oil peak starting to look like hoax...thoughts?

once the bases are in place, and the robots are let loose it will be relatively cheap.

There is no atmosphere on the Moon.

The microwave broadcasters would follow a particular spot on the Earth .

We in America would becomes the kings of energy. outproducing the world in this.

And I quote the OPEC pres, "We are expecting a drop in (oil) demand in 2005, by approximatly 1 million bbl's"

US has stopped filling its SPR. That should account for 100K.

US economy is probably going to be slowing down. The real estate bubble may actually act as a drag on consumer spending after a time since the homebuilders are gunning for 45 % of household income to be devoted to mortgage payments.

US military will start to pull out of Iraq by mid-year.

China was hoarding oil, importing as much as twice its present needs in anticipation of future shortages (due to a potential US confrontation for Iran). They're starting to brace the economy for a slowdown because of high inflation and overproduction of automobiles.

There may be plenty of oil being produced now but it may come at the cost of damanging oil reservoirs through "overpumping". There was some question that both Iraq and Saudi Arabia were utilizing such techniquest to increase current output.


[edit on 12-12-2004 by lchoro]

I just got gas at $1.45 per gallon. Most gas stations are at $1.64 per gallon.
So far I have seen web sites giving evidence that are at the opposite ends of the spectrum concerning peak oil. Anyone else have any evidence that can prove one or or another if peak oil is at hand.

Whooopeee, the energy crisis is OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


well according to you it is.

The energy problem is ongoing forever, up some, down some, the search for more and better sources will ne'er end , ever.

or are ye so shallow as to think it might?

bodebliss you're crazy. You have provided no info whatsoever to back up your claims on the moon and the technicalities don't hold up.

Anway, even if peak oil is a myth, we will still have to stop using it at some point or die of the fumes. It would almost be better if it ran out than if it didn't, becuase either we stop using it voluntarily, it runs out, or we die of pollution. End of story.

I'm with Gools. It doesn't matter what the source is. That is an acedemic question.

Ok My Sceptics,

research is not in your nature I see.

Here start:

greennature.com...

www.physicscentral.com...

www.pulseplanet.com...

powerweb.grc.nasa.gov...

You are welcome to deny ignorance.

Bode Bliss

Nice post bodebliss. You have helped me to look past the end of my nose. On another post I indicated the US should cut back its military budget by 300 billion by eliminating bases etc... and investing it into R&D into renewable energy. Well here it is. Estimated price tag of proposed lunar solar arrays is 150 billion. Very cool!!! If we want to go to mars we will need a solid reliable energy source and moon based solar power generators will do the trick.
This would make the US first in robotics and solar power technologies as well as space flight etc... This could fuel our planet with energy and our economy for a long time to come as well finally get man into space exploration past the known solar system.


Scientists Look to Moonbeams for Earth Energy
By
Senior Space Writer
posted: 07:01 am ET
13 July 2000

WASHINGTON -- A solution to world energy woes and rising gasoline prices might require looking off Earth at our nearest celestial neighbor -- the moon.

Power-beaming satellites have been advocated for numbers of years as a way for energy-hungry Earthlings to develop new sources of power to meet needs in the 21st century.

At the moon, Earth already has a heavenly equivalent to a wall plug, says David Criswell, director of the Institute for Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston in Texas.

"There's no need to build the moon," Criswell told SPACE.com. By mid 21st century, enough lunar solar power can be imported Earthward to supply the world's population of 10 billion people to meet all basic human needs, he said.

For the last two decades, Criswell has been on a lunar crusade of sorts. Starting in the 1970s, he and engineering colleague, Robert Waldron, promoted the idea of turning lunar soils and rocks into useful products.

Thanks to the Apollo program, moonwalking astronauts were the first prospectors of another world. Hundreds of pounds of lunar samples have been studied, showing great potential for manufacturing.

The moon: Earth's future power hub?

There are no "magic" resources or technologies needed, Criswell said. Any handful of lunar dust and rocks will do. That lunar material contains quantities of silicon oxygen and metals, such as iron and aluminum, he said.

Lunar dust can be used directly as thermal, electrical and radiation shields. Also, the dust can be converted into glass, fiberglass and ceramics, not to mention solar cells, electric wiring, microcircuitry and other items.

