Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq?

[Smalso]

Nor anybody here.

At least RandFan has the honesty to say that oil is part of the reason.

I have never known RandFan not to be honest. I do not agree with him on many issues, but I have never questioned his integrity.

 

[Number Six]

Here is something I don't understand and it may be because it doesn't make sense or it may be because I just don't have certain information. Here goes:

The assertion is that the main reason the US is going after Iraq is to keep the oil flowing. That assumes that keeping a lot of oil flowing from Iraq is the most important thing to the US. If that were the case, then why would the US not choose an alternate course of action that woud do just as well or better in keeping the Iraqi oil flowing and would not piss people off or kill people in the process? For example, dropping all the sanctions and letting Iraq do what they wanted so long as they didn't invade another country would be a good way to ensure lots of Iraqi oil would be flowing for the forseeable future. Wouldnt it? It's not like Iraq has a bunch of oil and won't sell it to the world. They'll sell as much as they're allowed to sell.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

I have never known RandFan not to be honest. I do not agree with him on many issues, but I have never questioned his integrity.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Wayne Grabert]

If that were the case, then why would the US not choose an alternate course of action that woud do just as well or better in keeping the Iraqi oil flowing and would not piss people off or kill people in the process? For example, dropping all the sanctions and letting Iraq do what they wanted so long as they didn't invade another country would be a good way to ensure lots of Iraqi oil would be flowing for the forseeable future. Wouldnt it? It's not like Iraq has a bunch of oil and won't sell it to the world. They'll sell as much as they're allowed to sell.

Your proposition makes a great deal of sense to me. I suspect the Bush administration is trying to manipulate the American public with fear (and succeeding with some members of this board of "skeptics") and misinformation to pursue a hidden agenda. I keep hearing that I'm wrong, but the only explanation for why is (as it translate it) "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I'm so afraid I'm about to piss my pants! Saddam is going to nuke us!"

 

[Smalso]

The price of gasoline is rising steadily in this area and is approaching a record high. AAA predicts that it will go even higher. Some analysts predict that gasoline in the US could skyrocket if Saddam should choose to fire his oil wells as he did in Kuwait, with prices nearing $5.00 per gallon. These are prices that the United States is not prepared to deal with, especially with the economy ailingthe way it is. If oil is not considered an issue in a war with Iraq, it can damn well become one.

 

[Number Six]

The price of gasoline is rising steadily in this area and is approaching a record high. AAA predicts that it will go even higher. Some analysts predict that gasoline in the US could skyrocket if Saddam should choose to fire his oil wells as he did in Kuwait, with prices nearing $5.00 per gallon. These are prices that the United States is not prepared to deal with, especially with the economy ailingthe way it is. If oil is not considered an issue in a war with Iraq, it can damn well become one.

Yes, and that is why I don't think it is mainly about oil. If it were about oil then the US would not even think about invading because an invasion will lessen oil supply, not increase it. Saddam isn't going to set his oil wells on fire if there's no invasion. Instead, he'll pump and sell oil. But if there's an invasion, then he has nothing to lose by setting the wells on fire.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Yes, and that is why I don't think it is mainly about oil. If it were about oil then the US would not even think about invading because an invasion will lessen oil supply, not increase it. Saddam isn't going to set his oil wells on fire if there's no invasion. Instead, he'll pump and sell oil. But if there's an invasion, then he has nothing to lose by setting the wells on fire.

No, oil has a great deal to do with it. Currently, US companies are shut out of Iraqi oil fields. It's not about "keeping the oil flowing;" it's about controlling the oil. We currently limit the amount of oil Iraq can export and Saudi Arabia and Russia pick up the slack. There is also the matter of Iraq being the gateway to the Caucasus that are believed to be rich in oil.

 

[Richard G]

 

[Roadtoad]

I spent two hours today buying stuff for my kid, so he wouldn't have to spend two frigging bucks for a damn Snickers, and I check the messages and find this crap.

Not funny, Richard. Not in any way, shape or form.

 

[Number Six]

No, oil has a great deal to do with it. Currently, US companies are shut out of Iraqi oil fields. It's not about "keeping the oil flowing;" it's about controlling the oil. We currently limit the amount of oil Iraq can export and Saudi Arabia and Russia pick up the slack. There is also the matter of Iraq being the gateway to the Caucasus that are believed to be rich in oil.

We've been limiting the amount of oil Iraq can export for a long time. But if we wanted more Iraq oil, we would have stopped limiting the amount of oil Iraq exports. We could have simply let them open the taps after they had been properly scolded in the Gulf War. Of course had we done that, we'd have been castigated for.....caring more about oil than the Iraqi people, which is the same thing we're being scolded for for NOT doing that.

Also, US companies are shut out of Iraqi oil fields now but again, that is the result all this post-Gulf War isolation of Iraq, etc. If the US had made nice with Iraq after that war then the US likely wouldn't be shut out of Iraqi oil fields today.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

We've been limiting the amount of oil Iraq can export for a long time. But if we wanted more Iraq oil, we would have stopped limiting the amount of oil Iraq exports.

