Home > There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part I

There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part I

by Open-Publishing - Sunday 3 December 2006
11 comments

Wars and conflicts International USA

On November 7, 2006, the American public voted for a New Direction for our Iraq policy. That direction is—out. As Democrats prepare to take the majority for the first time in twelve years, Democrats now have the responsibility to act on the overwhelming mandate issued by the American public.

Will that new direction mean an exit from Iraq? Because, if not, America will be held hostage by the skyrocketing cost of the war in Iraq even as President Bush leaves office at 11:59 am on January 20, 2009. And, the voters will not forget who let them down.

I.

There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq, prior to the end of President Bush’s term: Congress must vote to cut off funds.

History and the law give a clear guide on how to end the war in Iraq.

In Campbell v. Clinton, a case in US District Court in 1999, twenty six members of Congress, including myself, sued President Clinton for continuing to prosecute the war against Serbia without a declaration of war. The Court ruled in favor of the Administration because it could find no constitutional impasse existed between the Legislative and the Executive branch requiring judicial intervention. Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces. The ’Implied Consent’ Theory of Presidential War Power Is Again Validated. Military Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 202, September 1999 Geoffrey S. Corn. South Texas College.

Congress can debate and pass legislation for redeployment, phased redeployment, or an over the horizon presence. Congress can vote for a resolution to end the war and a resolution to bring the troops home. However, none of this will have any legal effect. Each appropriations approval was a vote to continue the Iraq war.

The Administration does not have to pay any attention to Congress’ attempt to guide the administrative conduct of the war. Once Congress gave its consent for military action, it literally did not have the authority to guide the conduct of the war. At this point, the only option Congress has to guide the conduct of the war is to withdraw approval for the war through a cut off. Even a substantial reduction of funds could leave open the door for a legal claim that Congress still intends to keep troops in Iraq. The Administration can rummage through the DOD budget and find money to keep its desired troop levels. Unless the Congress totally cuts off funds, it leaves itself open to an imposition of Presidential will through the Food and Forage Act of 1861 which gives the President the authority to directly spend money for troops in the field absent a congressional appropriation.

The Campbell case makes it clear that as long as Congress continues to fund the war, it cannot simultaneously argue that its will is being usurped with respect to the war powers. Each appropriations vote gives the President "implied consent" to continue the war. So it is clear that this war is not only the President’s. This war belongs to Congress as well, to Democrats and Republicans alike, in the House and in the Senate. And, unless and until Congress decides to force a new direction by cutting off funds, the United States will continue to occupy Iraq and have a destabilizing presence in the Middle East region.

The first appropriation bill regarding Iraq, is due early in 2007. While the legislation authorizing the War in Iraq passed on October 10, 2002, each and every time Congress was faced with an appropriation for the war, it gave consent for the war all over again.

A quick review of Congressional votes, under a Republican majority, shows Congress’ willingness to continue the war in Iraq.

Key Iraq Votes: The War and The Money
dennisvotes.jpg

Note 1. The House passed a Continuing Appropriations bill by Voice Vote on January 8, just before adjourning. The Conference Committee met and added $10.4 billion in military spending as "defense technical corrections" at the request of the White House, which signed the bill into law on 2/20/03. The United States commenced a military attack on Iraq on 3/19/03.

Legend
HR ---- House Resolution
S ---- Senate Resolution

UC - Unanimous Consent, without objection.
VV - Voice Vote (No recorded vote requested)
H Conf - House Conference
S Conf - Senate Conference
DOD - Department of Defense
FY - Fiscal Year

This chart of key appropriations votes shows the difficulty in changing policies in Iraq. It is obvious that from the very beginning of the war that not only Republicans, but Democrats in Congress have supported a continuation of the war, and therefore have repeatedly rejected attempts to curtail the conduct of the war.

Once troops in the field, support for the war within Congress, as measured by support for Iraq war appropriations, increased sharply among Democrats in the House, to the point where only a small number of House Democrats consistently opposed continued funding for the war.

Indeed, a little more than one month before the Great Realignment of November 2006, (the most recent vote taken on an Iraq funding bill) on September 30, 2006, only twenty Democrats voted against the conference report which provided another $70 billion for the war. The Senate passed the bill 100 - 0.

