Just read some briefs on our positioning with regards to Iraq. I wanted to find out who truly believes that this is about oil? Please vote and give a brief explaination why. I'll post again with my reasoning.
-
53Oil?0%37Fighting Terrorism?0%16 -
For anyone who thinks it's "about oil" I'd like to ask for a complete and logical explination as to exactly what "it's about oil" means?
I respect everyones right to an opinion....but I don't understand this logic.
When the USA fought to take back Kuwait everyone shouted that it was really a war "about oil" well...how exactly was that? Did the USA secretly steal the oil under Kuwait? If the USA government wanted to take over a nation to plunder it's oil supplies couldn't they just do it?
Please enlighten me.....-12clicks wears fancy boots. -
Here's a crosspost on my opinion
People need to understand that despite Okham's Razor theory that simplest solutions tend to be the best ones, I think things are hardly that simple when it comes to the Middle East.
While everyone is focusing on Weapons of Mass Destruction or Oil Fever, can I propose another alternative:
The economic gain the US and Israel stand to achieve through selling (or trading for oil) conventional weaponry to a destabilized, fragmented, war-torn Middle East will far outweigh any oil profits, ultimately no matter what, the price of the car is more than the fuel you need for it.
Not to mention that at the end you can just walk in a pick up the pieces. This has been the foreign policy of any government over the centuries, despite the stories they tell you to try to sell their program. Typical human psychology: "Let you an him fight, while I watch!"
If anyone thinks this will be as easy as bomb, invade, occupy, go back to Sopranos and parties, you're in for a big surprise. The last world war resulted in the world splitting down the middle aligning with the 2 dominant factions which happened to be economic: capitalism and communism, this lasted almost 50 years, a lifetime for most!Comment
-
Who voted for "against terrorists" is the dumbest fucking hick i ever seen in my life
Comment
-
Yea, might as well just leave him and other brutal dictators alone. Then once they get really powerful, Canada and France will take them down. Won't they?
As far oil, the main benefit is not having a large reserve in the hands of a madman.
People want suv's, they don't want to drill in alaska, they dont want electric cars, and they dont want to pay ten bucks a gallon. Cant have it both ways.Ever notice that pretty much everything added to the Constitution after the original was a mistake.Comment
-
Stanton, Pleas tell me SPECIFICALLY how it's a war about oil. I'm all ears.
-12clicks wears fancy boots.Comment
-
I myself am an economist and can't understand why people believe this is about oil.
If it were, then the US could gain a much stronger position by lifting the current sanctions on Iraqi oil; moreover, cheaply and quickly. More oil would become available on the global market. Even if the Iraqi's wouldn't sell us any oil they'd sell oil to other countries in the world. We in turn would just buy oil from those sources since a country couldn't purchase 100% of their current non-Iraqi supply plus oil from Iraq.
War is terribly costly and we do our best to find diplomatic solutions to most problems. However, a true danger is being posed and we must confront it to shield ourselves from further attacks. Furthermore, be every vigilant, the world is a big bad place.
-my
about the french and Germans.
The reason that the Germans and the French are against us (aside from their liberal elite) is because of our military work in Afghanistan. We literally frightened them with what we (the US) can achieve militarily. They have no such capability and are hiding behind political rhetoric.
If anyone would like me to post a great article that has made it around most military circles regarding a french soldier and a US officer I'd be happy to post it.Comment
-
ICQ: 316365783
<a href="http://www.hostultra.com/~p00p" target="_blank">TEST</a>Comment
-
Its not about oil! Long live the hydrogen energy revolution. The US is a powerfull nation focused on innovated technology. Fuck oil, long live hydro energy the future is clean and good
7Comment
-
This isn't about oil. It has nothing to do with oil. Iraq could stop selling us oil today and nothing would change. Prices wouldn't go up, and we wouldn't start drilling in Alaska. We'd just stop buying from someone else.
When this is over with Iraq, we are going to take them over or take their oil from them. We are going to set up a government that will act like a government, and sit at the international table and eat with the rest of the children. We want to estbliash a country that doesn't kill it's own citizens; We want to create a country that will establish trading partnerships with the rest of the world.
Has anyone forgotten what Iraq has been doing in the past twenty years? They kill their citizens by gassing them, they use poision gas while fighting Iran, IRAQ RAPED THE FUCK OUT OF KUWAIT, and then took pot shots at other countries who weren't even involved in the war.
They lost the damn war, and made certain agreements. Yet they still take shots at us every day.
Grow the fuck up. Take this country out, and install a government that will behave itself.Herschel Savage
Brooklyn, NYComment
-
Wouldn't getting oil directly from a US-friendly regime be much more cost-efficient?Originally posted by MaxDent
I myself am an economist and can't understand why people believe this is about oil.