"Solar-cell technology here on Earth is done in vacuum or near-vacuum conditions. And those conditions are certainly available on the moon, at almost no cost," Criswell said.

On-the-spot beaming

Criswell envisions that large fields of made-on-the-moon solar cells can energize sets of microwave transmitters. These transmitters would be in synch to deliver microwave power to receivers on Earth.

In order to provide inexpensive electric energy to Earth, most of the lunar-situated hardware must be manufactured on the spot, Criswell said. Some high-technology items would be ferried to the moon from Earth, he said.

Pairs of solar farms would be planted in the lunar highlands, on the east and west limbs of the moon, near the equator.

As part of the Lunar Solar Power System, beams of microwaves from the moon are directed to receiving antennas on Earth called "rectennas". They operate when they are in view of the moon. Simple reflectors or active re-transmitters in Earth orbit can redirect energy beams to ground rectennas at times when they are not in sight of the moon.

Solar sails circling the moon would be required to reflect sunlight down to the lunar sites, especially when the moon is in eclipse of Earth, and when the site is no longer in sunlight.

"The more sunlight that can be directed to the site, then the more energy output for Earth," Criswell said.

Not only Earth could benefit from moon beaming.

In full operation, re-targeted lunar-based transmitters could supply power out past Jupiter, Criswell said.

Step-by-step plans

How soon can a Lunar Solar Power System plan be started?

"This is like having a baby. You can have it in 100 years or 10 years," Criswell said. "It can be done in 10-year increments," he said.

A first step would be 10 years of planning -- sketching out business plans and carrying out hardware demonstrations here on Earth. Building up the technical community to run such a lunar power base is key, Criswell said.

~

To demonstrate the idea's practicality, sets of lunar-landing robots can be dispatched to the moon. Once there, they would unfurl solar arrays, then operate in tandem to transmit a collective low-energy beam back to Earth.

"This type of activity could be started very quickly," Criswell said. Follow-on stages would mean sending equipment to the moon, showing how products can be made of lunar soil and rock.

Eventually, the moon would be dotted with factories, robot tractors and repair shops -- all part of building up the Lunar Solar Power System, Criswell said.

Given the closeness of the moon, one-way radio signals from Earth take only 1.3 seconds to cross space. On-duty robots, controlled from Earth could do the building, operation and maintenance of lunar power-beaming sites, Criswell said. "You will need some people, but how many, I'm not sure at this point," he said.

The price tag for bringing the moon on line, and churning out power for Earth is about $150 billion, roughly twice the cost of the Apollo program in today's dollars, Criswell said. Capable of churning out more and more power over the years, by 2015, 1,000 gigawatts of power could be pumped to Earth from the moon, he said.

"Everybody's grandchildren right now would be energy prosperous by 2050," he said. "If you don't have access to cheap energy, that's one of the things like not having enough air."

Weaning the Earth off our current carbon-based energy system is a must, Criswell said. "Otherwise we're going to stay in a precarious situation. If you want a prosperous world, there just are no other options," he added.

Robots need supervision

Not everyone is ready to hook up to Criswell's lunar power supply, however.

"My own feeling is that he may well be right, but the idea is downstream," said Bryan Erb, president of the Sunsat Energy Council, based in Houston, Texas. The group backs a first-things-first approach, namely the building of satellite power stations in Earth orbit.

"It takes a big investment to get back to the moon," Erb said. "I just don't see a graceful migration path to get to a lunar power system without a massive up-front investment," he said.

Erb said he views the Criswell proposal as a "vast undertaking" that would be very costly. "If you could overcome that hurdle, then there's a lot of promise in his idea of using the moon," he said.

Taking a wait-and-see attitude is Paul Werbos, program director for control networks and computational intelligence at the National Science Foundation. He recently co-sponsored with NASA a workshop that looked over the Criswell plan, among other space-research issues.

"We don't have a definite verdict, but I am much more optimistic than before," Werbos said. "The opportunity is so great, we should not lose the opportunity."

Werbos said that a critical aspect of Criswell's idea is use of tele-autonomy, that is, how to coordinate human beings on Earth with on-the-job robots stationed on the moon.

