 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
And they are trying to kill you because ... uhhm, of course, it has nothing to do with keeping their countries under your boots, stationing troops on their holy lands, helping Israel and such. Not al all.
Obviously now after you've projected so much power in the area, the attacks on the US and its citizens will stop. Sure. |
i never said i believed they would stop. hell, i never even said i supported bush at all. i'm merely explaining why i think the bush administration went to war.
the bush administration clearly believes that the answer is more force, more power in the region, will yield greater stability and security for them. it's a common belief, so you can't fault them for it too much. why else would they have harped so strongly on preemption in the months leading up to the war? they believed that they were doing it in the united states's best interests, and they were clearly subscribing to a semi-realist train of thought.
otherwise, they'd realize that al-qaida and other terrorist groups are not nation-states and thus cannot be dealt with by attacking nation-states such as iraq.
you do realize that people can argue for things that they do not agree with/do not accept?
or is the notion that there are alternative explanations of the war, outside of oil, being argued by people who didn't necessarily believe the war was necessary just seem kinda bizarre to you? because i assure you, that's what's going on here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
First off I'd like to say that this thread is for those that will not waste all our time by discussing the irrelevant propaganda-issues put out by USUK leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction or the evilness of Saddam or 45-minutes or World security or any of the other chewing-gum-topics divulged for the benifit of the voting public. |
Not messing with this part, plenty of intelligent people have pointed out the stupidity of this opening.
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child The US and UK invaded Iraq to gain control of the oil supplies of the second biggest oil producer after Saudi Arabia, they did this because industrial society runs on oil, it's as simple as that.
What I want to discuss is what you think we should be more afraid of:
The lies, cynicism, brutality, and willingness to bend/twist/manipulate/manufacture and forget the truth and history, as practised by the US and UK leadership- so that they could invade an entire country, destroy it's infastructure, and render all the protests from within their 'democracies' irrelevant, and causing all the 'serious debate' in the West to confine itself to made-up issues that have nothing to do with their [USUK leaderships] real motivations, while the soldiers and oil-men plod on with doing what they're really there to do (occupying the land and contracting-up the spoils of war)
or
That the Leadership of the US and UK think that it is necessary to do these things, because they beleive that controlling the Oil is worth it... because when the oil supply to the West runs out, Industrial society will end, and it would run out/be prone to impossible levels of manipulation sooner, had they not invaded Iraq.
In decades agriculture and translocation will buckle under the price of energy, people will starve, people will freeze, economies will crash. Without energy, or with overly expensive energy, even America could become like a 3rd world country, and California-class energy failures will become more widespread. Perhaps the men who run the US and UK, were actually taking very sobre steps to prevent the end of the world as we know it... perhaps the real reason they went to war- to secure the vast energy reserves we depend on to run the 'modern world', is justified? |
They went to war because they could and yeah, terrorism and the financial support there of was far more a factor than oil reserves.
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child Personaly I don't think it is justified, the modern world could find or build the infrastructure to derive alternative energy sources, but as things currently stand, energy is refined/transported and processed by a select few, an 'Energy Elite'. |
The Oil companies are naturally going to support oil usage. Its their job. Industry is going to use whatever is cheaper regardless of whether its oil or not because it makes them more profitable. That's their job.
Making mindless accusations and stupid conclusions. Apparently thats your job.
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child And because the oil is running out we will see more energy wars launched by the US (a very energy-hungry beast) disguised as humanitarianism or anti-terrorizm or WMD-control in the future. |
This comment here showed us all that you are nothing but a parrot repeating drivel and false information and have done no research and possess no knowledge of your own.
1) Oil is not running out. It replenishes itself. Just like the Global Warming / Flat Earth Idiots oil as a non-renewable resource has been proven to be a myth. The same process that produced the worlds oil reserves is still going on as America's oil fields are INCREASING, the oil levels are rising. It only became evident after the US began using foreign fields in preference to its own because it was taking oil out of the ground faster than it was replenishing.
2) Even if it was running out the US uses everyone elses oil and not theirs. Which means the US will be the last ones with oil. Mainly because foreign oil is cleaner (older) making it cheaper to refine and in many cases cheaper to extract from the ground.
3) We can make oil artificially from plants. Its just more expensive than using foreign oil.
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child The whole thing is merely an extension of the Kissinger plan first floated in the mid-seventies concerned with 'seizing Arab oil supplies', thereby placing the US in a position to 'control the worlds economies' (China, Europe, Russia and the rest). |
The United State pretty much controls the worlds economies already. Not because it controls the worlds oil supplies but BECAUSE IT IS THE WORLDS LARGEST CONSUMER OF VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING.