—

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/there-is-only-one-way-to-_b_35299.html?p=3#comments

Forum posts

  • I agree with your essay 100% Dennis but you seem to be missing the point..

    America now uses about 24 million barrels of oil each and every day, and 2 million per day are from Iraq.

    Due to worldwide depleting reserves there is no other place to make up the loss of Iraqi oil except Iran.

    The loss of 2 million barrels per day would almost beyond a doubt be the straw that collapses the US economy, and collapses the dollar. Gas prices would double or triple overnight with shortages that would never end... Starvation would soon ensue.

    Is your party really willing to bring this calamity on to America and why wont you tell us the truth??

    Note that Im not in favor of this war or any other, but without the oil God help this country....

    Why wont you acknowledge that worldwide oil production peaked last November and our entire civilisation is built on a now decling supply of oil?? Are you really going to usher in the collapse of our society by leaving this oil to Iran and China??

    • YEPPER!!

      I suppose NEITHER of you had ’Social Change’ in High School 1972???

      I also suppose NEITHER of you sat in that class when your parents, and you.....IF you drove your self to school....Talked about how long you had to wait in line at the closeset gas station that morning OR the night before to get just 5 gallons of gasoline, to make it to school OR to work for the next couple days??

      You see, the PROBLEM wasnt what we were expericancing THEN with oil/gsoline because it hadnt been exposed that the same people we were buying gasoline//Oil from would some day decide to call in their own chips. And, The Royal Family is doing just that.
      BUT< what was being taught in High School in 1972 was there was developing a need for alternative sources of ENERGY. 34 YEARS AGO!
      Shell Oil, exxxon/Mobil, Standard Oil, AMOCO, Conoco were buying up the patents as for automobile exonomy let alone for ALETERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION, R & D BREAKTHROUGHS, as fast as the requests were comming in thru the patent office!

      DONT EITHER OF YOU ATTEMPT TO SHOVE DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE WAR IN THE DESERT..........OR I MEAN THE OVERTHROWING OF A GOVT IN IRAQ..HAS 1 THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN POWER, THRU CRONIES AND BUDDIES OF THE JUG-HEAD IN MY WHITE HOUSE TO MASS LARGE AMTS $$$$$$$$ AND, AS THE FAILURES OF THE PAST ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE LED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOWN A LILLY STREWN DREAM THAT THE U.S. HAS NO WORRIES ABOUT MAINTAINING THE #1 POWER ON THE PLANET.
      COMBINED WITH THE ’SELECTION’ THE RNC GOT AWAY WITH NOT JUST IN ’04 BUT IN ’00 AS-WELL, ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO NOT BEABLE TO CONNECT THE DOTS AS TO WHAT WAS TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL IN 1972 AS TO WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS FACING TODAY.
      My teacher in that class was 100% correct. Big Business and Govt appeasement within strict idealologies to meet the every need of Huge Business to meet the ’supply & Demand Side of Economics’, the PEOPLE will suffer.
      In todays news, it just so happens the battles of IDEALOLOGY and OIL are costing lives on all sides.

    • Spoken like a true mobster, a real freaking Fascist, yesirree Bob.

      Yes, steal and take away what doesn’t belong to you, might forever makes right.

      The loss of 2 million barrels a day doesn’t matter to hill of beans to this country anyway, since the US uses over 21 million barrels a day, and most of the oil taken from Iraq is sold for the continued funding of the occupation of Iraq by the US.

      Your argument is ludicrous. The world is filled with oil. Look at Alaska, Canada, South America, and now Nigeria. Google all you like, and you will find that what I am saying is true.

      For crying out loud, you ignorant fool, Russia has more oil than Iran, and who do you think their allies are? Google: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This Asian NATO was established in 2001. The Chinese, the Russians and the Indians are being ruled by men and women with a lot more savvy and intelligence than the corrupt parasites that control our government.

      By the way, Mr. Fascist:
      What happened to the old fashioned way of actually paying for oil instead of conquering and occupying countries who have it? You neocon supporters are so used to having it both ways in an ’argument’, an easy thing to do if you are a hypocrite and a con-artist. So much for ’exporting democracy’. You’ve revealed your true colors now. It was all about controlling some other country’s natural resources, wasn’t it?

