|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Mar 24, 2003, 4:50 PM
Post #27 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
I don't think this war is about oil, specifically, although you can make the argument that we wouldn't be there were it not for the strategic importance of the region (because of its oil). I think it's about something much scarier - the radical ideas of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz regarding the use of U.S. military to impose our will on any other country that opposes us. In their world, our military becomes our primary means of foreign diplomacy, and that is frightening.
If you are debating the question of this being about oil, it's not about a cost/benefit question of whether the cost of war is less than or greater than the value of Iraqi oil, it is about stability in the entire region thus allow production from all the nations there to continue uninterrupted.
In reply to: Also, if oil companies were allowed to drill in places in US boundaries there wouldn't be claims about "War for Oil" because there wouldn't be a reason to.
That statement could not be more incorrect. We could put an oil well on every single acre of land in the U.S. and we would not produce enough oil to meet our current demand. U.S. demand outstripped our domestic supply in 1970. World demand is going to outstrip world supply before the end of this decade. Wait and see what happens to our economy if we are not prepared for that. China is building a transportation system modelled after ours - roads and cars. When they start consuming at near-American rates, which will be soon, the world will be a VERY different place than what we know now. Our economic security is at risk because enough people still think in this old-energy paradigm, as Pianomahnn, to prevent us from more aggressively pursuing the fundamental shift in energy sources that will be required to power continued economic expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Mar 24, 2003, 6:20 PM
Post #28 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
i don't think i quite understand. you say it's about the stability of that region. if i'm reading that right it doesn't make sense. THAT region would be a much more stable place w/o any US involvement whatsoever. right?
ahh i just typed a few more sentences and i realized what you're saying. yeah i think i read it right. and it would be more stable w/our involvement...
and where's that sonofabitch who should take my bet?
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Mar 24, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #29 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In reply to: That statement could not be more incorrect. We could put an oil well on every single acre of land in the U.S. and we would not produce enough oil to meet our current demand.
. . .America's greatest untapped oil reserves, those in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Within that South Carolina-sized area in the Alaskan wilderness, 1.5 million acres along the northern Arctic coast near Prudhoe Bay have been set aside for potential resource development. According to the Department of Energy, "The area contains the largest onshore, unexplored, potentially productive geologic basins in the United States." The U.S. Geological Survey, updated May 2000, estimated that the area might contain up to 16 billion barrels of oil — five years of U.S. imports.
5 years of imports. That would seem to be enough to meet the current demands for 5 years. I guess your statement is a bit wrong.
In reply to: U.S. demand outstripped our domestic supply in 1970. World demand is going to outstrip world supply before the end of this decade.
As, with any statement, you should show the source where you attained this information. And, if your statement here is accurate about domestic supply, this might not be a problem if extremeist groups would allow responsible development of certain oil reserves within United States boundries, offshore and onshore.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Mar 24, 2003, 6:35 PM
Post #30 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
I found this at http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF14/1424.html.
the Middle East has by far the largest oil reserves, at about 666 billion barrels.
That's kind of funny.
|
|
|
|
|
onbelay_osu
Mar 24, 2003, 7:12 PM
Post #31 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2002
Posts: 1087
|
i will have to disagree some with you steve about this war being only about oil....it is also to finish what W's daddy couldn't......but hell that is just one mans opinion!
|
|
|
|
|
marks
Mar 24, 2003, 7:22 PM
Post #33 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 376
|
In reply to: I would say 90% of this war is because of oil, yes. Remember, Bush is nothing more than a "oil and power" man. Not a conservationist, not a humanitarian, just a dirty, worthless oil barron. :wink: So yeah, this war is mainly about the oil and don't be fooled by anything else. End terrorism? Not possible. |
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Mar 24, 2003, 7:34 PM
Post #34 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
if that were the truth it would've been exposed and he never would've been elected. also, onbelay: he's finishing off with the UN couldn't... bush sr did a great job and left saddam in power. he could've easily taken him out but didn't. gave him another chance, as it were... for thirteen yrs or so.
(ps make sure you know the reserves do not necessarily translate into production...)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 24, 2003, 8:45 PM
Post #35 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
the reasons of oil are in disorder :
Oil.
Bush junior wants to do "better" than his father did : get rid of Saddam. Junior has always been in his father's shade, he wants to become a star.
Religious reasons : Bush and too many white christian morons want to get rid of other religious groups.
Imperialist reasons : control middle east oil then control a part of middle east economy.