If it were, then the US could gain a much stronger position by lifting the current sanctions on Iraqi oil; moreover, cheaply and quickly. More oil would become available on the global market. Even if the Iraqi's wouldn't sell us any oil they'd sell oil to other countries in the world. We in turn would just buy oil from those sources since a country couldn't purchase 100% of their current non-Iraqi supply plus oil from Iraq.
War is terribly costly and we do our best to find diplomatic solutions to most problems. However, a true danger is being posed and we must confront it to shield ourselves from further attacks. Furthermore, be every vigilant, the world is a big bad place.
-my about the french and Germans.
The reason that the Germans and the French are against us (aside from their liberal elite) is because of our military work in Afghanistan. We literally frightened them with what we (the US) can achieve militarily. They have no such capability and are hiding behind political rhetoric.
If anyone would like me to post a great article that has made it around most military circles regarding a french soldier and a US officer I'd be happy to post it.
That's not the primary reason though. The primary reason is that a US-friendly regime in the Middle-East will serve as a stronghold against the Arabic countries. This will help in the "war against terror", and can be used for many, many other purposes. The Middle-East is now seen as primarily hostile, and having a US-friendly regime in the middle of it would help dealing wirth that.
Also, your comment about the french and the germans is way, and I do mean WAY off.
Living in Europe, and being in politics, I know why people over here oppose war.
They not so much fear US military strength, as they do US arrogance and dominance.
By that, I mean how the US pay less and less attention to the rest of the world, and are beginning to see themselves as "guardians of the world" and "superior to the rest of the world". Military power is not dangerous to the rest of the world when it is not used at will but only after achieving international consensus. Right now, however, the US seem to have an attitude that comes close to "we'll do whatever we want, and you can't stop us". Ofcourse, for most countries such behaviour seems both dangerous and offensive.
The forming of the EU is largely inspired by the idea of creating a base of power other than the US, which can in the future hold off both economic and military attacks. Cold War II here we come... (ofcourse, the basis for the EU was made during the cold war, but with the same idea - just for two power blocks instead of one)/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Well, if it truly is about us trying to get cheaper oil, then why didn't we stay there after the Gulf War and put some more stars on the flag?
I know that you think that sinister people (moreover here than there) are creating the problem but that just isn't so. We risk far more than this mad man by mounting this kind of operation.Comment
-
desert storm didn't result in a world war...Originally posted by Ironhorse
Here's a crosspost on my opinion
People need to understand that despite Okham's Razor theory that simplest solutions tend to be the best ones, I think things are hardly that simple when it comes to the Middle East.
While everyone is focusing on Weapons of Mass Destruction or Oil Fever, can I propose another alternative:
The economic gain the US and Israel stand to achieve through selling (or trading for oil) conventional weaponry to a destabilized, fragmented, war-torn Middle East will far outweigh any oil profits, ultimately no matter what, the price of the car is more than the fuel you need for it.
Not to mention that at the end you can just walk in a pick up the pieces. This has been the foreign policy of any government over the centuries, despite the stories they tell you to try to sell their program. Typical human psychology: "Let you an him fight, while I watch!"
If anyone thinks this will be as easy as bomb, invade, occupy, go back to Sopranos and parties, you're in for a big surprise. The last world war resulted in the world splitting down the middle aligning with the 2 dominant factions which happened to be economic: capitalism and communism, this lasted almost 50 years, a lifetime for most!Comment
-
You know who gave them that poisonous gas? You know who supported them while they were fighting Iran and killing their own citizens?Originally posted by RocHard
Has anyone forgotten what Iraq has been doing in the past twenty years? They kill their citizens by gassing them, they use poision gas while fighting Iran, IRAQ RAPED THE FUCK OUT OF KUWAIT, and then took pot shots at other countries who weren't even involved in the war.
The idea of installing a government that will then bring order to the country and will make Iraq a nice little country that's friendly to the West is more than just a bit naive. What do you think the reason is that Iraq still isn't an islamic fundamentalist country?Originally posted by RocHard
Grow the fuck up. Take this country out, and install a government that will behave itself./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
I'm amazed at how little respect oil itself is given. It's not just a fuel for SUVs, you know. Oil and its derivative fuels power cars, trucks (REAL trucks, those used for shipping), planes, ships, provides a majority of electricity and heats the majority of homes worldwide. It's derivative products include plastics, lubricants, asphalt, synthetic fibers, synthetic rubbers, detergents, fertilizers, perfumes, insecticides, ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, ammonia and methanol. Like it or not, the world economy currently depends on oil and oil products to function.