      Let’s call a spade a spade, sir, and say that what you advocate is nothing but sheer imperial power and domination over the weak and the decimated, something we Americans have always despised for a good reason. Imperialism costs trillions of dollars to upkeep. If you really want to save the dollar from collapsing the first the US should do is curtail its enormous defense expenditures which amount to just over what the rest of the world COMBINED spends on defense.
      Google Global Security.org, if you don’t believe me.

    • Hey 66***28 !!

      Im not sure why you call me ignorant, when it is you that seems woefully uncognizant of oil supply, demand, and markets. I am also far from a fascist or a mobster, and if you actually read my post you might note I clearly do not agree with the Iraqi occupation.

      The world filled with oil?? Well, there is alot left, but speaking as one who has worked at the wellheads in Alaska, Canada, and South America I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. I have not worked in Nigeria, but I have worked in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, Oman, and the UAE.

      Earth will likely not yeild more than 84.4 million barrels per day. Ever. Its a matter of production rate. Earth is already down to 82.5 mbd. While I concede Earth may yield up a bit higher than the record achieved a year ago it will never yield more than 86 mbd. Ask anyone in oil. Its a simple fact. Earth will soon enter a slow but accelerating decline in oil production. This is also a simple geologic fact. There is no way Earth can sustain anything close to current production levels for much longer, there is simply not the recoverable oil reserves left. Its simple depletion.

      Contrary to your ill advised opinion that 2 mbd wont amount to a hill of beans consider what happened shortly after US domestic oil production peaked and left this country with a 5% oil shortage that lasted 4 months. It caused a recession that lasted almost 20 years, runaway inflation, and hi unemployment. Do the math, its simple, and why would it be better this time. Also note that the shortages will be permanent this time.

      There is simply no way to take up the slack. If we consume the oil someone else somewhere else is going to have to do without. Its really that simple..

      True colors?? Not mine, but we are agreed to the parasites that are in power here and why we are losing to a more fair trading stategy that is the norm for the Asian bloc. Of couse it was about the oil, can you name one war in mans history that was not about resources??

      Im not advocating war, empire, or using US power to steal. I am calling a spade a spade. We as a country no longer have the power to pay for the lifeblood of our civilisation with actual wealth. Only little green markers of debt. Debt that is no longer payable..

      Yes, Im fully aware of US defense spending, but the published costs are just the tip of the iceburg, the costs to civilisation are boggling. What is the cost of depleted uranium going to be for the next million years for instance.

      Im far from a neocon, I do not affiliate with either party, am libertarian leaning politically and tend to vote mostly Democrat. I do however understand the truly momentous precipice this country is teetering on, it is being kept from the population at large.

      Our leaders, which to me is an all but farcical term, are in the awkward position of maintaining the theft of Iraqi assets, and expanding the theft to Iran and the Caspian basin, or withdrawing our military and managing the collapse of American business, the US dollar, our countries infrastructure, and facilitating the starvation and privation of our populace. Its not a good choice. Its lose lose. I was merely asking the author which way he will choose. It is an unpleasant truth but truth nevertheless... He is aware, you do not seem to be aware...

      I strongly advise all who read this to google up and study what is meant by "peak oil". The changes the next few years will usher in will be momentuous...

      I can be reached at Iprobealiens@hotmail.com for further comment..

      Dennis from Oregon

    • Dennis, the following is something you rarely read in a political website, an apology.
      After reading your reply to my inflammatory comment I can safely say that you are no ignorant fool. Forgive me for using this rather deceptive gambit to draw you out. I did not intend to attack a fellow Libertarian and Patriot.

      I have been using this odious gambit frequently in order to separate the ’wheat’ from the proverbial
      ’chaff’ when it comes to blog commentators.
      I have often used this gambit with any website commentator whose writings aren’t clear to me. There can only be three results:
      1] no response (totally legit, by the way, I too have a life)
      2] If a commentator turns out to be ignorant he/she will invariably fly off the handle and spew out a geyser of profanities in a very vain attempt to raise my blood pressure.
      3] If the writer turns out to be knowledgeable and intelligent, such as yourself, then I’ve opened a channel for meaningful dialogue, which I will now utilize with you.

      Yes, Dennis I am very well aware of Dr. Marion Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory first published in 1956, but you must remember that this a theory that many non-American geophysicists no longer adhere to, especially Russian and Ukrainian theorists.