Surf on the 9/11 popularity wave : this miselected Bush became really popular after 9/11, he wants to remain popular. After a "valuable" war against AlQaida, he wants to prove (the world?) he can destitute other tyrans.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 24, 2003, 9:06 PM
Post #36 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: the reasons of oil are in disorder : Oil. Bush junior wants to do "better" than his father did : get rid of Saddam. Junior has always been in his father's shade, he wants to become a star. Religious reasons : Bush and too many white christian morons want to get rid of other religious groups. Imperialist reasons : control middle east oil then control a part of middle east economy. Surf on the 9/11 popularity wave : this miselected Bush became really popular after 9/11, he wants to remain popular. After a "valuable" war against AlQaida, he wants to prove (the world?) he can destitute other tyrans.
Congratulations Thomas. In the finest French tradition, you have managed to be wrong on each and every point.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 24, 2003, 9:17 PM
Post #37 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
thanx for always being so nice to me, Curt. I hadn't been bashed in 4 days, it's so good to be bashed by a neat person. So just tell me the reasons you think are the most valuable, then I could tell you "you have been right on each and every point".
I love you curt-minded.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Mar 24, 2003, 9:21 PM
Post #38 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Thomas,some of us Americans LOVE you guys for who you are,and what you have done.
Patrioats for peace....
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 24, 2003, 9:36 PM
Post #39 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: thanx for always being so nice to me, Curt. I hadn't been bashed in 4 days, it's so good to be bashed by a neat person. So just tell me the reasons you think are the most valuable, then I could tell you "you have been right on each and every point". I love you curt-minded.
Thomas,
Fair enough.
1) The primary reason for prosecuting this war is to remove an enormous threat to Western civilization by a mad man. France, sitting on the sideline, will ironically be a third party beneficiary of our actions--in spite of not lifting a finger.
2) The cease fire signed with Iraq in 1991, had attached to it several conditions for the cessation of hostilities, which Iraq has not met. Iraq could have easily complied, making any further actions (and subsequent UN resolutions) unnecessary.
3) It is in our National interest to have a free and responsible government in place in Iraq--and not one that harbors Islamist training camps. Did they figure out yet where the 3 vials of Ricin found in France came from?
4) It is a noble and altruistic goal to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. Iraqi ex-patriots on television over here state overwhelmingly that most Iraqis will view our actions positively.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Mar 24, 2003, 9:39 PM
Post #40 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: i don't think i quite understand. you say it's about the stability of that region. if i'm reading that right it doesn't make sense. THAT region would be a much more stable place w/o any US involvement whatsoever. right?
Johnny,
I agree that our involvement there is going to destabilize the region in the short term. No one knows what it will do in the long term, but I believe it will also serve further destabilize. I was only making the point that if we are going to war for oil it is not for just Iraq's oil, it is because someone believes that we can stabilize the entire region. I don't think so, nor do I think that trying to encourage democracy there is good for the U.S. Anyone want to see a democratic Saudi Arabia? They would likely become the most radically fundamentalist Islamic nation we've yet seen.
In reply to: . . .America's greatest untapped oil reserves, those in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Within that South Carolina-sized area in the Alaskan wilderness, 1.5 million acres along the northern Arctic coast near Prudhoe Bay have been set aside for potential resource development. According to the Department of Energy, "The area contains the largest onshore, unexplored, potentially productive geologic basins in the United States." The U.S. Geological Survey, updated May 2000, estimated that the area might contain up to 16 billion barrels of oil — five years of U.S. imports. 5 years of imports. That would seem to be enough to meet the current demands for 5 years. I guess your statement is a bit wrong. In reply to: U.S. demand outstripped our domestic supply in 1970. World demand is going to outstrip world supply before the end of this decade. As, with any statement, you should show the source where you attained this information. And, if your statement here is accurate about domestic supply, this might not be a problem if extremeist groups would allow responsible development of certain oil reserves within United States boundries, offshore and onshore.
So you're arguing that a 5 year supply equates to oil independence? That's funny. First of all. 5 years is based on the most optimistic estimate of how much oil is there, not on what is actually economically recoverable. The best estimates of that put it at between 2-3 years. At any rate, a few years of supply do no equate to oil independence. Secondly, you can't just suck it all out of the ground at once and have your x-years supply. The maximum rate of extraction would take place over a period of 15 to 20 years at least. So no matter what we get out of ANWR or any other domestic source we would still be importing oil.