"That's the key concept in my mind in order to build any kind of large-scale space power system -- on the Earth or on the moon," he said. "How do you get robots smart enough to do their job under a kind of loose supervision arrangement?"

[edit on 13-12-2004 by cryptorsa1001]

Were we to go ahead with this Moon power plan, we would be exporting energy to the world in the form of US power plants in foreign lands and hydrogen tankers bringing power to the vehicles of Earth.

We would be the top of the energy producers of Earth, and oil and coal would be relegated to hydro-carbon raw material use.

Hoax? Not sure... record prices though. What ever it was it worked, free oil from Iraq to sell at record price?

It's almost like someone planned it this way....

By the year 2050 the World will need the equivalent of 25 trillion watts to equal the energy we use on Earth from all sources. By the end of this century you can count on energy use figures of 50 trillion watts.

The Moon bases could be producing 1 trillion watts within 10 years.

That would be a Great Start! To be ready for the future we need to start moving or face a downgrading of our expectations not just for us, but our children's children's children.

I don't want that, do you?

I completely agree, Bodebliss.

The moon is an excellent place to set up solar panels, especially considering that one side of the moon pretty much always faces us (making laser power beams to and from the moon much easier).

I just had a thought of a bird flying in the way of one of those laser beams. I wonder if Animal Rights activists would argue for the safety of the birds like the way they argue for dolphins and other aquatic life that get killed by hydroelectric dams.

Strap a little butter on the birds back and then let em fly thru the laser beam. Mighty good tasting bird. Moon beam raosted just the way I like em.

From what I've read in the literature , the microwave beams would be light enough to allow migrating birds , but local birds and workers would need some protection.

The world we live on can not afford to run out of energy. Energy usage and economic activity has a direct correlation, 1:1 .

This is an interesting subject.

My question is described in the movie, "Contact" where the zealots destroy your structure because it represents a satanic structure to them (it doesn't glorify Allah or takes from His glory, it resembles the Tower of Babel, etc). Wouldn't your robot energy matrix be easily shattered by some idiot with a bomb?

This project, like the International Space Station, seems ill conceived in respect to its fragility. Surely you aren't suggesting that nobody would try to turn the lights out on this power source. In a world of perfect humans, it's a great idea, however.

In our current world, the powers in charge are more concerned with power sources that are easily defended like oil wells or coal reserves.

I don't believe any sort of program could ever hope to get rid of all destructive zealots. I also do not believe such people could be reasoned with and if they saw your shining tower as Satan's tool, there'd be no convincing them otherwise.

Well I'm sitting here on Ensign drilling rig #87 up in Fort Nelson B.C. (Canada) drilling away in the Jean Marie Formation (limestone) at about 1477m TVD, (940m below sea level) searching for natural gas. I happen to be an actual geologist subcontracted out to EnCanna. I'm drilling a horizontal well. I'm just shaking my head at some of these posts.

Dinosaurs actually only make up less than 0.00000000000000000001% of the world's oil.
The reason they mention dinosaurs in school while teaching about petroleum is to keep little kids interested in science. Little kids >>>>>Dinosuars>>>>>attention grabber!
There are trillions upon trillions of micro organisms dying in the ocean every second; falling the the ocean floor as we speak; getting covered by sediment & silt, travelling under subjection zones over time and being turned into oil over extremely long periods of time. Not to mention algae etc.
Just what do you think limestone is made up of anyways, packstone equals millions of tiny micro fossils.