I think you've misunderstood me. It's not that we want to buy more Iraqi oil; it's that we want to be able to control the market. Give that point some thought.

Hey, I like your signature!

 

[RandFan]

Nor anybody here.

At least RandFan has the honesty to say that oil is part of the reason.

Thank you Wayne. And I am willing to say that it is a significant part of the equation. I do not believe that it is the only reason for the argument that I made at the begining of this thread.

 

[RandFan]

I have never known RandFan not to be honest. I do not agree with him on many issues, but I have never questioned his integrity.

Wow, I'm not reading any more of the forum today. Thanks Smalso, I am human like anyone else and am subject to ego. Sometimes it is just hard to look at a subject in a light that will let you see the truth. I am guilty of that from time to time. Perhaps more than I think or want to believe.

 

[Number Six]

I think you've misunderstood me. It's not that we want to buy more Iraqi oil; it's that we want to be able to control the market. Give that point some thought.

Hey, I like your signature!

Iraq is a member of OPEC and they'll continue to be regardless of whether a regime change happens there. Isn't OPEC the biggest controller of the world petroleum market?

I like my signature too, but I copied it from somewhere. I can't remember where, but it wasn't the JREF board. It's a good line though.

 

[Smalso]

Wow, I'm not reading any more of the forum today. Thanks Smalso, I am human like anyone else and am subject to ego. Sometimes it is just hard to look at a subject in a light that will let you see the truth. I am guilty of that from time to time. Perhaps more than I think or want to believe.

Ain't we all?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

You are very good at being obtuse.

(Memo to self. I really must stop annoying RandFan by simply pointing out the true nature of some of his claims. Memo to self. Let's not stop doing pointing that out.)
Thank you RandFan. Unfortunately you had to combine your praise with yet another ad hominen claim unless you were really complimenting me for my abilities in obtuseness. Is being obtuse a good thing in the US? I knew I had to be very good at something. Let me take the generous interpretation of your words yet again and assume that you are complimenting me for continuing to point out where your claims about me are wrong.

You simply choose to ignore my offer and choose a statement that best describes your view. Why? Why is it that you will not do something so simple? The answer is that to do so would show quite clearly that you are either inconsistent or that you have in your mind enough evidence to constitute "proof" that Bush is going to war for oil.

I have already explined this to you but am happy to do so again - very slowly this time. I did not ignore your offer. I responded by restating my simple position because my own statement best describes my own view. The alternatives you offer do not adequately describe my views because they are either irrelevant or otherwise inadequate. Do you understand now? What exactly is it that you do not understand about my clear and unambiguous statement of my views RandFan? Why not discuss my actual views rather than those that you made up? Just asking. Again.

In view of the very serious allegations you make later in your posts that I am about to deal with let me point out that when I asked about your own views previously views you said.

'But E.J., I have no responsibility to explain to you exactly how I arrive at my point of view. If you don't like that then tough. '

Let us look at that statement very carefully because I am going to refer to it again and am going to call it RandFan Response Type 1. You consider that an acceptable response to a relevant question is in effect ...no responsibility to explain.....tough. As such, it is difficult to understand why you complain so petulantly when I also answer yours in my own way by explaining that I feel your proffered words are inadequate to describe my views, which I have helpfully provided to you on many occasions now. Do you understand at last? Is your sauce not adequate for other geese? Just asking. Let me look at what I shall call RandFan Response Type 2. I asked you 'Are you saying here that I have claimed that you don't or that I haven't looked at the posts on this thread in the way you claimed?' You replied ' '. That's right, no reply to that question at all. Zero. Null point. Nada. Zilch. Crickets chirping. I am going to call that RandFan Response Type 2. I think it will be important to bear in mind those two response types, which must be acceptable to you otherwise you wouldn't have used them, when we address your serious and false allegations later on in this post.

I never said that it was. I said "that to you it is proof". That does not mean singular. You can't make it singular just by saying so.

As you are so rightly concerned about using the correct words can I just point out what you actually did say was "To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise." Just a miniscule suggestion. If you put things in quotes it would be useful if they had been actually used as quoted. Or not, as you wish, it's up to you. I hope that helps to keep a proper focus on the words actually used and the views actually expressed rather than made up words and views because after all that is what we are debating here, is it not?
Now, to take your latest claim can I just ask what does not mean singular RandFan- the word 'fact' (which incidently is what I said was singular -and remarkably still is singular) or the word 'it' (which by the way referred to that singular fact - unless you know different.) or your word proof? Are you engaged in the Clinton defence perhaps? Please make yourself clear RandFan. I don't recall claiming that your word proof is singular. I do recall claiming that the word fact is singular and by the way the word 'it' refers to that singular 'fact'. In your own beloved phrase, let us keep focus here. Why not deal with the claims actually made? Just asking. Again.