I do know my source, I just don't have it in front of me right now. So if you press, I'll get it. But, I thought everybody knew that U.S. demand outstripped production a long time ago. Do I really need to quote a source for what is a historical fact? Sorry his name escapes me right now, but I read an article in the Dallas Morning News about a year ago about the oil industry geologist who in the late 60's predicted that domestic demand would outstrip supply sometime in the 70's. The same guy has predicted the same for world demand/supply by the end of this decade.
Which extremists are you referring too? Jeb Bush? Because he's the one who got his brother to use millions of federal dollars to buy out the offshore leases in Florida. Yeah, they figure tourism is worth more to their economy than oil production. Sounds pretty extreme.
Sorry Piano, it may make you feel better to believe that extremists are causing an oil shortage, but that's just wishful thinking. I'll stand by my earlier statement, even if we opened up every inch of our territory to oil production we could not meet our current demand. We have to begin switching to new energy or we are going to be in a world of hurt. Is that such a radical idea? Why is it that other nations are makin the change and we are not? Such as Iceland, which currently is in the process of changing to an all hydrogen based economy, and already is running fuel cell buses and has hydrogen filling stations. Why can't America lead the world in this area?
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 24, 2003, 9:46 PM
Post #41 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
A1) Many weapon and politics specialists (maybe not in the USA) stated that Iraq was not a threat anymore.
A2) Israel never applies UN resolutions. Will you bomb Israel? I hope you won't.
A3) I understand. But when Saddam will be down, can you be sure that a better presidency will stand in Baghdad? Iran, Algeria and Afghanistan formed more terrorists than Iraq as I believe.
A4) Why not. But it seems Iraqis had better be liberated by non-occidental people. But I might be wrong on this point, only the after-war will tell us the truth.
So really, I'm not sure Iraq was a real threat for Occident. It was hardly a threat for its neighbors prior to the last week.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Mar 24, 2003, 10:54 PM
Post #42 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In reply to: . . . snip . . .
You said . . .
In reply to: We could put an oil well on every single acre of land in the U.S. and we would not produce enough oil to meet our current demand. U.S. demand outstripped our domestic supply in 1970.
. . . and I merely pointed out that is isn't accurate to state we could not produce enough oil to meet our current needs. For a few years, we can. For 30 years, it doesn't look like that.
|
|
|
|
|
billburning
Mar 24, 2003, 11:17 PM
Post #43 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 239
|
[quote="curt"]
1) The primary reason for prosecuting this war is to remove an enormous threat to Western civilization by a mad man. France, sitting on the sideline, will ironically be a third party beneficiary of our actions--in spite of not lifting a finger.
/quote]
That's funny, if you look at actions instead of rhetoric Dubya is more of a threat to western civilization, and more of a madman, than Saddam ever was. Not that Saddam's some sort of nice guy or anything...take off your Eurocentric lenses for a second and contemplate what it must be like to be in Baghdad with shock and awe happening. Maybe there liberation will come with death. The other funny thing is that Iraq is secular and prior to pushing them together with this war, Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies. Curious that our CIA trained both of them though.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Mar 24, 2003, 11:21 PM
Post #44 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: . . . snip . . . You said . . . In reply to: We could put an oil well on every single acre of land in the U.S. and we would not produce enough oil to meet our current demand. U.S. demand outstripped our domestic supply in 1970. . . . and I merely pointed out that is isn't accurate to state we could not produce enough oil to meet our current needs. For a few years, we can. For 30 years, it doesn't look like that.
That's not right either. Ok, so I could have said that we would not produce enough oil to meet our current demand beyond x number of years, but that would not be correct. Because even if there is a 5 year supply in the ground, you can't get it all out within 5 years. Yes, there MIGHT be an amount of oil in ANWR equal to 5 years of total U.S. consumption at our current rate. But, it would take at least 10 years to get up to maximum production levels, and then a minumum of another 15 to 20 years, probably more, to get all the oil out. So at no point would we ever be free from foreign oil. We would only see a minor, and insignificant, reduction in the rate of growth of of oil imported as a percentage of total demand (the actual physical amount imported would increase as our consumption grows).
So, I think that what I said is far more accurate than to say that we wouldn't need Middle East oil if it weren't for extremists preventing domestic drilling. The issue of oil supply/demand and energy policy overall is just a bit more involved than that.
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Mar 25, 2003, 1:00 AM
Post #45 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
When I believe that this war is about oil, this is why I believe it:
[*:92a9d2bcab]George W Bush and his administration do not have ties to oil. They are not really worried that the US will run out any time soon.
[*:92a9d2bcab]George W Bush and his administration have ties to Oil Companies. (Just about every single senior member of the administration.) Their powerful friends make money when Oil Companies make money.