      Also, an American economist by the name of Michael Lynch has lambasted Hubbert’s theory as overly simplistic and mathematically sloppy. He does make a strong point. The simple Bell Curve that Hubbert uses to graph the ’peak’ of world oil reserves simply cannot take into account such complex and fluctuating variables as demand.

      Also, Dr. Hubbert’s theory rests on assumptions made by American geo-physicists and geologists, that all the petroleum found on Planet Earth is a biological by-product of the remains Jurassic era animals, mostly dinosaurs.
      Many geologists throughout the world no longer see this assumption as valid.
      Russian geo-physicists have an alternative theory explaining how tectonic plate movements are creating petroleum as we write, this theory is called the Abiotic or the Abiogenic theory.
      Please go to the following links:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200406090816.asp

      http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

      The following link will let you know that your figure for the total amount of the Earth’s oil reserves is way off base. According to this table, made by the Department of Energy, by the way, puts the world’s total reserves at over 1,292 billion barrels (that’s over a trillion barrels of oil, by the way)

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

      The table found on the preceding link will show all the current estimates of the world’s largest oil exporters. You really need to read it.

      Nigeria’s total oil reserves have been estimated to be somewhere around 40 billion barrels.
      Go to: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/nigeria/oil.html

      Brazil’s oil reserves are estimated at over 15 billion barrels. Please go to:

      https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html

      Use the CIA’s world fact book online to make sure that the rest of my numbers are not bogus:

      Russia’s total oil reserves: 60.1 Billion, Caspian Sea Region: 25 billion.

      So you see, Dennis, I’m not ignorant either. Let’s just say that you believe in a theory that the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Brazilians don’t believe in and as soon as you read these links I’ve sent you, you will see why.
      So, yes, I’ll stand by statement: The world is swimming in oil.

      Aeneas of California.

    • Aeneas,

      We have a major dispute over the amount of recoverable oil left on this planet, and, more importantly the rate at which it can be recovered and its associated EROEI. Lets get this simple concept understood and we will move on.

      EROEI, Energy Returned on Energy Invested. It takes energy to recover oil. Not much in a place like Iraq, considerably more in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. At a point it takes so much energy to recover that it makes no sense to do it. If it for instance takes more than a barrel of energy to recover why bother?? Its not worth doing...

      OK, Hubberts curve, yes, simplistic, I will concede that. But as an average over a regional average it does compare with reality very well. Note that the engineers charged with utilising a field would undoubtably be fired for producing a supply curve that looked like a bell...

      All fields slow down in production rate and increase in EROEI as they deplete. All have their own individual charactoristics, but the average of a large group of fields will show Hubberts curve very nicely.

      Abiotic oil?? That theory has been so discredited in International geopyhsical circles that I honestly cant believe you would mention it?? Many non American geophysists?? Name three. The abiotic theory was an intersting take, and some oil MAY be abiotic in origin. Carbon decay rates and reams of other evidence offer overwhelming proof that virtually all oil is biotic. Name one place on Earth where the oil is abiotic?? The evidence is overwhelming, no matter what Jerome Corsi says.. and Joe Vialls?? An Australian former soldier diagnosed with how many personalities?? Living on a pension with nothing better to do than post conspiracy theories?? I will admit he does get it right sometimes, but please... He is clueless about oil.

      Quoting government figures of reserves as proof that we dont have a serious problem?? Come on, they are more than aware, and publish these specs to not arouse the public. Also foriegn governments always lie about the sizes of their reserves, if they publish them at all. The larget the reserves the higher their credit ranking, very simple. Corporate America does it too. The SEC made Shell revise their reserve estimates down a third this year alone, and they are still much higher on paper than reality. The figures arent that transparent, and whats in the public realm is always distorted. Quoting the CIA on about anything verges as ludicrous, unless you think they always tell the truth...