As demonstrated later you do understand the difference between a conditional and an unconditional claim. You made an unconditional claim in saying 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'
I am afraid that is factually incorrect in two ways. Firstly I did not form my views on the basis of one fact alone. Nor did I ever anywhere state that I did. Nor did I ever anywhere state that any facts were mutually exclusive in arriving at my view so on that basis your claim is factually incorrect. Unless you can read my mind that is, which you cannot. Unless you are now claiming otherwise which I think may bizarrely be what you are on the verge of actually claming. Secondly, to me that one fact is not "proof" as I do not consider my view (which is as you know based on many different lines of evidence) proven. So your claim is also factually wrong on that basis. I hope that helps. Again.

I never said that you do consider your view point proven. And I have stated as much on many occasions. You just choose to ignore that fact.

Again, I said "that to you it is proof." That simply does not equate with your above statement.

Read it again. Read it twice. Compare to the above statement. They are not the same. "To you it is proof" NOT "your view has been proven".

Your words (again) {sigh}
.

I have not chosen to ignore that fact. You clamed that ''To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise." and I have told you repeatedly that a/ it is not on the basis of one fact and b/ I do not consider that fact (or all the others in isolation from each other) to be "proof". So what exactly is your point here RandFan? I really cannot make it any clearer for you but will continue to try to help you understand for as long as you have difficulty with your own claim.

What does that mean, "leads me to believe"?

Could it be that you have used logic and evidence to arrive at a conclusion? What does the dictionary say about such a process?

I have already explained to you what 'leads me to believe' means. Remember the ice cream van example? That you apparently did not read that particular post is a pity because if you did you would not need to ask the question yet again. Hey ho. Nevertheless, let me painstakingly give you yet another example. I am led to believe that Mount Etna will erupt again at some point in the future. That does not mean I believe it is proven that Mount Etna will erupt again or that I consider my view to be "proof" that Mount Etna will in fact do so because on neither count do I do so (Memo to self - inelegant ending of sentence. Must do better.). Now do you understand? Let me give you yet another example then in the interests of helping you to grasp what my simple phrase means. If I was to say that the evidence leads me to believe that the Sun will appear tomorrow morning, that does not mean that I believe that I have proven or that to me it is "proof" that the sun will actually do that because I recognise the possibility that it might not actually happen. Am I getting through yet? Let me try again then. If I say that I am led to believe that Ozzy Osbourne will appear at Wembley in June because of the available evidence (to wit some poster which stated that he will), do I consider that evidence to be "proof" he will in fact appear? I do not because, as anyone knows, for a myriad of reasons (getting hit by the wife or children or falling masonry - you know the sort of thing) he might not actually do so.

Now I can carry on giving you cogent and relevant examples of what the simple phrase 'leads me to believe' actually means as used. Should you choose to refuse to accept those cogent examples so be it, that is your problem, not mine. You cannot read my mind so any claim that I mean other than what I post is IMO more properly part of Yuri Geller's act rather than a rational justification on a sceptics forum. Unless you can show otherwise. I have previously taken the time and trouble to explain it and have now given you a number of additional examples to explain to you exactly what the phrase does mean. Can I suggest that you might look at the dictionary for the words I actually did use rather than the words you would have liked me to use. Hint - I have aready done much of that work for you.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

RandFan what word are you defining here. I have suggested a number of time now that you tell me what word you are defining. If you don't want to that is up to you but I am afraid that unless you do I cannot help you. Are you using your own word/phrase or my word/phrase? It would be helpful to know.

Why not just answer the question? E.J. if you are sincere just answer the question. It is simple. I made an offer and all you have to do is one of two tasks.

Just choose one of the options or tell me why you can't?


I find it more likely than not that Bush is going to war primarily because of oil.

I do not have enough evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Bush is going to war because of oil.

I find it less likely than not that Bush is going to war because of oil

.

Let me tell you once again then. I have alreday answered the question. I don't think the alternatives you so kindly and regularly offer are adequately representative of my actual view, which I have supplied to you and which I am happy to do again. It is that based on many different lines of evidence, including my experience with the oil industry, I believe that Bush's stance towards Iraq is primarily based on the presence of large reserves of oil within that country. As before, I am happy to tell you this in many different ways if you want but you cannot say that I have not provided a rational reason for answering your over simplified questions in the way I have. (Remember RandFan Response Type 1 and lest we forget Type 2 as well). That is, my view expressed in my own words as acceptable to me. If you want to take issue with them in a rational, quantitative way, fine. Let's do that on a mutually aceptable basis.

Why E.J.?

Why wont you answer?

Do you find it more likely than not that Bush is going to war primarily because of oil?

You can't answer the question because it is the legal definition of proof. If you answer yes then in your mind you have reached the threshold of the legal standard of proof and I am right.