That being said, this war is certainly not about oil. It's about preventing a proven insane dictator from obtaining and using nasty weapons in direct violation of more than a dozen UN resolutions prohibiting him from doing so. I understand the desire not to get involved, and respect those who hold that opinion as the core of their anti-war stance. But you "IT'S ABOUT OIL" people really need to get a grip.Comment
-
First off, punkworld, I apologize for lambasting all the French and Germans.Originally posted by punkworld
Wouldn't getting oil directly from a US-friendly regime be much more cost-efficient?
That's not the primary reason though. The primary reason is that a US-friendly regime in the Middle-East will serve as a stronghold against the Arabic countries. This will help in the "war against terror", and can be used for many, many other purposes. The Middle-East is now seen as primarily hostile, and having a US-friendly regime in the middle of it would help dealing wirth that.
Also, your comment about the french and the germans is way, and I do mean WAY off.
Living in Europe, and being in politics, I know why people over here oppose war.
They not so much fear US military strength, as they do US arrogance and dominance.
By that, I mean how the US pay less and less attention to the rest of the world, and are beginning to see themselves as "guardians of the world" and "superior to the rest of the world". Military power is not dangerous to the rest of the world when it is not used at will but only after achieving international consensus. Right now, however, the US seem to have an attitude that comes close to "we'll do whatever we want, and you can't stop us". Ofcourse, for most countries such behaviour seems both dangerous and offensive.
The forming of the EU is largely inspired by the idea of creating a base of power other than the US, which can in the future hold off both economic and military attacks. Cold War II here we come... (ofcourse, the basis for the EU was made during the cold war, but with the same idea - just for two power blocks instead of one)
I grew up in Belgium and Germany actually.
From the bomb that destroyed my mother's office in Brussels, to how our neighbors who were very 'accepting' of us in their neighborhood. Also the multiple attacks in Ramstein, where in two of the incidents left the terrorists dead.
I agree that most Americans have a very narrow view when it comes to the international scene. With that said however I believe that most Europeans are oblivious to the dangers that are currently festering in their own countries and abroad.
As far as trying to create another super power to confront the US, well, I would like to see other countries prosper as much as the US. Honestly I love to see such prosperity in the ME. Problem is there aren't enough democracies there which put human and economic values are placed above those of their own dictatorships.Comment
-
You are correct, we should never have gotten into WWII. Then Hitler would be in power and we'd be talking to him instead of Saddam. And all Europeans would have their Uber Power nation and would be ruled, not governed.Originally posted by punkworld
The idea of installing a government that will then bring order to the country and will make Iraq a nice little country that's friendly to the West is more than just a bit naive. What do you think the reason is that Iraq still isn't an islamic fundamentalist country?Comment
-
People. Repeat after me - Its not about oil. There were many who thought that Gulf War (I) was about taking over IRAQ and grabbing the oil. Same thing with Afghanistan. There was talk of controlling pipelines etc... People always seem to want to think the worst about America and its intentions.
Gulf War (II) is about killing a very dangerous plague while it is still manageable. If you believe only 10% of the reports about what the Hussein regime has done to its fellow Iraqis - you have to be just a little frightened. We toss around these words "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" as if they are just harmless toys. Believe me they are truly scary. Put in the hands of someone that has no regard for humanity and you play a dangerous game. Yes, maybe he will just keep them by his bed and just toss them up and down in the air. The problem is what if he doesn't.
There is no way we can take that chance. Sept 11 taught as that there are people in the world capable of mass murder. Once we learned that - there was no other option. That is why the government mentioned IRAQ from the very beginning.
What you will see next week is finally some evidence about the IRAQI program. You have to understand that it is usually a catch 22 to use your intelligence. Good intelligence revealed will almost always compromise its source. I think the US Gov was hoping the inspections would turn up a little more. But since they haven't, they must reveal their hand.
TNV-Eric.Comment
-
The French are not opposing anything because they dislike American arrogance.
The French oppose war because it means Iraq won't be able to finish paying off the loans the French gave them and their little business deals will fall apart.<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>Comment
-
I think that the term "weapons of mass destruction" isn't really clear enough for most people. SADDAM HUSSEIN IS BUILDING NUKES! And he has been attempting to for decades. The reason why Iraq invaded Kuwait is because they needed more money to pay off their debts because they spent all of it on weapons. Iraq was very close to having their first Nukes before we blew up a lot of their facilities at the end of the Gulf War. Iraq has been repeatedly caught with materials and paraphernalia used in conjuction with building nuclear weapons.
