darfur- From an article today "More than 200,000 people have been killed, 2.5 million driven from their homes"


So, will YOU accept the blame for those 200,000 dead, since the US did not act on it's own ( years ago, when BUSH declared it Genocide, but the UN argued about it) but did as YOU wanted, tried to generate a consensus that China and Russia kept blocking?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:19 PM

"over a half million folks would still be alive" - Bobert

Still waving that ficticious figure about like a flag I see Bobert.

To date this year Bobert there have been only 7 attacks on pipelines, in which pielines have been blown up, last one was June 20th. Now where exactly were those pipelines that were "gettin' blown up several times a month" located Bobert? Or are they, just like your 500,000+ dead just a myth, a concoction asiduously latched onto by the anti-war; anti-Bush chorus, to be shouted about from the roof-tops until somebody asks you for some form of substantiation - Then everything goes quiet or the personal attacks begin.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:20 PM

Ake,

The 200,000 figure I stated is my estimate on the number of people Saddam did not have a chance to kill because we, the big bad US of A, gave him the boot. It cannot be an actual number because he was not able to continue his violence. We saw to that. The peice of shit is gone. We deserve thanks. If it does not come now, it will come from future historian.

About Scottish politics, I know nothing. That is why I have posted precisely nothing on that subject.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:22 PM

Apologies that should have been, "To date this year Bobert there have been only 7 attacks on pipelines, in which pipelines have been blown up, last one was June 20th."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:22 PM

U.S. Deaths: Self-Inflicted As reported by the DoD as of 8/31/2007


Army--104; Navy--4; Marines--14; Air Force--0

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:58 PM

Teribus...I think the word you seek is indeed momentous.
The SNP came from absolutely nowhere to win the election by 1 seat
The first time Labour had been defeated in Scotland for fifty years!

But the real point is that the impetous and momentum which delivered that victory has continued under the new left wing Scottish government

The next time,.... now that people see the nationalists are capable of doing the job...the percentage voting nationalist will be over 50 and then we will be in a position to fly our flag.

And it's nearly all thanks to Blair...God bless him..(well maybe not)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 05:45 PM

To date this year Bobert there have been only 7 attacks on pipelines, in which pipelines have been blown up, last one was June 20th."

Do keep up old fruit.....Here are two you forgot to mention......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL234974820070923

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 05:46 PM

And since you are in favour of asking questions do you agree with some form of proportional representation?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:06 PM

And I think this is the definitive body count web site.....

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Incidentally Teribus looking through a random selection of your posts I notice you never seem to leave any "blue clickies". Not learnt to do that old fruit? It does help when you are quoting sources.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:21 PM

from that source:
74,431 – 81,119

That is inline with the 38,000 killed by Coalition forces. Please note that the people you seem to want to have control are responsible for the remaining 55,000 or so...


Still under the 200,000 that was mentions as being prevented by overthrowing Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:26 PM

It is always the "false dilemma" with some war supporters. If anyone opposes bush's unilateral invasion, you say "then you support Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden". This is a well known logical fallacy, that (as with all logical fallacies) when used, lowers the credibility of the user in any future discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:49 PM

The figure of "38,000 civilian casualties" was from MAR 2003 to OCT 2006, the second time Lancet online was promoting made-up the figures, this time it was "650,000 - 850,000 civilian deaths". The web site Iraq Body Count, shown a few posts back, is clearly by an anti-war group, which makes the Lancet loons look as bad as most sane people have been saying. Their figure is about 10% of the Lancet online BS figure and is for a period 1 year longer.

The civilian deaths are from coalition action aimed at stopping Saddam's regular army and his special guards, but it also include those killed by terrorist infiltrators, jihadists and others. Some people have been killed for personal reasons, such as long-standing feuds and for property theft. Easy to kill your enemy and blame it on the US and Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:36 PM

"Iraq Body Count, shown a few posts back, is clearly by an anti-war group"

Better go read up on them and their methods before you start proclaiming.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:40 PM

Ah hell, I'll make it easy for you:

"IBC's documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

***** IBC's figures are not 'estimates' but a record of actual, documented deaths. *****

IBC records solely violent deaths.

IBC records solely civilian (strictly, 'non-combatant') deaths.

IBC's figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised."

***emphasis by TIA***

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:42 PM

...and I don't think anyone could credibly argue that the meticulously documented deaths are the only ones that have occurred, so the *actual* number is higher (possibly by a lot).