Sigh. I have provided the answer I wont. Sorry. Silly spelling joke. You really do have to learn to differentiate between answers and the answers you wont. Sorry. Force of habit. Can I just remind you of RandFan Response Type 1 in the first part of this post. Was that an answer? You clearly thought it is appropriate to answer in that manner. Fine. I will do what you do. Is that OK or am I just a hypocrite as well? I have already told you that your options do not adequately represent my views. That is my answer. I will answer exactly in the way you clearly find acceptable. In your own immortal phrase, 'If you don't like that then tough'. I wonder why it should be deemed to be acceptable when you do it but not acceptable for others? Still, mine not to reason why mine is just to do or die. After all there is a demonstrable link between Al-Quaeda (or should that be Al-Quaida? I never know.) and Iraq. The letter Q. Sorry, I digress. My answer is still the answer. If you wish to make more unwarranted claims that is up to you. Can I make it any plainer for you or are there really different sauces for the different types of geese? At least it wasn't RandFan Response Type 2. You know the sort with nothing but the sound of crickets chirping.

So now I am calling you a liar.

Burst of laughter. Was it really the boy in the enormous glass house who threw that stone? Before I respond to this latest false claim let us remember RandFan Response Types 1 and 2 and remind you that everyone has to learn the distinction between an answer and the answer they want. It seems that you have yet to learn that lesson. I hope however I have helped by highlighting two types of responses that are clearly aceptable to you. Just in case you forgot, one of them is to decline to answer at all. Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone. Well that rules me out. How about you? Or do you want me to demonstrate that you're ruled out as well? OK then.

Let us return now to your latest false claim. I have answered your questions. You just don't like my answers but don't seem to have grasped the fact that others are entitled to answer questions as you do yourself. Do you understand at last? You have now shown your true colours and they are not very pretty. The sorry reality is that I simply couldn't care what you think Rand Fan as you are a serial user of snide, patronising and ad hominen remarks and I will demonstrate that you are also a serial maker of false claims ( Memo to self - that didn't sound very fluent. Must do better.). There are other ways of expressing that last claim but I am much too delicate to put them into words, unlike you. Why I might faint with the raw emotion if I dared to use the apposite expression so I'll let others make up their own minds when they see how easily false claims flow from your keyboard (Keyboard. Damn these new fangled inventions. Pen sounds much better.)

If you answer no then you are being inconsistent because you stated "large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country

Sorry. Not with you there RandFan. The unwarranted logical leap is a leap too far for me. Is there a rational explanation of this latest assertion?

Proposition: "the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country"

Circumstantial Evidence

Your knowledge of the oil industry



Assumption: There is a link between this evidence and the war.

Conclusion: E.J. Armstrong believes that the proposition is true.

In other words the evidence that E.J. Armstrong progresses in his mind is "proof to him" that oil is the reason for war.

I do believe that is what is properly called a logic gap. Why it doesn't even correspond to the simple claim you actually made. How did you get from your conclusion to the idea that I consider your claim of one fact is "proof"? You actually claimed that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' I haven't even begun to examine the last part of that infamously false claim yet but let us keep focus here. I do not consider that the one fact is "proof" of my views. To claim otherwise in the absence of adequate justificaion is to call on powers you do not possess. Assertion is not rational argument but if you want to think so feel free.

Ego is a bitch isn't it E.J.? It blinds us and prevents us from telling the truth even when we know what the truth is. Your a good person, you know what the truth is but you can't bring yourself to admit that you are wrong.

So I see RandFan. So I see. As I don't own 'a good person' I am not sure how you can claim that I am a liar and also a good person. You don't have to be consistent however. That's entirely your perogative and I really don't care what you think about me RandFan. The primary thing that matters is the quality of your arguments. Now why not try to address the material points at a rational level.

Yet you know in the back of your mind that answering the question will expose you so you refuse to answer my questions.

Yet another false claim RandFan. I've lost count now. You are very kind to keep telling me what I think because otherwise I might have difficulty in working that out. Are you claiming to be a mind reader now? If not, how do you know what I think other than by what I post on this site? Just asking. Like other unanswered questions. To prove this is yet another false claim all I have to do is show that I have answered one of your questions. Is that right? Good.You asked 'Could you clarify?' and I replied 'In a thread that you started I thought it might be of relevance to inquire who you thought were the experts on this matter, if any. As I understand it you don't feel that question is relevant.' QED. I might also refer to RandFan Responses Types 1 and 2. Do you want me to give more examples of where your latest claim is false? Like where I indicated that your options did not adequately reflect my views in response to your questions. If you made this latest claim only once in ignorance of the facts I could be charitable and consider that you were just being silly or stupid. If you however chose to repeatedly make this claim I would be forced to conclude that you did so with intent and in full possession of the facts. I wonder what the dictionary calls such people. Oh dear. The dictionary is not very nice on this one. Still, I am sure that you won't make the same false claim any more. Will you?

If you had answered my very first question on this subject this silly and stupid incident would have been over long ago. And for what? Stating that "to you it is proof". What a benign claim. What a stupid thing to start a debate about. I did not state that "YOU HAD PROVEN" that the war was about oil. I stated that "to YOU it is proof" and not that "YOU HAD PROVEN". Two different statements. I have said over and over that I meant your state of mind.