      I tend to believe the guys in the fields, depleting fields, the Earths 4 largest are all in various stages of depletion. Can you name them?? I can. Ive worked in three of them. The problem is that we are now exploiting oil as fast as we can. There is no reserve supply. We cannot in any meaningful way increase production rates, and demand is growing. It will bring monumental changes in our society, if not outright collapse, and soon. BPs Exploration manager Richard Miller puts it well . "This is the classical economist’s view; something will turn up, when the price of oil is high enough, because something always does. But there isn’t anything conceivable that could replace conventional oil in the same quantities or energy densities at any meaningful price. We can’t mine the oil sands in sufficient quantity because there isn’t enough water to process them. We can’t grow bio-fuels because there would be no land left to grow food. Solar, hydro, wind and geothermal don’t yield enough energy, hydrogen (from water) takes more energy to make than it can yield, and nuclear fission and fusion are presently off most political agendas. When oil gets too expensive, surviving Americans will still obtain energy from alternative sources, but in much smaller amounts and at much higher prices." Did you catch "surviving Americans"??

      We are, believe it or not, faced with imminent shortages. Soon. Production worldwide is declining, ENROI is soaring. We know we have a huge problem on our hands. Please google "peak oil" and educate yourself further. Watch the source of course, but please realise we have a huge problem, and it wont remain hidden for long, no matter what politicians and intelligence try and portray. Abiotic oil is a myth, but a myth with a disinformation motive. If you are serious about learning I can point you in the right directions...

      Take care, Dennis

    • Substitute "diamond" for "oil" in the following excerpt and you will have the essence of the "Peak Oil" scam. For all of the reasons cited below, you have fallen for the myth of oil’s scarcity. No one with any intelligence and the right kind of information now believes that diamonds are rare. The same goes for oil.

      "Well, what I learned was that the diamond business wasn’t a business of extracting, as I originally expected, something of enormous value and then simply seeing how much of this object you could get out of the ground and selling it. That was what the business appeared to be when I started my venture. But their real business was restricting what came out of the ground, restricting what was discovered, restricting what got cut, restricting what actually found its way into the retail market and, at the same time, through movies, through advertising, through Hollywood, through the manipulation of perceptions, creating the idea that there was this enormous demand for these shiny little objects that they seemed to have in abundant supply. So I wound up on this voyage of discovery starting off with the idea that there was this object of great value, and it was just a question of how many could you get out, and I wound up discovering it was just the opposite."

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1209.html

    • You have described the diamond industry well, at first diamond was very rare and fetched a large price. Demand became very high, and so did supply. A small group bought up all the producing fields and manipulated the price by withholding possible supply. Then diamonds were discovered in Russia, but the Russians also had no incentive to glut the market to bring down prices either; and diamonds are way more expensive because of artificial scarcity. The owners of the diamond fields surpress production and manipulate the market for maximum profit. I think we are agreed on this.

      There are some huge differences between oil and diamonds though, diamonds are optional, oil is essential to our economy and to feeding the populace.

      For almost the entire history of oil your comparison would be correct, with a twist. Yes prices were manipulated by supply, but both up and down. Too much oil led to a glut and not enough profit to even be worthwhile, and to low of supply led to problems with the international markets. OPEC was in charge of manipulating the markets to maintain order, and keep prices reasonably stable. There was always more oil able to be produced than existing demand.

      Then come the 90s, Ghawar, the largest field on Earth is declining, same with Bergan, same with Canterall. For the entire decade we depleted 10 times more oil than we discovered, and demand all but met supply. There is no lomger excess supply anywhere on Earth. There never will be. We are running flat out. Understand this and ignore it at your peril. There is no longer any surplus capacity, and current supply is entering a period of decline. There is no escaping this.

      Our leaders saw this coming and started planning. There is still some unexploited oil in the Caspian, although the official figures are highly exaggerated for political reasons. This country faced a debilitating shortage, a permanent shortage. To get the Caspian oil to market we need a pipeline thru Afghanistan or Iran. We brought the Taliban to Houston, treated them like royaly, tried to back them to stabilise Afghanistan so we get our pipe. The Taliban was against using opium to finance this on religous grounds and talks broke down. Within weeks planes hit buildings and we were at war. Then the Caspian reserve estimates were revised way down, by 3/4, to reflect reality. We still need oil, and are getting desperate. So we take Iraq, get 2 million barrels per day. This took the pressure off a bit.

      Today depletion from other sources and growing demand puts us in essencially the same position we were in before invading Iraq. There is no surplus supply to speak of. The Saudis, (Ghawar) Kuwaitis (Bergan)and Mexicans (Canterall) have all been force to cut their exports, the fields are in serious depletion or outright collapse. Note these are the Earths three largest and we depend on them.