Now Iraq is getting close to having Nukes again. The UN knows it and we know it. The great fear is that once Saddam has Nukes he will terrorize the middle east (and our precious oil) and we will be very hesitant to help since of the nuclear threat. This is Saddam's master plan. Get nukes and the UN and the US will leave him alone as he rapes the middle east. Obviously we don't want a mad dictator in the possession of Nukes.TEEN CASH - EXCLUSIVE TEEN NICHE REALITY SITES
Check out our Newest Site: Teen Porno Pass - Free Hosted Galleries, Flash Galleries, Tube Content, & Great Support
Sample Galleries: Movie Gallery 1 Flash Gallery 1 Pic Gallery 1Comment
-
I'm neither French not German, so no need to apologizeOriginally posted by MaxDent
First off, punkworld, I apologize for lambasting all the French and Germans.
I grew up in Belgium and Germany actually.
From the bomb that destroyed my mother's office in Brussels, to how our neighbors who were very 'accepting' of us in their neighborhood. Also the multiple attacks in Ramstein, where in two of the incidents left the terrorists dead.
I agree that most Americans have a very narrow view when it comes to the international scene. With that said however I believe that most Europeans are oblivious to the dangers that are currently festering in their own countries and abroad.
As far as trying to create another super power to confront the US, well, I would like to see other countries prosper as much as the US. Honestly I love to see such prosperity in the ME. Problem is there aren't enough democracies there which put human and economic values are placed above those of their own dictatorships.
You are right that both Europeans and Americans have very narrow views of world politics. Americans tend to see Europeans as wimps and the rest of the world as enemies, while Europeans tend to see the US as macho bullies and the rest of the world as poor, underdeveloped people in need of help (unless ofcourse they flee to Europe, in which case they are seen as enemies).
Both views are mistaken, ofcourse, but that's just the way it is.
The problem with 2 super powers confronting eachother (btw, most of western Europe already is quite prosperous, for us the EU is quite bad financially) is that they will cause trade wars, isolationism and even heavier trade barriers for 3rd world countries.
Also, democracy doesn't necessarily imply prosperity. Much of the prosperity of the western world is built upon the cheap labour and resources from third world countries, which are at the same time blocked from economical benefits by tons of trade barriers.
Now, the only way to bring prosperity to the third world (including much of the ME) is lifting those trade barriers and using the third world in a less exploitive way. But that would hurt our (= the west) prosperity, and it seems unlikely that the west will sacrifice prosperity for the third world./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Government propaganda can be very effective, but it isn't totally working yet. Give it time.Comment
-
You know as well as I do that this is in no way comparable to WWII.Originally posted by MaxDent
You are correct, we should never have gotten into WWII. Then Hitler would be in power and we'd be talking to him instead of Saddam. And all Europeans would have their Uber Power nation and would be ruled, not governed./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
If america didn't enter WW2 it too would be ruled by this Uber Power nation... No post WW2 influenced era of prosperity, no war loans to the allies serviced.. no atomic bombs before germany who were only a few short years away from them.. just a huge Uber nation ruled by hitler with nukes. Depending on how the russian offensive went you would either be faced with a technologically superior militant hitler EU or a dominated russia as well.. with no allies.Originally posted by MaxDent
You are correct, we should never have gotten into WWII. Then Hitler would be in power and we'd be talking to him instead of Saddam. And all Europeans would have their Uber Power nation and would be ruled, not governed.
Also America didn't enter the war militarily to save europeans... there was that little matter of Pearl Harbour.. lets not get precious here
comparing Iraq in 2003 to Germany in the 30's is an insult to the people that died in WW2.Comment
-
Bush is in the process of a plan to DRILL more oil in Alaska..Perhaps I was the only one that heard that in his speech the other night..Originally posted by rooster
Yea, might as well just leave him and other brutal dictators alone. Then once they get really powerful, Canada and France will take them down. Won't they?
As far oil, the main benefit is not having a large reserve in the hands of a madman.
People want suv's, they don't want to drill in alaska, they dont want electric cars, and they dont want to pay ten bucks a gallon. Cant have it both ways.http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !Comment
-
From a purely strategic, chess playing point of view, having American troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq would leave Iran surrounded and extremely vulnerable. Iran is very strategic as it gives direct access to the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, and southern Russia. It is well known that Iran is developing its own nuclear weapons program, which the US isn't too happy about. This was discovered recently when satelite imagery found two secret Iranian installations involved in uranium enrichment. Also, the Caucasus will be a future hot spot, with probable Russian intervention in Georgia and Azerbaijan due to "terrorist threats." Add the fact that there is oil in the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, and the pieces of the puzzle start coming together. So if you can get away from all the rhetoric about oil, terrorism etc. it looks like the US is positioning itself so that it can have leverage and apply pressure against Iran, while at the same time continuing to follow the age old strategy of containing Russia.Comment
-
america is the terrorist.Comment
Comment