Still making false claims RandFan. You might at least stop digging the Grand Canyon for yourself but I am content to watch it grow even mightier. Why, one day you will have excavated it so much you will be able to visit Iraq without taking a plane. You latest claim is false for the simple reason that it is not just because you stated that " to you it is proof". That was only one of your false claims. Unfortunately you still do not appear to get it. Let me be blunt and explain for the umpteenth time exactly what the basis of your false claim was. You actually claimed 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' I have always pointed out that your claim is false on two grounds. A/ My views are based on many lines of circumstantial evidence taken together not serarately and B/ To me they are not "proof". I hope that is helpful to you in once again explaining that there are two reasons for your claim being false . Not one. Two. You have said over and over again that you meant my state of mind and I have told you over and over again that you cannot read my mind and that your claims are incorrect. Uri Geller claims he can read minds and as Randi has pointed out in his book The Truth About Uri Geller that claim is a complete load of rubbish. You cannot know my mind other than by what I post. That you cannot accept a simple statement by me about what I think is however your problem not mine. I will just keep pointing it out where I feel that you have misrepresented me.

So how about it E.J.? Are you going to continue to obfuscate and refuse to answer questions? Or are you going to stand up and just answer a simple question?

Are you going to answer my questions RandFan or does it only work one way? Do you want a RandFan Response Type 1 or do you want a RandFan Type 2 response?

Do you find it more likely than not that Bush is going to war primarily because of oil?

I have answered you many many times now that I believe that on the basis of many circumstantial lines of evidence including my experience in the oil industry that Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of large reserves of oil in that country. You talk about going to war. I do not. You omit the reasons for my belief, I do not. Take my position or leave it. It's up t you. If you want to add false dichotomies to the gruel of ad hominen attacks go right ahead but at least you might fairly represent my position in your questions.

Perhaps that question constitutes a false dilemma, ok then, just state that you do not have enough evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Bush is going to war because of oil.

Don't like those questions?
?

So perhaps you are begining to recognise how irrelevant your questions really are? Once again you are asking me to state something which does not adequately represent my views. Can I make that any plainer? I have given you my views. Why not debate them directly rather than continually offering me words of your chosing which I do not accept are adequately equivalent or relevant to your origina false claim? I have stated that I do not believe that my views are proven or that your one fact represents "proof". How many more times do you want me to state that simple fact? I am more than happy to oblige you for as long as it takes to get you to finally understand that simple statement and what my views actually are.

How about,

Does the evidence that you mentioned compel your mind to accept the proposition that "the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country"?

Hello? Am I geting through to you at last RandFan? I do hope so because your apparent inability to grasp this simple point would be worrying if I cared. I have clarified my view to you on many occasions. What exactly is it about my views that you don't understand? I have clearly stated that I believe that Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of large oil reserves in that country and that my belief is based on many different circumstantial lines of evidence including my experience in the oil industry. I do not consider that individually or in combination they are "proof" or proven. How much simpler do you want it? I have answered your question today as I have done before. If you want to substitute your words 'compel your mind' for my word 'believe' that is up to you I do not believe that they are equivalent as shown below. Compel 1 force, constrain (Oxford Compact English Dictionary 1996). No I don't think so.

Have you reached the conclusion that "the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country" based upon "application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions"

As stated many times now the word is 'believe'. Is that clear enough?

You CAN'T answer of those question either can you? If you did you would either be inconsistent or you would prove that I am right.

Let me see. Either I am wrong or I am wrong? Hmmm. Nope, this question does not adequately describe my position either. Can you now address my actual position as stated to you on many separate occasions? Just asking. Again.

Those are the only possible outcomes of responding in any meaningful way to my queries. You know that don't you? Otherwise you would answer.

Er. No, they are not. I have explained in detail how relevant your questions are. Please let me know when you are ready to answer my questions RandFan? Can you address my position as stated? Just asking. Again.

{sounds of crickets} I might as well be talking to the wall or JK for that matter. Getting you to answer a question is impossible. How can you expect to have credibility when you refuse to answer such simple questions. And I have taken pains to avoid any false dilemmas. I am not begging any question. My questions are based upon two things. A legal definition of the word proof and the dictionary definition of the word proof.

Yet another false claim RandFan. If there is just one occasion where I did answer a question then your latest claim is conclusively shown to be false. I have already done so. Trying this one on again. Now the dictionary definition of what you are doing is really not very pretty at all.

By the way Jedi Knight does not often justify his claims and one of your own response types is nada, zilch. An interesting comparison. Your questions invite me to accept summaries that I do not accept adequately summarise my views. I have answered them as I see fit and in doing so have supplied more rationale than you do in your type 2 responses.

I guess when the questions are based on definitions from those sources you just decide to ignore them.

That's a bit rich when I have posted the definition of the words I used and am very happy with my own words yet you continually try to get me to use words that you made up and ones I am not entirely happy with. Try again RandFan.

