More rights gone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Milk3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral88</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was a famous american general who said: "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" </div></div>
I personally like that saying but it will never be used with the hippie liberals we got in Washington </div></div>

Yes, the US should have killed everybody in Iraq....no wait, that was our goal- to SAVE Iraq, be hard to save them AND kill them. This is the reason I keep bringing up planning at what stage the war should be ended, before you start one.

OPEC in-fighting....I always wonder how this will affect the mid-east nutcases..
Is this the end of OPEC?

The plunge from $148 a barrel to $50 a barrel in less than five months has opened huge fissures in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Some members, such as Iran and Venezuela, are desperate to raise oil prices so they can balance their national accounts. More-conservative members, such as Saudi Arabia, can balance their budgets even at current prices and have room to fear they will be the scapegoats if the global recession deepens.

We've sat deathwatch for OPEC before, but this time the cartel's future looks especially bleak. Its Nov. 29 meeting in Cairo, Egypt, ended with members deeply divided. The Venezuelas and Irans of OPEC have dug themselves into such a big spending hole that their only way out would be for OPEC to raise prices by cutting production while letting the cartel's hardest-pressed members cheat.

OPEC couldn't agree on any production cuts in Cairo but promised to revisit the issue Dec. 17. The burden of production cuts would fall almost totally on the Saudis and other conservative Middle Eastern oil producers. That's why the Saudis didn't buy into that deal in Cairo and why they might balk again. That result could leave OPEC standing but effectively end the cartel's power to change the balance of global supply and demand.

In the short run, that would be great for consumers. In the long run, it would lead to global energy chaos.

Where oil demand is growing....

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...h-of-opec.aspx

I wish the members were as hard pressed for food as the rest of the world is for oil, at times.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why it wasn't so bad that he had sex with a nine year old.</div></div>
Cuz back then 9 was the new 18? Bringing sex into a religious argument isn't always the most reliable way to sway someone..especially if that someone has ever read the Bible..

Nine was never "the new 18". At that time nor now That's the same Bullshitte that some Muslim use as a defense. It's not a legitimate argument. In fact modern nutrition has had a gradual effect of bringing on puberty at an earlier age. There is no doubt that "the prophet" raped a child. End of story. No way to sugar coat, no way to deny it. It happened, even hard core Muslims admit it happened. Give it up.......

As far as trying to compare biblical sex to what "the prophet" did? How does one thing relate to the other. It doesn't.

The Old Testament sex is a retelling of events and for me is absolutely irrelevant. Now if you could show irrefutable evidence that Christ raped a child then you have an argument, otherwise you're talking apples and oranges. In fact you are presenting a strawman argument to be more exact.

In fact, the New Testament, which is all that concerns me and my personal belief system is rather void of sexual references, much less the rape of children by God's true prophet.....

But what really was the "Okay" age back then Gotch? Not trying to be a smarta, just was really wondering. Because here even in the 40's and 50's, it wasn't that looked down on for a 13 or 14 year old to get married. Not defending it, thats is way too young and sick to think about. But what was the common age back then, it was a pretty long time ago and might have been a lot different.

I don't believe it has ever been considered "okay" prior to puberty.

History is full of rights and wrongs...usually it depends on where you were born as to which side of the fence you fall on. I could give a rat's a$$ what Mohammad did that was good or bad..or nearly any other religious figure for that matter. It still doesn't make one set of people inherently evil because of their religion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">History is full of rights and wrongs...usually it depends on where you were born as to which side of the fence you fall on. I could give a rat's a$$ what Mohammad did that was good or bad..or nearly any other religious figure for that matter. It still doesn't make one set of people inherently evil because of their religion. </div></div>

If you don't see an inherent problem with the lock-step unquestioning devotion and unbending adherence to the teachings of a murderer, slave-trader, child rapist, and torturer, then that's your prerogative. It's also the mindset that is close to bringing down at least two European countries, but again that's one of the good things about living here as opposed to being under sharia law, for now.....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuds</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Milk3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral88</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was a famous american general who said: "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" </div></div>
I personally like that saying but it will never be used with the hippie liberals we got in Washington </div></div>

Yes, the US should have killed everybody in Iraq....no wait, that was our goal- to SAVE Iraq, be hard to save them AND kill them. This is the reason I keep bringing up planning at what stage the war should be ended, before you start one. </div></div>

How can anyone predict the end of a war? You enter into a war with a purpose, and once that purpose is accomplished, then you can enter into discussion of terms of ending it. War is unpredictable. It would have been nice to have said we'll go to Iraq for 7.5 months, accomplish out goals, and then leave.

There were no specified goals, they just made up new excuses as they went along to justify them being there.