(opinion of TIA in paren's)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:55 PM

The usual "prove it" defense when anyone brings up body counts... One thing for sure is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to tell us the truth about how mnay folks have been killed...

But consider this... It has been reported that over 3000 sorties were flown in the pre-mission-accomplished days... Now each sortie is an individual flight with a mutitude of bombs dropped from each one... Now if you average that an F-16 alone can drop a half a dozen bombs and bombers hundreds of bombs it is not out of reason that upwards of of 100,000 or so bombs were dropped on Iraq... Now we throw in artillery, tanks, missles (smart or otherwise) and the millions of rounds of small arms fire- all in a country no larger than Texas- and it is not unreasonable for any person with an I.Q. greater than that of an empty box of animal crackers to think that the numbers the Bush folks are throwing out are just plain bull... If you can't kill more folks with upwards of 100,000 bombs and millions of rounds of tanmk, artillery and small weapons fire then I'd say that you have some very, very poorly trained soldiers and, if for no other reason, you should quit playng war because yer guys can't hit the broadside of a barn...

Simple Logic, 001 (non credit, remedial)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:02 PM

The deaths of civilians and soldiers--it's become a fuckin' numbers game? Keriste . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

BTW, Teribus...

Would you like to provide an "objective" source for your assertioon that the pipeline have only been hit 7 times this year... But before you go into yer War 'n Peace post. please Google up your sources just to be sure that they are on the up and ups 'cause yo8u know I'm going to....

And please, no Bush administration sources... That are as bogus as three dollar bills...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM

Let's clarify. The group Iraq Body Count seems to have made an honest effort to generate a truthful figure regarding the total civilian deaths since MAR 2003 in the country of Iraq. They desrve respect for that.

However, if you read the rest of the material on the site, it is all anti-war, with links to numerous anti-war groups. That would seem to give the relatively low number more credibility than if it were posted on a pro-war site. Saying that they are anti-war is not a slap at them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:09 PM

Saying that IBC is anti-war may not be a "slap" at them, but it was clearly an attempt on your (pdq's) part to provide a reason why their numbers should not be believed.

So, in the same vein (not a slap), is it unfair for me to point out that the 38,000 number comes from the Bush Administration which is decidedly pro-war.

The Bush Administration (unlike IBC) has provided no publically-viewable documentation for their "number". Okay, THAT was a slap, and intentional.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

If you have been paying attention to the "casualty figures", you have no doubt noticed that estimates vary widely (and as pdq tacitly points out) and partisanly (is this a word?). Part of the confusion stems from the definition of "casualty". The Wikipedia article on Iraq war casualties has been quite a battleground over the last few years. It has evolved into a pretty complete compendium of all available data, based on all working definitions, and honoring a wide spectrum of viewpoints. If you really want to discuss casualties, this is a damn good place to start -- although following links to original sources and beyond is highly recommended. Don't just listen to GWB, or Rush, or TIA (especially TIA). You've got a lot of reading to do before you can argue about "casualties" with any degree of authority. (Kudos to those who have).

It is here.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:27 PM

TIA, you are not reading the posts.

The Iraq Body Count number is reasonable and dates from today, 2007. The number I gave, although it is from another source and dates from 2006, is also reasonable.

Actually, you are free to take the average of the two. Nobody can be certain anyway.

The figure that is absurd is the "650,000 - 850,000" given by Lancet online in OCT 2006. That figure is ten times more than the Iraq Body Count figure. The Lancet online number is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:54 PM

Actually, I do read the posts, and read an awful lot elswhere too.

No, the Lancet number is not "absurd". It is based on statistical techniques that are widely accepted in other fields. There are "experts" who (perhaps legitimately) question this number -- but interestingly do not question numbers arrived at by the same means in other fields.

I have provided a link above to a pretty comprehensive discussion. It'll take a while to get through it all, but will lead to an informed discussion of this decidedly partisan and emotional issue.

There was a prior thread in which the Lancet article was argued pretty thoroughly (and I - surprisingly - opined plenty there, so I will not repeat).

So long, but best regards and respect (seriously).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:56 PM

Sorry, I have been un-signed-in for weeks now. Cookie reset.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 12:34 AM

Thanks for the information Folkiedave.

To date this year Bobert there have been only 9 attacks on pipelines, in which pielines have been blown up. Now where exactly were those pipelines that were "gettin' blown up several times a month" located Bobert?

