Walter Hinteler wrote:The use of white phosporus is an incendiary weapon in terms of that convention.
You should bother at all, Foxfyre, as said a couple of times: the USA didn't sign it.
That civilians get hurt in military actions, even those initiated and conducted by the USA, I don't deny. But if anybody tells me that our troops in Iraq willfully targeted civilians with white phosphorus or anything else, I'll need very hard proof, and, without such proof, will say that it is a lie. There is a huge difference between civilians inadvertently getting caught in the line of fire and having such weapons or any weapons 'used against them'. I believe many hundreds, if not thousands, of our guys have been injured and killed purely because they did pull their punches so as to minimize any harm to the civilians.
I really don't know, why you get worked up: the USA didn't sign that treaty so it doesn't matter all.
I don't. (Foxy's last sentence). Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate exactly the opposite.
Foxfyre wrote:There is a huge difference between civilians inadvertently getting caught in the line of fire and having such weapons or any weapons 'used against them'.
Exactly.
Everyone here knows this, too, but it's hardly convenient for the agendas of the lefties.
Walter Hinteler wrote:I really don't know, why you get worked up: the USA didn't sign that treaty so it doesn't matter all.
When you or others imply that the USA needs a treaty to do the right thing, I get my back up pretty quickly. The implication is that because we didn't sign the treaty, then we must intend to attack civilians with white phosperous or otherwise. I'm just keeping the record straight that we do not do that and will continue to demand proof from any who suggest, insinuate, or state that we do.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:WhoodaThunk wrote:If you have no WMD, why not be forthright and prove you no longer have them?
Typical bit of whoodathunking. How do you prove a negative?
-------------------------------------
5 NOT= 6
1+1+1+1+1 NOT= 6
1+1+1+1+1+1 = 6
-------------------------------------
3 x 2 NOT= 5
2 + 2 + 2 NOT= 5
(1+1) + (1+1) + (1+1) NOT= 5
(1+1) + (1+1) + (1+1) = 6
1+1+1+1+1+1 = 6
-------------------------------------
3 + 2 NOT= 6
(1+1+1) + (1+1) NOT= 6
(1+1+1) + (1+1) = 5
1+1+1+1+1 = 5
-------------------------------------
Exercises for the student:
1. The earth is
not flat.
2. The universe does
not revolve around the earth.
3. Men are
not women.
4. Humans are
not infallible.
5. The claim that one
cannot prove a negative
can be proven false.
Which is worse?
Allowing 100,000 more to be killed; or
Killing 1,000 to prevent 99,000 more to be killed.
Allowing 100,000 more to be killed; or
Killing 25,000 to prevent 75,000 more to be killed.
Allowing 100,000 more to be killed; or
Killing 50,000 to prevent 50,000 more to be killed.
Allowing 100,000 more to be killed; or
Killing 99,000 to prevent 1,000 more to be killed.
Allowing 100,000 more to be killed; or
Killing 100,000 to prevent 0 more to be killed.
What are your breakeven numbers?
I keep forgetting- we went to Iraq to prevent Saddam killing people.
Right.
Hey Cheney .... go f yourself ...
MUWAAHAHHHAHAHA
Quote:US senators demand oil execs re-testify, under oath
Wed Nov 16, 6:44 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senate Democrats demanded that oil company executives who testified last week about skyrocketing energy prices reappear before lawmakers and testify under oath, after news reports raised questions about the truthfulness of their testimony.
ADVERTISEMENT
Leading oil company executives long have denied taking part in a secretive energy task force run in 2001 by Vice President
Dick Cheney, but White House records obtained by The Washington Post refuted that, according to the daily's editions on Wednesday.
The ad hoc group was tasked with helping develop a national energy policy, but was opposed by environmentalists because there allegedly were no ecologically friendly players on the panel.
The leader of Senate Democrats said the oil company executives who testified last week should be forced to return to Congress to set the record straight regarding their involvement with Cheney's group.
"When the big oil companies came to Congress to testify about their record profits, we expected that they would tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Today, we learned that this was a standard they were not prepared to meet," said Senator Harry Reid.
"This is unacceptable. I join my Democratic colleagues in demanding that these oil executives by brought back to the Congress, sworn in, and forced to testify again about their involvement with Vice President Cheneys secretive energy task force and all of the issues covered in the hearing," said Reid, who authored a letter to the Senate leadership requesting that the oil executives be summoned to new hearings.
"We respectfully request that you reconvene hearings as soon as possible to take these witnesses sworn testimony about their roles in the Cheney energy task force and the recent run-up in American fuel prices," Reid wrote in the letter.
Democrats also objected to a decision by the leaders of the Republican-led Senate to waive swearing in the witnesses. At any future hearing, Reid said, the executives should testify under oath.
"Recalling these witnesses to testify under oath will help us answer many of these lingering questions, and bolster the American peoples confidence in the integrity of the Senates investigation into this matter," he said.
Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg called at a press conference for an investigation.