I expect that you will say allot and claim again that I have miss-stated your position but you will still refuse to answer

Am I not allowed to say allot. It's not a word I use often if at all anyway. If you mean that I might say a lot then yes I probably will. I do believe that is my perogative. Particularly when you continue with more false claims about me. Stopping digging can be a usedful exercise some times. Unless you know otherwise. Yes, if you miss-state my position I will point that out. I think that is also my perogative. Unless you know otherwise. By the way, as you still do not appear to have grasped the concept, I have answered your questions. You might not like the answers I gave but that is an entirely different matter. Cf RandFan Type 2 responses.

Oh well, as long as you continue to obfuscate, play obtuse and refuse to answer I will keep asking.

So obfuscaion is another of my qualities? I am privileged at this latest epithet. Please RandFan keep going. I am happy to continue to point out where you misrepresent me at each and every turn and as long as it takes. Let me go to your next post then and see if you continue in the same vein.

Again, wrong! Read the "record" again. I took a page out of your book and said "If...I was (such and such) I would call you.

Yes you're still at it. If I use a conditional clause it is still a clause. Likewise conditional claims are still claims. I hope that is clear. I can repeat it if you like. As often as it takes.

It was in response to your arrogant and patronizing "If... (blah blah) I would say Tut tut. That together with the fact that you would not answer my questions made me feel that you were being a prick and an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. However I did not call you an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ any more than YOU said Tut tut because to do so would be beneath us both. Hey, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Still at it I see.
As I have already pointed out ot you, you initially felt it appropriate to use CAPITAL LETTERS and multiple question marks in response to a reasonable comment from me if I recall that initially showed your propensity for waspish comment. I will never accept your attempts to make me accept words which do not adequately represent my postion. Is that clear to you at last? I do hope so. I would not expect it of you and as such will not accept it from you. I am very happy for you to dish out ad hominen attacks as often as you wish RandFan. It shows the true measure of your intellectual arguments. I just don't think it advances your case at all. How about some concrete arguments that actually address my own words rather than the words you want to use? That would be more interesting. I d also recall saing smething to the effect that this is fun.

Yes it is clear "to me" that this is consistent with the legal definition of proof. In other words, you have arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence and logic. That you believe that the preponderance of evidence leads you to believe that Bush is doing this primarily because of oil. In other words according to the legal and dictionary definitions, the evidence to you is "proof".

It may be clear to you RandFan. If so I am very happy that you are happy but I simply disagree with your justificaion of your claims and have shown time and time again why your original claim was false. Can I just remind you that you said 'But E.J., I have no responsibility to explain to you exactly how I arrive at my point of view. If you don't like that then tough. ' Interesingly you seem to like doing just that for me RandFan.

Why won't you just answer the question clearly?

Very, very slowly let me take you trough it again. I have answered your questions. You just don't like the answers.Why my answeres are often more informative than your own Type 2 responses. When you come up with a question that fairly represents my views please let me know.

Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact or deny that simple fact?

When you come up with a question which fairly represents my views please let me know. Otherwise, why not try the novel approach of actually debating my own words? Just asking. Again.

Hold on, if you refuse to answer all other questions could YOU JUST ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION? PLEASE I am begging you just this one question, ok here goes-

When you say proof, do you mean




Beyond a reasonable doubt proof?

Clear and convincing evidence proof?

Preponderance of the evidence proof?
-

Yet more CAPITAL LETTERS. They really do make your position so much clearer. Why not use them all the time? Unfortunately this is yet another false premise. I have addressed your questions. You just do not like the result. When I say proof I mean it exactly as per the Oxford Compact English dictionary 1996 edition in the sense of ' ...establishing ...a fact.' As I do not believe that my views are established (place beyond dispute (a fact etc)) therefore to me my views are not proven nor do I consider the one fact you claimed is "proof", therefore your claim is false. QED.

As I have stated before, I honestly believe that you have arrived at a conclusion based upon the preponderance of the evidence.

As I have stated before to me the simple fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is not "proof" on any basis whatsoever.

Question (I know why bother, you refuse to answer questions): Am I entitled to arrive at a conclusion as to your state of mind based upon the evidence (your own words and the legal definition and or the dictionary definition of "proof") and logic?

Another false claim. For this latest claim to be false all I have to do is show that I have answered just one of your questions? I have already done so. Yet you are still at it. If you misrepresent my views either deliberately or otherwise I am entitled to let you know. You are entitled to arrive at any conclusion you want. But if it is false and claims to be about what I think then I will always tell you when you are wrong and in your original claim you are simply and completely wrong.

Of course this would have been all over some time ago if you would have just answered the question.

In other words if I agreed to words I did not use and do not feel adequately represents my views you would be happy. In the American patois - get a life. Would you accept me insisting that you must choose between views which you considered misrepresented your own. I really don't think so.

Perhaps the problem is just communication and you are arguing beyond a reasonable doubt proof while I am arguing preponderance of the evidence proof.

No I don't think so. I do not consider that your original false claim has been justified or rescinded. You made a simple unconditional claim which stated that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' It is false in two ways. I somehow don't think that calling me a liar was a matter of miscommunication either. Unless you know different.