You gotta sell stuff to somebody and the US buys the most. Why do the Japanese produce products in English? Same reason everyone else does, to sell to Americans............
quote:
Originally posted by donegeal
Moron. You and David Floyd should hook up.....
[Edit] Intended for problem_child, not Arrian. |
Watch it, I don't want GS any more mad at us than they already are.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
If the US didn't spend so much time projecting power overseas people wouldn't be wanting to kill Americans. |
They would still want to kill Americans. We taste like chicken.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
So why does the US feel a need to have bases around the world? To protect it's economy. |
This stems from Pearl Harbor. Ever since then the US has this whole "everyone's out to get us" concept and every war since they have placed military bases there in case someone tries to sneak attack again.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
Is there anyone in the Bush cabinet who hasn't worked in the Oil industry? |
Considering they're from Texas, probably not........
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
The US military could not function without petroleum |
Yeah we could, we'd just sit in our air conditioned tanks and howitzers and press the "fire" button.
Personally, I think the US, Canada, and Mexico should form FoodPEC. If OPEC wants to cut off our Oil supply fine. We'll cut off your food supply. Lets see you eat your oil................
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
To say that this war is simply about the oil is very reductionist. Oh, sure, the oil was a major reason, but it's hardly the only one.
I don't know if you were watching Bush's approval ratings in weekly polls, but the talk about how dangerous Iraq was started around September-October (shortly before the midterm congressional elections, which the GOP won even though they had been trailing in the polls for some time before the talk of war started). Bush's own approval ratings hit the upper 50s before the war also, only to rebound sharply once we attacked Iraq. Am I accusing Bush of beating up a 3rd world country to distract attention from domestic issues? Heck, yeah, but then again that's nothing terribly new. This is also only part of the reason that Iraq was attacked.
Saddam got screwed because a variety of interests came together and said, let's have a war. Neither of those by themselves could really have justified a full invasion, but in conjunction, combined with the justification of WMDs (which we now know was fabricated) amounted to just enough to let the hawks have their way.
Imagine you're walking down the street and you run into this shady character, who has a bulge in his pocket that looks like it might be a gun (could also be a fat wallet, but hey from 50 feet it out you can tell bystanders it was a gun). You then shoot him. That's pretty much what the US did to Iraq. Preemptive war is never justified.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
i'm merely explaining why i think the bush administration went to war.
the bush administration clearly believes that the answer is more force, more power in the region, will yield greater stability and security for them. |
I have said it already, I don't believe that the war was only for oil. Different members of the current US administration (and those suporting them) have clearly different agendas and goals (power, security, money, etc).
However, I think (and I am entitled to have my own opinion) that oil was/is the strategic goal of this war, not just a perk as you said. Nothing that was said this far convinced me that it isn't so. I haven't heard a single good argument against it.
So, again: is it a coincidence the fact that the US controls the world's 3 biggest-in-oil-reserves countries?
Securing resources is one of the top priorities for any government, yet you are trying to convince me that the biggest resource consumer in the world has a powerful military presence (not just this war) in the region for various reasons, but oil. Why all this furious denial? Have some sense of guilt?
You freed Kuweit, you freed Iraq, you're defending Saudi Arabia, all this for what? To flex muscles? To "project power"? With what purpose? And please don't come with the terrorist issue, because the american presence in the region triggered the whole thing in the first place.
Don't you think that an Israeli-Palestinian peace-treaty plus an american military withdrawal fom the region would make the muslims stop killing you? You know it just as well as me that this will never happen, because you can't lose the control of 50% of the world's oil reserves.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
There have been studies before the war even started that showed that the US can make up for the cost of the war by exploiting Iraqi oil and then make profit as well in the long term.
Of course things don't always go as you plan but those studies did exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The studies were from the American Pentagon and Deutsche Bank, IIRC.
World Bank and UN estimated that reconstruction of Iraq will amount to 56 Bil. Putting the oil production on its feet will cost just 8 bil according to the occupational forces estimates. (and Iraq remains the 2nd richest oil country in the world, has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.)
I don't think they are taking into account deliberate sabotage of oil wells though IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The companies will get their oil profit share despite the overal cost for the US itself though, no?
Also which studies are political lies? Could they be the 45-75 bil ones as well?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Also Oerdin, I remember there were 3 scenarios contemplated in those studies. The "good" one, the medium and the worse.
The "good" scenario (a very fast conclusion of the war) is what actually happened. The cost was estimated as the lowest for the "good" scenario.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2003 20:56
|