TIA the Hopkins Report itself states that it is only an "estimate" in which it uses the phrase "may have died". Exactly how that translates to such as yourself and Bobert as "actual" and "definitely died" I cannot understand as I believe neither of you were involved in the Study and both of you only read, or give credence to material that solely supports your point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:50 AM

Thanks for the information Folkiedave.

You are welcome Teribus.

Here's another one since you liked that one so much. It is dated August 10th.

"Sabotage attacks averaging two a week against northern export pipelines have all but stopped Iraq's oil flows through Turkey's Ceyhan port after the 2003 U.S. invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power. Numerous attempts since to ensure smooth flows have failed".

Two a week (average) looks like repeated attacks to me.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:51 AM

And you still haven't told us if you line-up alongside Arthur Scargill in the matter of proportional representation.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:12 AM

Thanks, FolkieDave, for saving me the precious time of having to go back thru my newspaper clipopings to find the same source that you apparently have found... I remember reading that quote and sure I clipped it out for my files... Unfortunately, my filing syustem leaves a little bit to improvement but the stuff is all there... Up to about 10 inched deep in clippings now...

As for "definate dead", T... What does that mean???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:16 AM

Teribus, you are a bonehead. Your comment to me is a perfectly clear indication that you did not read my preceding posts. Your knee just twitches doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:32 AM

Speaking of numbers (of dead)...how many Iraquis have been forced to flee and become unwanted refugees in neighboring countries? Few have made it to the US, of course, since we are rather restrictive of people coming in of late. I don't have a link, but I have heard it is the vicinity of 2 or 3 million.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:43 AM

Remarkably as you asked that question there was a report by Reuters yesterday.

You can find it here.

Basically it suggests there are 4 million refugees - half of which fled before Saddam was toppled and half afterwards.

As to the numbers of Iraq refugees allowed into the USA - not very many is the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 10:52 AM

Hi Bobert,

You tell me, what's the difference:

A. " I have definitely won the lottery"

B. " I may have won the lottery"

Who goes out and spends the money A or B.

May have died implies that there is an element of doubt, the "death" has not been verified.

"Definitely dead" implies that there is no doubt that the death has been verified.

Hopkins figures were estimates that is why they stated may have died. IraqBodyCount figures are all verified the low range figure by two independent sources the high figure by one source.

Proportional Representation = Ineffecive non-government, classic example Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:02 AM

"Hopkins figures were estimates"

The Hopkins figures were bullshit to begin with. I really wish folks would stop using them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:04 AM

Well I am sorry you don't agree with proportional representation as an electoral system.

In Great Britain every year since 1945 more people have voted against the winning party than in favour of it. That's without the non-voters of course. And Teribus believes this is effective government.

But it is hardly democratic is it - when more people vote against the winners than in favour of the winners? And that's without the non-voters.

Well at least we know where we stand old fruit. Is this why you went to live abroad? And where you live - what sort of system do they have?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

Left wing socialist ...SNP

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 01:39 PM

Hee,hee, hee

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:25 PM

One issue Party that hasn't done anything yet. Only beat the Lords of Divine Rule in Scotland (The Labour Party) because they'd done even less and brought the entire country into disrepute doing it. People generally were totally jacked off with them so they demonstrated with a protest vote - I will be interested to see what happens next election.

Best chance Scotland has of independence is for the SNP to convince Westminster to give the English a vote on the Union. Main advantage for England is that they would never have to suffer a socialist government again, that's why Labour are against giving one half of the "Union" the right to vote on it, which is rather unfair, don't you agree Ake?

Proportional Representation Folkiedave - Now let's see since 1945 how many Governments has the UK had? Now compare that to how many Governments Italy has had in the same period. Now tell which you truly believe to have been the more effective. I know which I would opt for, as for your choice I just want to see if you know what effective means.

"The Hopkins figures were bullshit to begin with. I really wish folks would stop using them." - Peace

Could not agree more with you even if I tried.

Bobert - Cat got yer tongue? Who spends the money A or B?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:21 PM

A: "Saddam Hussein definitely has weapons of mass destruction"

B: "Saddam Hussein may have weapons of mass desctruction"

Which is a suitable pretense for invasion?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

or

C. "The UN reports state that Saddam Hussein definitely still has programs for developing weapons of mass destruction"