 |
| |
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Alberta is sitting on 280-300 billion barrles of oil, just in the tar sands. Then there are the more conventional oil fields. Statistics lie and then sometimes it's the people publishing them that do.
There, all you had to do was wait til someone came along who could give you accurate information. Was that so hard?
|
Thanks for your accurate information. Source?
My info was from the ]Energy Information Administration , "Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government".
But of course you know it better.
quote:
As for why the armed might of the US might be interested in the ME right now, maybe you tuned out the fact that there is one hell of a hole in the ground right where the centre pieces of New York used to be, and the people who created the holes came from the ME. I don't know. I could be wrong here, but I think that is what has the Yanks up in arms.
|
The US is not suddenly interested in the ME right now. They are interested in the ME for a long time, long before terrorists started to blow americans up.
Btw, have you seen evidence that would connect Iraq to Al Qaeda? Because I haven't seen any. Nor WOMD. So why Iraq then?
Why don't you read everything before you post? I didn't say this war was only about oil. I've said that the main strategic reason was oil.
Until you publish your sources, something more than "Alberta is sitting on 280-300 billion barrels of oil", I will ask again: is it just a coincidence that the US controls the world's 3 largest in oil reserves countries?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
|
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
You are really pathetic, nye. You are trying so hard to prove that I'm wrong, you called my source "unreliable". However our links have their info from the same source: The Oil and Gas Journal. 
My data was accurate on Jan. 1 2002, which I stated in my post. Yet you had to call it "bullshit". What a convincing argument 
From your source:
quote:
Estimates of Canada’s oil reserves jumped from 4.9 billion barrels to 180 billion this year
|
Now read my link and see what were the estimates on Jan 1 2002.
From you link, too:
quote:
Despite technological developments, the Oil and Gas Journal estimate might be overly optimistic, says Naresh Kumar, chair of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Resources Evaluation Committee. |
One more quote from your source, nye:
quote:
Whatever the immediate investment climate, the United States has strong long-term interests in the Alberta oil sands. According to the Bush administration’s National Energy Policy, “their continued development can be a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security.”
|
First of all, I doubt it'd be cheap to extract that oil. The ME oil is the cheapest in the world in this regard. But even so, the article says that the US gov. "has strong long-term interests" in the Alberta oil; however, you want me to believe that they don't give a sh!t on the ME oil. Sure. Greed doesn't matter at all. You believe in fairy tales, too?
quote:
Maybe it's the tin pot dicators that have easy money from oil? No, that couldn't be it, could it? |
Yes, it could. That's a good reason, too, and probably part of the whole picture. Oh wait, maybe it isn't such a good reason after all, because it is connected to, horror, oil!
Last edited by Tiberius on 04-10-2003 at 13:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
300 billion barrels of oil, extractable right now, Tiberius. read it and weap. that us more than Saudia Arabia.
I'm not sure why we are fighting about this, other than maybe you want to perpetuate the myth that oil is only found in the ME and anything the US does there is because of oil for them.
Trust me, we have more than enough oil in North America to take care of ourselves. Why would oil be so important then, eh?
btw, I said more reliable. reliab;le is not a source that has billions of dollars dropped into a resourse with no proven worth. Alberta just 'jumping' from 480 million to several billion barrels of proven reserves is just that, bullshit. It cost several billion dollars to get that oil 'proven'. Do you think they just spent it in the last year? In fact, it has been being spent for the last thirty years.
And btw, yes, it is convenient for me to point out that all the oil the ME is not equal to the oil sitting below North America.
You seem to have a problem with that concept though. Why is that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
|
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
So Canada is the reachest contry in oil reserves? Great, I'm really glad to hear this, because that means we won't be dependent in the long term on the ME oil, and the unstable governments in the area.
But ...
300 billion barrels of oil, extractable right now, at what cost? Is it as cheap as the ME oil?
IMO you underestimate greed. The oil industry is interested in cheap oil, and currently the oil in the ME is the cheapest.
Even if all the 300 billion barrels are economically efficient to extract, the ME oil still accounts for 50% of the world currently recovarable oil reserves. The Canadian oil reserve is secure, but the next 3 or 4 big produces/reserves are still in the ME, and you are telling me that controll over them is not important for the US and its short and long term interests?
quote:
Trust me, we have more than enough oil in North America to take care of ourselves. Why would oil be so important then, eh?
|
If it isn't important, what are the US soldiers doing in SA, Kuwait and Iraq?