"I want to be certain that this gets an appropriate review, so I've written to the attorney general asking him to investigate whether any of these oil company CEOs broke the law by making false statements to the Congress," Lautenberg said.
"Gas prices, everyone knows, are more than double what were at the end of 2001, and in September we all saw the average price of gas go above three dollars," he said.
"Whatever was discussed at that White House energy task force meeting, it seems to turn out very well for the big oil companies, but it's been disastrous, daily disastrous for the American public."
Lautenberg added: "We need to know what went on at those meetings, and find out whether this administration permitted the interests of big oil to stand ahead of the needs of the American families, small businesses."
American gasoline/ petrol prices are very cheap compared to here. (for those who didn't already know.)
We pay over 90p per litre which is a squillion dollars per gallon.
Still, let Mr Cheney answer for his committee's involvement with US oil prices. Be interesting to hear.
p.s. $7.6 per gallon, round about that.
McTag, the price of gasoline at the pump has increased about five-fold since early 2000, prior to the election of the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad. The price of petroleum on the spot market has not increased that much. In 2000, prior to the election of the current administration, the large, well-known, splashy television news shows were reporting triple-digit percentage profits for the oil companies--but that reportage has disappeared from the air waves, although the evidence is, from stories buried on back pages of the print media--that this remains true. Cheney headed an energy task force for which he could not be forced to divulge the details--conservatives have contended that this was proper, although Miss Clinton's health care task force was forced to divulge their proceedings by those same conservatives.
The difference in petroleum prices between the United States and the UK, and Europe are a product of the cost of refineries, and the degree of taxation. However, given how low taxation is here, the price in the United States ought to be far, far lower than it is. The profits of oil companies here are obscene, and have been for five years. Appallingly, it has taken US citizens five years to finally take notice and complain. Their complaints have yet to rise to level of notice of the Congress to the extent that the Congress does anything. Given the amount of money big oil spends on the purchase of Congress, that is unlikely to change without a good deal more outrage on the part of the electorate.
God forbid I should ever defend the oil & gas industries, but a minor sidebar omitted from the nefarious webs spun above ... two hurricanes blew through the hub of American oil refining which was already stretched to capacity. Gasoline, which had been selling at a peak season high of $2.25/gallon, spiked to $3.50/gallon. It now is actually lower than the pre-hurricane levels -- $2/2.15/gallon.
Oil industry profits are obscenely high. Don't even ask about natural gas/propane/heating oil prices.
Still, I think the reasons are a bit more complicated than Mr. Cheney and his Ouija board ... but then again that wouldn't figure in to the agendas currently being pushed on this site, would it?
More importantly, why does my box of Cheerios cost nearly $5?? Must be another sleazy get-rich scheme of that damnable Bush/Cheney duo. And speaking of sleaze & get-rich schemes, any news from the Gallaway front?
Setanta wrote:McTag, the price of gasoline at the pump has increased about five-fold since early 2000, prior to the election of the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad.
Errrr ... I'm no mathematician, but wouldn't that make the price of gas about $.35/gallon before the AntiChrist was elected?
Ah, yes ... those truly were the days.
I was paying under 80 cents a gallon in early 2000, so i'll modify that to the extent that gas prices increased by as much as four fold--they reached as high as over three dollars per gallon, before they began to come down . . .
I've not described the Shrub as "the Anti-Christ"--the problem with him and his witless, fundamentalist followers is that they seem to think he's the new christ . . .
You've said gasoline spiked at $3.50/gal. That would be Ohio prices. As i paid as low as 77cents/gal in early 2000, using the expression "about five fold" was not inaccurate.
No one here has suggested that cereal prices are the product of the particular greed and venality of the Cheneybush monster. Theirs runs to energy industry scams, which is why they're mentioned here. Talking about the oil industry refinery capacity being stretched to the limit ignores that refining capacity has declined during this administration, while demand for refined products has increased. Sweet little deal for the oil industry, who gets to claim they're only responding to market forces. Another wonderful opportunity to scream and holler about the petroleum supply (not the source of the current problem), and make that an excuse to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
Whoodaneverthunkadayinhislife can howl about an agenda in this thread--it doesn't alter the stink emenating from the relationship of Cheneybush to the energy industry . . .
About it making it ok if we didn't target children but they died by our hands anyhow. If you throw a TV off a window intending to kill one victim but you see two people there, it don't excuse you for the one you didn't intend to kill just because your target was only the one victim. This was a heavily populated city with people too poor to be able to go anywhere.
(In our country we have experience with that with New Orleans so we know it can happen.)
That's a very good point, Revel. In fact, police in our cities are often constrained in their use of fire arms precisely because of the danger to innocent bystanders. There have been many contentions here about "terorists" using civilians as "shields"--but no substantiation has been forthcoming. Absent support for such a contention, one is left to conclude that military policy, as written by or at the least approved by, Rummy, does not have as high a standard as the police on our streets--at least when the bystanders are Iraqi.