I accept that you have not reached level 1 or level 2. I accept that. However, your words clearly illustrate TO ME that you have reached a conclusion based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

Now we are getting somewhere. Why did you not state that clearly in your original quote instead of continually telling me what is in my mind despite all my simple statements to the contrary?

Shouldn't you be willing to state why the dictionary or legal definition of proof (ba a preponderance of the evidence) is wrong?

Because I have already given you the dictionary definitions of the relevant words I did use. I do not consider my position is proven because I do not feel that the fact has been established. Nor have I ever felt that the one fact you mentioned represents "proof" of any kind. Can I make that any cearer? You made a claim about my state of mind. You are factually incorrect in two material ways. QED.

Shouldn't you be willing to state why the dictionary or legal definition of proof (ba a preponderance of the evidence) is wrong?

Really?

Please consider the following,

The video is proof that the defendant committed the crime.

Question I know, you don't like answering questions but, Is that a valid statement?

If so then does it show that the proof is singular?

Now I believe that we are getting to the nub of the matter. The answer is yes really. You claimed that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' You mentioned only one fact, which I have aready stated is factually incorrect because on its own it would not lead me to my view. You can show nowhere that I stated that fact or any other fact would form "proof" so therefore you cannot claim that it is on the basis of that one fact (singular) that I arrived at "proof". It is on the basis of a number of lines of evidence, including my experience in the oil industry, that leads me to believe that Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the prescence of large oil reserves in that country. You claimed that it was only one fact that established "proof". That is totally incorrect. I do not know how you could have put it any simpler. I have already told you RandFan that one fact is insufficient to establish my views. Do you get it now? The fact you mentioned is insufficient for me to take my views because my views are based on many independent lines of circumstantial evidence taken together. How can I put this any simpler? Let me also correct your latest false claim that I do not like answering questions. I have shown repeatedly that I am prepared to take the time to answer your questions and at one point I actually said this is fun. I never stated that I would give you the answers you wanted and I think you will have to learn that lesson. You really have done your case a disservice by your repeated false assertions RandFan.

Let us take your video example. It makes my case for me. If I had stated that it was the video in combination with othe lines of evidence that established proof and that the video alone did not do that then your example statement would not be a valid statement. Do you get it now? Your logic is simply factually incorrect.

If so then does it show that the proof is singular?

If the proof was based on many things each requiring the other then the fact that you quote just one item makes the statement factually incorrect. Do you understand now? The evidence is linked. Each does not stand alone as proof. Every item is required. You made a false claim about me by claiming that it was only one item which provided "proof" to me. That is simply, unambiguously and on any interpretation of the English language, wrong. If you can't admit that then that is fine by me. I wll live with the misrepresentation. I have pointed out why it is wrong. On many boring occasions and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

John's kiss was proof to Mary that he liked her.

(please note "to Mary" as in "proof to you")

Not "singular" because the diamond ring that John gave Mary was also "proof".

To say that something is proof is not to say that it is in and of itself the "only" proof. It does not say that the proof is "singular".

Would you not agree? (sorry I forgot, you don't answer questions)

Yet another false claim. Enough already. To show that your latest claim is false all I have to do is show that I answered a question previously. QED. Do you really want me to show how often you have misrepresented my position RandFan? I am happy to keep helping you to dig your hole if you want. If Mary doesn't believe that a kiss on its own is proof then it is not proof. I really would have thought that simple proposition would have got through to you by now.
Likewise, I stated that there were many reasons for my views. Not one alone or in isolation, which you would have to prove was the case before your claim could be correct. You have failed to show that was the case and the examples you have given here simply prove my point. That you cannot understand that does not concern me over much because I will simply exercise my right to point out where you are making false clams about me (or my state of mind which is getting worse by the paragraph. Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn has gone to sleep despite me kicking him every two minutes or was that two false claims. I forget now.)

Ahhh... but there you are putting words in my mouth because I never claimed that you believed that your view point was proven.

Let us keep your words in mind here. You claimed that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'
So if it wasn't me who took that view who exactly was it RandFan? If you weren't addressing me or talking about me and what I think who were you addressing then? Like many other questions, just asking?

To 5 jurors, the evidence was "proof" by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the crime. To the other 7 it was not "proof."

And your point is what exactly? If you are not claiming that the five jurors didn't believe it was proof then what exactly did they believe? Either they believed it was proof as you claim or not. Your examples are just making my case for me. Sorry but I simply do not believe that you are making much sense any more.

So, here we have an example where the evidence was "proof" but not "proven".

Your example again makes my case. The five jurors took the evidence was "proof". You claimed that the one fact was "proof" to me. It was not. QED. By the way the five jurors have escaped over the barbed wire when they found that the other seven were too smug to live with a moment longer.

Do you see the difference? (hell will freeze over before you answer).

Yet aother false claim. My my RandFan you really don't seem to care how you are viewed. Apparently it was "proof" to me but not "proven" to me. On either basis your original claim is still false on two counts.

Proof to some but not all. And note not "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt and not "proof" by clear and convincing evidence.