Ask yourself a simple question: if there was no oil, at all, in the ME, would the US have such a massive military presense in the area? I don't think so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:31
|
|
Problem Child, I would like to point out that the US has pointedly promised that a future Iraqi government will be democratic, so puppet state=impossible if the US keeps to this promise, and pro-US state=doubtful, leaning very much to no-although possible, if they have a good education system without too much propaganda.
Also, you outright dismiss any chance of their being any WMD in Iraq. Being such an expert on the issue, could you please tell us: 1) whether there is any chance Saddam destroyed some of the less well hidden WMD during or before the war, or 2) How long it takes to actually find things such as WMD in a large country made of up tracts of desert.
AS for imperialism-what do you mean by it? Certainly the US isn't "colonising" Iraq, and Bush has said that all revenue from Iraqi oil wells will go to help rebuild Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zevico
Problem Child, I would like to point out that the US has pointedly promised that a future Iraqi government will be democratic, so puppet state=impossible if the US keeps to this promise, and pro-US state=doubtful, leaning very much to no-although possible, if they have a good education system without too much propaganda.
Also, you outright dismiss any chance of their being any WMD in Iraq. Being such an expert on the issue, could you please tell us: 1) whether there is any chance Saddam destroyed some of the less well hidden WMD during or before the war, or 2) How long it takes to actually find things such as WMD in a large country made of up tracts of desert.
AS for imperialism-what do you mean by it? Certainly the US isn't "colonising" Iraq, and Bush has said that all revenue from Iraqi oil wells will go to help rebuild Iraq. |
So Saddam destroyed his weapons of mass destruction just before the war huh? Then what was the bloody point of em? Saddam did destroy the WMDs, or rather UN inspectors did after the last Gulf War (UN inspectors like the late Dr David Kelly, another victim of our lying manipulative USUK leaderships).
By the way after GW1 the sanctions were imposed, and at no time were WoMaDs mentioned back then, the sanctions were originaly (alegedly) imposed to force the Iraqi's to depose Saddam Hussein (even though they did try to liberate themselves but were allowed to be slaughtered in their efforts by Saddam Hussein, with the complicity of USUK leadership because USUK leadership disliked the idea that a bunch of Arabs sitting on such a strategicly interesting peice of real estate might make their own national choices for once).
The real reasons the sanctions were imposed was to punish the Iraqi people, to hold them up as an example to others... what happens to those who get too uppety, and to degrade their previously well-developed society... don't want Iraq to get independant or anything, keep it 3rd world.
Iraq used to have a better then average standard of living for the area, America and Britain bombed the crap out of that and then made sure all facilities (from water treatment plants to medical materiels to pencil-graphite and lightbulbs) were cut off from the place so the nation could never recover, let alone rebuild WoMaDs (which Iraq had required heavy support in terms of money/material and expertise from the West to develop in the first place, back when they were fighting post-Shah Iran). The result of the sanctions was the deaths and high mortality rate of hundreds of thousand sof children (of course the most vulnerable in the society). The US and UK had bombed water-processors (of vital importance in an essentially desert nation) and destroyed the electrical infrastructure... then imposed sanctions, they knew who would be hurt. All those plants of various kinds that would never be repaired, all those hospitals that would never get enough medicines or equipment, especially nasty in a nation so saturated with Delpleted Uranium dust and Cancers...
However the genocidal santions regime had to be justified by USUK, (genocidal as defined by the Geneva convention) and that's when they first came up with the whole WMD thing as an excuse for their continued diplomatic/economic aggressions against Iraq.
It is well documented by the UN inspectors how Iraq had destroyed it's WoMaDs, the reason the US and UK were able to say they weren't complying is because the US had managed to construct a mandate that said every last bolt and every last bunsen-burner had to be accounted for, but the Iraqis had already destroyed a bunch of stuff- rendering every last item not necessarily accountable. Basically Iraqs arsenal and ability to produce more WoMaDs was effectively destroyed between the UN inspectors and the Iraqis themselves, this was known, but USUK wanted to be anal about it so that they could continue the sanctions, and continue their preludes to war. It's also well known that the inspection teams themselves were heavily infiltrated by CIA and Isreali spies, and that some of the demands they made effectively encouraged scientists to defect (the UN is not supposed to be a Defection Agency) or to interveiw college/university students... the kind of things no nation could possibly comply with. This apparently amounted to 'refusal to cooperate' by the war architects back in the Pentagon.