[*:92a9d2bcab]Money is almost as good as power. (Power is better, because it means you can get even more money.)
[*:92a9d2bcab]Iraq nationalized the Iraqi oil industry. Since Saddam is in power and the state owns the Oil Industry, he can make lot's of money.
[*:92a9d2bcab]Since Saddam is in power and the state owns the Oil Industry, the Oil Companies (linked to Bush administration) are not making as much money as they could.
[*:92a9d2bcab]With Saddam out of power, and the pumps flowing again, George W Bush's friends stand to make a lot more money
So, when I think the war is (in part) about oil, that doesn't mean I think that at it's conclusion there will be tankers full of fresh Iraqi crude steaming towards America and her greatful SUV owners. What it will mean is that oil companies will be able to do their business in a country with 10% of the world's petrolium reserves under her soil.
The issue is a bit more complex than just "war for oil", just like Enron was not a simple matter of a company claiming to make more than they really did. (Enron raised simply lying to the level of art--even a room full of accountants has trouble understanding the scheme.)
What I don't believe the war is about is "finishing Daddy's business". George Sr. knew what he was doing. As War Hero and former Director of the CIA, he was hardly one to wimp out.
The Bush I administration intentionally left Saddam in power as he was (and still is) effective at staying in power (remember, power is good). By staying in power, Saddam kept any potential Islamist Government* out of power. This, especally only 12 years after the Iranian Revolution, was in the long term strategic interest of the United States.
I think that Bush II is placing personal interest ahead of the strategic interest of the United States.
*By Islamist Government, I am refering to an Islamic Theocracy such as the Taliban or the Iranian Ayatollahs as well the political movements currently being resisted by the governments of Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries with an Muslim population.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 25, 2003, 1:17 AM
Post #47 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
bill,
In reply to: That's funny, if you look at actions instead of rhetoric Dubya is more of a threat to western civilization, and more of a madman, than Saddam ever was.
If you really believe that statement, then you are simply a total moron. Do you really think GWB has killed or would kill hundreds of thouands of his own people by poison gas? Do you think he has death squads seeking out and executing people in our society who disagree with him? How many of GWB's sons-in-law has he ordered murdered?
You are either being knowingly disingenuous by making that above statement, or you are a fool. In either case, no further comment is warranted.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
billburning
Mar 25, 2003, 1:42 AM
Post #48 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 239
|
In reply to: There's no way to avoid politicians making decisions based on this stuff. Find me a single person in a high office (senator, rep, etc) who isn't influenced by lobbyists or economic ties and I'll show you a real purple elephant.
There you have it. You've pinpointed the problem inherent in the system. Crony capitalism at its worst.
|
|
|
|
|
billburning
Mar 25, 2003, 1:56 AM
Post #49 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 239
|
In reply to: If you really believe that statement, then you are simply a total moron. Do you really think GWB has killed or would kill hundreds of thouands of his own people by poison gas?
Daddy Bush knew exactly what Saddam was doing to the Kurds (who are incidentally not Saddam's people) when he did it, but ignored it because Saddam was our ally. Never forget that. Even recently, we have allowed Turkey to fly over Kurdish villages and bomb the hell out of them. Where did he get the poison gas anyway? Oh yeah, we gave it to him while we were financing his war with Iran. What about the 9,000+ United States soldiers who have died since the first gulf war of gulf war syndrome? What is gulf war syndrome? Exposure to Depleted Uranium ammunition that commanding officers neglected to tell the soldiers the effects of. What about Dubya's record of executions in Texas? What about the "Patriot Act" which has allowed government investigative agencies unprecedented power and destroyed your civil liberties? How many people have been detained and held without trial since 9/11? Yeah, Bush is a real great guy.
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Mar 25, 2003, 5:20 AM
Post #50 of 63
(790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
In reply to: bill, In reply to: That's funny, if you look at actions instead of rhetoric Dubya is more of a threat to western civilization, and more of a madman, than Saddam ever was. If you really believe that statement, then you are simply a total moron. Do you really think GWB has killed or would kill hundreds of thouands of his own people by poison gas? Do you think he has death squads seeking out and executing people in our society who disagree with him? How many of GWB's sons-in-law has he ordered murdered? You are either being knowingly disingenuous by making that above statement, or you are a fool. In either case, no further comment is warranted. Curt
Personally, I'm not too fond of George W Bush, nor Saddam Hussein. Saddam is viscious without equal, but George wields a bigger stick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