Another question that you will not answer. Why will you not acknowledge that there are different levels of proof?

Yet another false claim. Keep them coming if you want. It's almost one a paragraph now. You are now going off on some tangent that is irrelevant to the false claims you made. Yea verily saith the lord let us not loseth the focus. For losing the focus is the work of the devil. You made a false claim about me. Are you now saying that to me the one fact wasn't proof. ZZZZZZZ..... What exactly are you trying to say here RandFan? You did not specify in your original claim (remind me what was that exactly? I seem to have lost a few gazillion brain cells in the course of this 'debate'.) what level of proof you were talking about? What exactly is it that you are trying to say here? What ever the number of different levels of proof there might be on this earth or Fuller's your claim is still false becaue it was not on the basis of only one fact that I arrived at my view. It was on the basis of many different lines of evidence taken together. I told you that was the case and you have never shown one place where I stated otherwise. In the absence of such evidence you can only be making your claim on the basis of an ability to read my mind which I know you can't (ya boo sucks) (sorry - terminal boredom) therefore your claim is completely false. QED.

I am also happy to move on if you would just ANSWER my questions. But no, obfuscate, ignore, claim, miss-state my positions (ironic since that is the very thing you claim that I am doing) and refuse to respond in a meaningful way. I guess we will be at this for some time to come.

More CAPITAL LETTERS I see. Le me tell you for the n'th time then. I have answered your questions as I see fit. They do not adequately encompass my views which I have posted again and again but you seem reluctant to actually debate the words I used rather than words you made up. But that is a matter for you. You still have to learn to distinguish between answers and answers you want. They are not always the same. You cannot demand in CAPITAL LETTERS that others do things you won't. Do I make myself clear at last or will you still refuse to learn these simple lessons. You keep talking aout my state of mind on the basis of factually incorrect assumptions. When I correct you you are reluctant to be told so I can only assume that you are engaged in Uri Geller type justification for your position. I really don't think you are on the right forum to continue to press that particlar point if that is indeed what you are trying to do but I am more than happy to help you continue digging. Now when you stop making unfounded claims about people you might start to be taken seriously. Why not start by accepting that I know my own mind better than you do. Or not as you wish. I'm just asking.

And so endeth the Book of Righteous Indignation. Never had the word false been written so many times in a single thread. And the scribe put down his pen (ok keyboard) and said yea verily the dictionary needeth a new word for tedium because verily the word tedium doth not do justice to this subject. Across the land a mighty snoring was to be heard as, yea, even in the very height of day, those standing upright fell down before a paragraph was finished, as if they had been smitten by the plague. Even the fish in the sea and the lambs in the fields fell asleep as news of the great RandFan Response Type 2 question reached their ears. Even the sharks who never slept cried 'Enough already' and the flowers in the forest shrivelled in despair. The apothecaries however rent their clothes and cried that the very essence of RandFan Response Type 2 was the answer to their prayers and insomnia was banished from the land. And everyone slept soundly ever afterwards. Amen.

Or not.

 

[Shane Costello]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[RandFan]

E.J.,

Put down the ego for just a minute and let's communicate.

I honestly believe that your circumstantial evidence and your knowledge of the oil industry has tipped the scales in your mind so that you believe that it is more likely than not that oil is the primary reason that Bush is going to war.

That is all that I have tried to say. I did not try to say that you had proof that would convince everyone or proof that met some other standard.

Let me ask you this question. What if I restated my original statement?

To you, the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is evidence that along with other circumstantial evidence and your knowledge of the oil industry leads you to believe that it is more likely than not that Bush is starting a war for oil.

Would that be a correct statement and would it make you happy if I used that statement instead of my original and we could move on? That was what I was trying to say and nothing else.

 

[CWL]

Well, it is a fact that Iraq has the world's second largest known oil resources - about 112,5 billion barrels. With an average price of USD 25 per barrel the Iraqi oil assets would have a market value of at least USD 2,800 billion (all according to leading Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet).

However, it is not evident that this motivates a war. On the contrary. In economic terms it simply does not add up. I have seen calculations according to which the direct costs for a war would be around USD 50 - 100 billion. One can imagine that the reconstruction after a war would cost at least that much as well. And the US cannot just walk in there and "expropriate" the oil resources if they are to install a regime which is more friendly towards the West at the same time. Even in the future, the main portion of the revenues of the Iraqi oil resources will go to the Iraqi people.

Moreover, it is doubtful whether the US has an interest in the marked being flooded by cheap oil. Apparently, the State of Texas (from where Mr. Bush stems) had serious problems in the beginning of the 1980's when the price on oil had plummeted to USD 10 per barrel. On the contrary, the US reasonably has the same interest as Opec - a steady price between USD 20 to 30 per barrel. Kuwait proved that it is cheaper to buy oil than to conquer it...

For the above reasons, I personally don't think the war is about oil, no.

 

[armageddonman]

We rule and you don't.

You should read "The rise and fall of the great powers" by Paul Kennedy some day. You might be surprised to learn where an attitude like yours can lead to.