Don't beleive me? Read up on your Hans Blix, read up on your Kofi Annan, read up on your post GW1 period articles. Then come back an despute it.
Saddam bombed Iraqs Kurds with WoMaDs, where was the Wests self-rightiuos outrage then? The same place it was when Indonesia invaded East Timor, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians... it was in a boardroom discusing lucrative contracts with the military-men in their pea-green clothes and dark-glasses, everybody sitting in comfy leather chairs and sipping mineral water, that's where.
I'd also like to mention the no-fly zones, alegedly enforced to 'protect the Kurds', and yet in the Northern no fly zone, USUK pilots regularly ceased patrols to allow the Turkish military to come in to brutalise and kill the Kurds. When the USUK airforces were't turning a blind eye to Turkish operations against the Kurds there, they spent their time randomly bombing herdsman and villages (sometimes again and again), and denying Iraq the right to maintain an air-defence system (hmm, I wonder why...) There was never any legitemacy to the so called no-fly zones, they were a blatant abuse of a nations sovreignty, and a blatant abuse of the legitemacy of the UN.
It might also be useful to look at the UNs resolutions on WMDs in the ME area as a whole, Iraq was to destroy it's WoMaDs, and Isreal was to reduce it's WoMaDs, and Arabia was to reduce its arsenals. Obviously the US and Isreal had no intention of Isreal de-arming itself of nukes and poxes, and obviously the UK had no interest in Customer Number One buying less of it's deadly wares... so instead you only ever seemed to hear about Iraq having to disarm and disarm again.
When I say that GW2 was about oil, I don't just mean a few billion barrels, I mean the long term strategic value of oil, of strategic military power in that oil-rich region of the worlds cheapest oil, I'm not just talking about the value in terms of the price of a barrel times the number of confirmed barrels available, I'm talking about the value of controlling the largest reserves of the cheapest oil in the world for decades to come. The US used to be an external power trying to project influence into the Middle East, now the US is a regional power. It borders Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria...
And the idea that Iraq will ever be democratic or be invested in reminds me of a cleche, the wife of a wife-beater beleives her husband the next morning after a 'rough and drunken night' when he tells her:
'I'll never hit you again darling, from now on things are gonna change, I promise...'
Pur-leez. The Bush administration envisages the future of Iraq as being somewhere between the Shah's Iran and modern Turkey. That reads as a Kurd-oppressing kleptocracy familiar with torture, disapearance and repression as tools of public relations. You can also look at El Salvadore to see the kind of 'democracy' the US is in the habit of creating. For a start the US is not even deBa'arthing the Iraqi state below the highest levels of government (where it has instead directly installed for the time being Americans). The Iraqi security state, the police force etc... it's like de-Nazifying Germany by re-employing the Gestapo. (As an aside the US did actually recruit many Nazi's for it's clandestine death-squady type operations in South America, in underming the democraticaly elected government of Guatamala and killing hundreds of thousands of native Indians for example.... America has killed hundreds of thousands of Indians before... guess it was familiar territory really.)
Anyway, the US empire is modelling itself on the British empire, it's influence is to be informal when possible (proxies, clients, surrogates and well-placed compradors) and formal when necessary (direct military might, super-carriers, air-bases, battalions, invasion to 'free' people and all that kind of bollocks).
By the way, where is the oil in East Asia? is it anywhere near Vietnam at all?
One more thing, I make no apologies for being passionate in my opposition to the injustices and lies of powerful well-armed imperiums. Call me childish but I will always be proud to froth at the mouth when I see a bunch of imperialists walking on people and editing history so that self-rightous propaganda-dwelling rednecks can shout out
'Yee-haa! God what a Great Freedom Luvin Country We Are!'
But it's also good to see a bunch of people also saying 'Yeah well I'm American too, but this invasion thing is bullshit... I'm not dumb enough to just beleive what I'm fed by the corrupt oil-men that run the joint right now, here's what I think their real motives are....' 
Last edited by problem_child on 04-10-2003 at 19:04
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2003 10:22
Attachment: 
|