      This leaves this country with 2 essential options. Either take Iran with its associated risks, and then the Caspian, or economic collapse. There really is no middle ground. Understand this. I have nothing to gain for telling you this other than sparing you privation. The Earth will not supply further increases in oil production, ever, and production globally is starting to decline. We either grab whats left and survive as a nation for another decade or two, or collapse. Our leaders are very aware of this, and I was merely asking Dennis K what path he is in favor of. We simply cant leave Iraq without economic collapse, the total collapse of the dollar, and permanent and escalating fuel shortages. Its just the way it is.

      Deal with reality, it will soon deal with you...

      If you want to learn, ask, I will point you in the right direction.

      Dennis form Oregon

    • Thanks for the offer to help me learn about the realities of "Peak Oil," but I think I’ll take a pass and opt instead to show you the way to the real reality by providing a few links to reports of recent oil discoveries all over the globe. They are:

      http://www.oilvoice.com/Santos_Oil_Discovery_Offshore_Vietnam/7985.htm

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/algeria.html

      http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3159/is_9_220/ai_56177054

      http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47265

      http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47265

      Now you may not like the internal combustion engine, but these discoveries - and I could have cited more - means that oil is not going to run out any time soon. I will agree that a "Peak" has been reached with respect to oil, but it is the "peak" of cheap oil. Simply put, the days of cheap oil for Americans is over. This reality has nothing to do with the eventual depletion of the world’s oil reserves, but has everything to do with the declining value of the dollar. It also has a lot to do with Big Oil’s realization that it is more profitable to produce one gallon of gas and sell it for $2.50 than it is to produce two gallons of gas and sell them for $2.00

      So, you see oil may "run out" for a whole lot of people - not because it is no longer physically in existence, but, rather, because they will no longer be able to afford it. There is a vast difference between absolute physical scarcity and scarcity based on the political/economic shenanigans of the Big Oil cartel. It, the cartel, doesn’t care how much gas it actually produces, so long as it gets its price and makes a hefty profit in the bargain.

      I could go on in YOUR education, but it is better that you begin to explore the alternative view - that oil is abundant in the earth and that it is abiotic in nature - by yourself and, in engaging in this exploration of discovery, you leave behind all of the ecologically-inspired impedimenta that currently weighs you down. Wishing that something is true for unrelated reasons still doesn’t necessarily make it true. Remember, the Catholic Church held that the earth was the center of the universe because the center of the universe was, in its view, the only fitting and proper place for God’s greatest creation - MAN - to dwell. But, as we now know know, this belief was false.

    • I have been involved in oil exploration and exploitation my entire life. I have watched the introduction and total destruction of the abioic oil theory. Its a myth. Show me some. Show me one well. Name one. Its a myth.

      Oil is still plentiful, we have probably only extracted near half of what will be eventually recovered, but we have reached the limits of production. Its that simple. Where is this abiotic oil??

      Realise that people eat oil... lots of oil. The Earth cannot as has never sustained more than half a billion persons without oil. These persons that cant afford oil now cant afford to eat. Earths population is what?? Do the math.

      Hear what Im telling you. We have reached the limit. Production will now go down. It is a GEOLOGICAL limit. Understand this.

      Or live in a fantasy... its your choice...

    • I make it a point not to continue a discussion with a religious fanatic. Your argumant is faith-based and includes the insidious notion that there are just too many people on the planet. Might I suggest that the problems facing homo sapiens today stem more from inequitable distribution than they do production. Is it not true that while Americans waste, others all over the globe go wanting? Perhaps the solution is in sharing rather than hoarding the wealth.

      Your challenge to show you one abiotic well is ludicrous on its face. Your observation that, "I have watched the introduction and total destruction of the abioic oil theory," suggests that you are either very old or deficient in your grasp of history since the abiotic theory was first introduced by the French chemist Berthelot and the Russian chemist Mendeleev in the 19th century. The very idea that petroleum is fossil based was promoted by the oil industry for other than scientific reasons.

      Further, having spent your entire life in oil exploitation and exploration adds not one jot of credibility to your position. It is no different than the prouncement by an elderly Catholic priest that transubstantiation in the eucharist rite is the TRUTH. In holding a particular belief, the passage of years over which it is held does not enhance or "prove" that it is true.