There are literally 100's upon 100's of oil wells drilled by my home in Estevan, Saskatchewan, and believe me none of them are filling back up with oil. Many of them are now abandoned or turned into injector wells or disposal wells.
We are trully running out of oil!!!
Not to mention the entire third world is now demanding there fair share as they advance technologically. Plastic, pesticides, fertillizers, anti-biotics (yep even medicine), absolutely everything has some connection with petroleum. Even if the world used electric cars, we still would be running out of oil. You still need oil to lubricate mechanical parts etc.
You cannot have cities with millions of people in them because how do transport the food from the agricultural areas to them. Horse & buggy?
90% of the earth's electricity in generated by coal!
Thank God Canada has one of the worlds largest Natural Gas deposits, freshwater, oil, Uranium, Potash, lumber (trees), farmland, diamonds, iron ore, nickel, copper, the list goes on, & on. We are safe but the rest of the world is seriously hooped!
And Horay for Global Warming, No Artic Ice = The Northwest passage, changing shipping routes and world economics opening up even more areas to explore for hydrocarbons and human living area.
Canada can only benefit from a warmer planet. But then the earth is suppossed to be getting warmer, thats what it does, it works in cycles based on procession around the sun etc. We are actually coming out of an ice age as we speak. The entrie planet's land mass was once a swamp, a jungle, a rain forest. The planet is actually supposed to be warmer.
So lay of the oil & gas companies and your whacked out conspiracy theories about peak oil!
Reebok, nike, Nintendo, Microsoft cause just as much if not more damage to the environment. You've just been brainwashed by the media since you were children that oil companies are evil. They simply supply a product the world can not live without! Unless you want to go live in a cave & eat berries!
The world is controlled bye the very few wealthy elite. Old money versus New money. Old money controll the media, New money got rich from resources thus the war rages on and your caught in the middle.
Oil companies are comprised of millions of people working to make a living to feed there children. Geologists, Engineers, Directional drillers, MWD hands, Riggers, Truckers, surveyors, land administrators, refineries, secretaries, mail personel etc. Actual humans who care about the world!
Not some evil entity out to deystroy the world and create war!

I think that this peak oil thing is desinged to get the price of crude up to a point where OPEC can keep bilking America and the rest of the civiilized world. Certanly if the wolf says"Dwindling oil reserves" the people are going to expect a cost increase due to the supply and demand principle. I feel that OPEC and other non-members are saying this to to prop up the price of oil. I do have one question concerning the peak oil therory: Do the giant oil companies imply this to the yet undescovered oil reserves?

Hmmm.
I think that the US is doing much harm in Iraq. War should always be the LAST resort.
Any weapons (initial reason)...no.
Oil... sure is. You may not see figures on teir gains in oil, but that is because it is profiting the countries investors, and large corperations.
When the US entered, cleared out those "thoulsands of terrorists" sothey claim.. they started pumping all the black gold. Ofcourse they would bring in a few helpers here and there, to make it look like a 'liberational effort", but what they loose on those helpers, they gain 2-3 times as much on the oil. Ofcourse we can't ruin America's image, lets send them a present after the damage we have caused.

I have killed some of their claims and figures from earlier (when I couldn't spell ), have a read:

"I have overlooked this debate again, and Lazaretto, i have found your strongest points.....
"* School attendance is up 80% since before the war."
Before which war? The gulf war? or this current war?
another query about this is that we must remember that before America's involvement, Iraq was a VERY RICH COUNTRY. Being 2nd in the world with 'oil' exports is not too shabby at all! If Sadaam wanted an army, he would (appart from possibly a few others) firstly look at a good education system

"* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and gotten rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur."
I want to know exactly where you got this information from.

"* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster."
Iraq was an Extremely stable country before america, once again i bring up the profitts from its oil factories... It may have needed that port to obtain imports, (grain) as you mentioned, yet they could have had deals made with Kazakstan, (a very strong grain producer), along with their own makings

"* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August."
first? are you certain?

" Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq."
This is complete nonsence, in a country as economically stable and strong as Iraq, its quite possible for a below-average member to recieve water

" The country now receives two times the electrical power it did before the war."
Wohohow your going down
Current Iraqi electric facilities are mostly of a 'soviet' origin, it is (well, should be) well known that it would take at leats a couple of years, if not 10's to build an electric station, This war has been lasting 1/2 a year, so appart from america's false bombings that may have damaged some, where did the electricity come from? It is possible that electric stations are being built, but it is NOT possible to extract electricity from an unfinnished station, much as it is impossible to extract many apples from a apple seed

" 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war."
Once again, which war? and this is compared to what?
If Iraq had 50 hospitals with 1/2 the staff, and now (after this current war) has 25 (due to bombings) with full staff, mathematically, it is the same.
More figures are required for this statement, and explinations....its the same as me saying, " ok 5, not convinced? , how about 7, or 8 even?" no sence.

" Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place. "
May i remind you that before this current war, Iraq was a democracy, Sadaam was a president, meanning that elections took place

-----abit off topic here, I know of a girl (this is completely true) that was russian, and moved to live in iraq for 4 years, later she returned, (before this current war) and was asked to write an essay about iraq, (everyone expected her to write much as america's propaganda states) yet they were surprised at her writing about how Sadaam (Yes, this 'evil dictator') being like a farthre to his people. (and not because the books there statted so) this was a free speech exersise, this girl actually Lived among them for 4 Years, and these were her sayings. Her teacher got that article published in many magazines in london, and people were shocked. -----------

" Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city."
By who i am interested, By the american soldiers?
And who is to say that the cities didn't have a good system back then? Before writing anything against this, you must keep in mind that before this current, and the gulf war, Iraq was Extremely wealthy country.

" Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets."
once more, compared to what? what if there were more before this attack?
and once more '9 are you convinced?'

" Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defence police are securing the country."
like a broken record here, compared to how many?
also, would they really need this many to control if not for america, think what you will of that.

" Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side US soldiers."
again, would they need to If?

" Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever."
now that is a random, useless fact if i see it right?
Iraq (once again) was wealthy, VERY wealthy, and even more than australia, dont you think that they could afford a few phones? + I dought that Sadaam was specifically prohibiting the imports of fones to his people.

" Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. "
And when european settlers came here, they taught the aboriginees how to farm etc. for them, does that really make the aboriginees seem like they couldn't get food? see the relation?

" An interim constitution has been signed. "
which was made by ????? yup, America.

"* Girls are allowed to attend school."
This statement is completely false, Iraq and Iran have been more generous to femail members than the rest of the middle east region, girls did not have to wear Vails, and had absolutely equal opportunities as the boys in Iraq.
Also, (an unrelayed point) Iraq was tollerant to all religeons (unlike places like saudi arabia) and there was much leanway with religeon.

" Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years. [Before this, Saddam was frequently mentioned, as he had set himself in a super-hero like standing, much as Stalin had in his USSR.] "
It is complete nonsence that Sadaam was mentioned in every schoolbook, also it is complete nonsence that stalin was, yet this topic is not about that.
I wont trouble myself with specific details (which i have), but i will bring forth an example:
In maths books, they would not have " a(sadaam) b(iraq + people) c(utopia), so a+b=c)

"Do any of you recall hearing/reading about the celebrations when the US/coalition forces liberated Afghan cities and towns from the Taliban? People were digging up their TVs and VCRs, which they had to hide from the Taliban. "
My theory is that three was no Taliban In afganistan before america came. They, (knowing american forces were there) they arrived, began havvoc and tortures of the american soldiers, and unfortunately it looks as this is Iraq's fate later on.

"One of the reasons the death toll in Iraq is so high is because they're bombing their own people. Now who do you think is the bigger terrorist? "
I think that they are trying to bring attention to their situation )a
trying to scare america off)b
and trying to get as many american casualties as possible )c

"The Iraqis, themselves, always pause to curb their comments with "we will always be eternally grateful that the Americans liberated us."
IF this was the case, (and i expect this answered) Why do you think that Iraqi people are capturing forigners, and killing them on tape? you mentioned ------
"In fact the Iraqis themselves WANT the American army in Iraq. The governing council voted unanimously to keep Coalition troops in Iraq indefinetly. "
and these 'unanimous' results were set up and cast by who???????? right again! America, offcourse they (americans, and the seleted few pro-americans in iraq) would vote unanimously, so explain all the killings on tape?

"I find it interesting that, with Saddam having had over 10 years and more than twice that in practice in hiding his weapons of mass destruction, that you expect them to be found in a matter of months. Realistically, the US is busy doing a lot more than just looking for chemical warheads - they're rebuilding a country.
(unrelated) ok, Iraq in this case was a "Damocracy" yes, thats right.... Iraq was more democratic than britain and therefore australia is today. Practically looking at things, britain is supposed to be a democracy? Well there is a queen..remember her? She nominates a govenor general, and he can decide upon anyhing australia does, even in these upcoming elections. So, australia is a constitutional part of a higher monarchy..
In Iraq, the next president or whatever, was set to NOT be sadaam's son or daughter (yet it was not prohibited), but anyone at all from the whole country.
(related) ok, this may be the hardest for me, so hear me out... It Is Not Easy To Make A 'Weapon Of Mass Destruction'! This takes many Skilled, Qualified workers, Factories, Materials, Equipment. I mean Geez, you could look up on the net how to make an attom bomb, but try do it. Making an atom bomb was as easy for sadaam (if at all which i doubt) than it would be for you to make a working car, with your bear hands. And knowing this, you must come to the conclusion that such a project would be easier to reveal than hide...
My personal theory is that onbly after america found out that iraq did NOT have 'weapons of mass destruction' did they enter, because if they did, guess where they are being aimed? BING BING BING, America...
I'll let you think about those facts and come to your own conclusions...

