I try and do my bit. :-)

Greg,

Doesn't your argument really come down to the hollow "something is better than nothing"? If you ran Chad and had those resouces would you find that comforting as you watched billions of dollars flow out of you country while you get a sliver and are left holding debt? I doubt it. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

"Mr. Calderisi",

I doubt that's you because I find anyone who could make this blanket statement "Mine is that Africans have never known good government...", and claim to know Africa is suspect. There are several Letters here that have pointed out current good governance in Africa (i.e. "success stories").

Now that was great. Well done!

Btw, you list some of those "good governance" countries in your letter. So, exceopt as a poor rhetorical device, I'm not sure why you suggested that "Africans has never known good governance....".

Don't know about the movie, but, I'm not sure why that's hard to believe.

Hi Greg,

You know what the problem is. Chad stands to get 3 billion dollars over 30 YEARS. That's 100M per year. It's "better than nothing" but a pittance compared to what the oil companies are getting. Also, you know what else? They don't even get the money directly! The WB holds the royalty funds in an escrow account in London and parcels it out based on their determination of Chad's compliance with their terms. Man, they have got ALL the angles covered.

"You claim destruction of the power plant is "collective punishment," using language from the Hague and Geneva. Show me the international law that supports this view.

You won't do it, because you can't do it, because no such law exists. Instead, I predict you will call me a murderer, or a paid advertiser, as my critics always do instead of addressing my points."

Actually, that's because your pompous demand doesn't make any sense. Collective punishment is defined, and the prohibition against it, is detailed in Article 32 and 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. It is international law in and of itself and not simply, as you put it, ..."language from the Hague and Geneva". Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant to that fact. What are you so worried about? Given the long standing political alliances, regardless of whether one thinks some of Israel's current actions violate the provision, they are not going to dragged into the Hague.

Anyway, if Cole's rather basic column can get you is such a tizzy, I hate to see what would happen if read Haaretz on a regular basis. Btw, I thought you were leaving in a dramatic huff. Since you seem to like Texas analogies, here's another for you - "All hat and no cattle"

"I think you misunderstood me. My point was that he was quoting the Geneva convention by using the term "collective punishment," but that bombing infrastructure is an accepted act of war, not banned by Geneva. Do I really have to point out all the wars in which infrastructure has been blown up, but no suggestion was made that it was a war crime?"

Fascinating. Predictable, but, fascinating. Your problem is that your premise is dubious. You're trying to ignore the occupiers/occupied part and re-label it as a "war" between two sides. Bombing the infastructure of a captive population certainly seems to be a problem under the Articles I previously mentioned. Also, as I suspect you're heading down this road, while I realize the Israelis have removed their troops and settlements from Gaza, it would be rather suspect to maintain that they don't still have effective control over the population.

cardshark,

Now don't start attributing positions to me. You know I didn't make any such claims either way and you didn't take great pain to do anything so stop the drama. Look, if you want to ignore/pretend that there's no occupation, and therefore, Israel is at war (in the normal meaning of the term) with the Palestinians, then that's up to you. I do understand though that's the only way you can try and bastardize the meaning of Geneva Convention codes to suit your opinion.

The penalty kick thing is a problem. FIFA should definitely bring back sudden death overtime (the Golden Goal?). Having the World Cup decided by penaly kicks is like deciding the Super Bowl by giving each team 5 extra point attempts or deciding the NBA final with free throws or the World Series by a homerun hitting contest. On top of that, in the latter two, you could choose which players will take the free throws and homerun swings. Ridiculous.

If they want to keep them, they should move them back and make it more difficult. Say a one on one free kick from somewhere outside the penalty box? That way, the goalie would at least have a realistic chance. As it stand now, even a great goalie like Italy's Buffon looks like a buffoon trying to stop PKs.