a little more---

If america was so 'gratious' towards iraq, why did they undress them and put on collars like animals (that they thought they were ) and put it on camera? "

I will bring anothew point at hand---

*But do you suggest that we wait around for the terrorists to attack, and not do anything to try to stop them at their source? There's always a way around any defence, the only way to stop terrorism is to get rid of it. And the only way to get rid of it is to kill or capture terrorists. And when the terrorists love to do things like make mosques and hospitals into bunkers, well there's not much choice in the matter of killing civilians.

Firstly, What is this 'sourse' which you speak of? A country can not represent a 'way of life' such as terrorism, no more than a country can represent people who play tennis... If tomorow (as an example) you awoke to find that anyone who hates tennis is evil, and we must get to their source, where would you look?
it is stupid to look at a particular country, because, and correct me if i'm wrong, but anyone who opposes america, is potentially a terrorist..having said this, what country are terrorists lurcking in?

Looking for potential terrorists is no different than looking for aethists, they cannot have a set 'front' or 'stronghold', the idea is preposterous.

So how do you expect us to 'act' knowing this?

This is another reason why the whole idea of 'the war against terror' is preposterous, and, EVEN IFF SOMEHOW all the terrorists came to afganistan or whatever, what is to say that they will stay there and wait to all be dealt wih at once? this idea is nonsence.

Now this is interesting... Already on australian news it is shown that head of CIA weapon search comity confirms that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor are they expected to be found at all. This mildly renders the American reason from Iraq's invasion (as they called it in the news) as false. I think soon the truth will come out about all this stuff, somehow, untill then, believe what you want.

*The UN simply stated they couldnt find anything. As a said before, pre-9/11 was even less then rumors, would u have acted? The CIA said they had informatns, data and some aerial phographs of Iraq.

-Even so, you cannot deny that America had no NO place within Iraq. This was a war against terrorists (which America itsself saw as being in Afganistan). So why attack Iraq?

I see that as being answered as

a)their black gold (oil)
b)to divert attention from dying progress in Afganistan
c)to once again 'show america's might' (even though to me its cowardness)
d)to set up a front in the middle east to carry out anything they may need in the future.
*************************************8

These are all old posts of mine...

I see it now as, the US is tryin to hold up a tree for as long as they possibly can. They have so much cement. Too much cement, and the tree dies... too little and it falls over..

The bottom line is, this war is Unjustified, and the world should never have let the US invade Iraq.

I guess the Iraq invasion WMD outcome had no impact on the thoughts of skeptics to the Peak Oil situation. Pass off the tragedy of the non-threat of Iraq and the continued U.S. military presence there as nothing more than a giant intelligence blunder and "democracy building" for the sake of the War On Terror, but facts are that it was all a lie for a desperate oil grab. Deception is what intelligence services do, and they did their job perfectly.

As for living the lifestyle we currently live, if as many scientists suggest, thats going to have to change at some point soon anyway. Lest the earth burn up leading us to a rapid starvation/extinction scenario.

Leave the iraq war off this post. This is about oil's formation. Biotic or Abiotic! Finite or infinte availiblity.
Understand?
wine about your anti-war crap on a different thread.
Nuke Quebec!

This thread is about whether or not oil is in decline. Its in the "political conspiracies" section of ATS of which war is a major political tool. There is nothing in the first post made about keeping information out of this thread if you think it pertains to the subject. Which I think the invasion of Iraq does.

There have already been two posts mentioning the war anyway earlier in the thread. I'm just putting my opinion in here as well whether you like it or not.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Frith]