cgross 1 #1 March 13, 2003 I think my signature says where i stand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #2 March 13, 2003 So wheres the third option ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #4 March 13, 2003 I think so becouse I CAN figure it out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #5 March 13, 2003 well, i would like to hear your explaination. If it is good, I will add the 3rd catagory. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #6 March 13, 2003 Quotewell, i would like to hear your explaination. If it is good, I will add the 3rd catagory. Chris It was all explained here about 2 weeks ago. I guess you weren't paying attention.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #7 March 13, 2003 Look at this http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,880445,00.html George W Bush Unsuccessful Texas oilman. His prospecting company, Arbusto, was on the point of going bankrupt when it was bought out by another company, Spectrum, which in turn was bought out by another oil firm, Harken, which kept Bush on the board for his contacts, primarily with his father. Dick Cheney Before becoming vice-president, Cheney, below, was the chief executive of Halliburton, the world's largest oilfield services company. Halliburton does not drill for oil but it sells everything to the corporations that do the drilling. It also provides housing and services for the US military. Condoleezza Rice Before coming to the White House the national security adviser sat on the board of Chevron. They were clearly happy with her strategic advice and Bush family contacts as they named an oil tanker after her. Don Evans Old Bush friend from Texas oil days. Evans stayed in the oil business. Before becoming commerce secretary, he was the chairman of Tom Brown Inc, a $1.2bn oil and gas company based in Denver, and also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, an oil and gas drilling operation. Gale Norton Environmentalists objected to her appointment as interior secretary because of her oil links. As a lawyer she had represented Delta Petroleum. She also ran an organisation called the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, co-funded by BP Amoco. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #8 March 13, 2003 It is about oil for the French and Germans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMFin 0 #9 March 13, 2003 Quotewell, i would like to hear your explaination. If it is good, I will add the 3rd catagory. Chris Even If I would agree with ya I think you should really add the 3rd choise, If ya really wanna ask opinions here ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 March 13, 2003 Considering that it's about the only thing of value in Iraq, it's kinda hard for me to see how it can not ultimately be about anything else. Even if it's not about oil for US, then at least to a certain extent it's about oil for THEM.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #11 March 13, 2003 war....? What war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 March 13, 2003 QuoteQuotewell, i would like to hear your explaination. If it is good, I will add the 3rd catagory. Chris It was all explained here about 2 weeks ago. I guess you weren't paying attention. According to Congressman Jim Moran [D], one of our favorite liberals, it's because the Jews run everything and they are pulling the strings of their puppet, George Bush. Thats about as believable as "It's all about Oil" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #13 March 13, 2003 That was a refreshing post. Nice to know that everyone in the Bush administration had JOBS in the private sector. Most Democrats are lifelong career politicians that have never had a JOB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #14 March 13, 2003 obviously he doesn't"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #15 March 13, 2003 On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said a post-Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq would be able to pay for some of the rebuilding and humanitarian needs itself, using assets currently frozen by the United Nations due to the 1991 Gulf War, as well revenues from oil sales. Hrmmm... kinda says it all... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #16 March 13, 2003 who thinks the issue, like most, is not as black and white as you think? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #17 March 13, 2003 I think we wouldn't give a crap about Iraq if they didn't sit on top of a major oil field. Oil equals security and stability in the modern world. It is not just some selfish "I want money" motivation. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 March 13, 2003 Horseshit. Even I don't agree with this war, and even I can see that oil wealth is not the only objective. This war, even transporting all those people & machinery/weapons, etc. will far outweigh any financial gain we'll get from the oil there. This war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Secondly, to write this off as "oh its all about oil" is simplistic. Even in your own life, how often do you make a major decision to do something based on only one factor?? The Iraq issue is not a simple issue, it is complex. And it is based on more than one issue. I disagree with how our President is pushing things as he has. I would have dealt with the Israeli/Palestinian issue before the Iraq issue. But to try to push a political agenda by making things all simple & saying "oh it's all about the oil!" is bullshit. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #19 March 13, 2003 Why would oil companies want more oil in the market? That would drop prices. Read this. This is from A CNN Transcript from Mar 11 NewsNight with AAron Brown SCHNEIDER (voice-over): You see the message at anti-war protests in Iraq, Australia, France, as well as Denver and Washington. Why do people all over the world believe this is all about oil? Well, duh. Doesn't Iraq have the second largest proven oil reserves in the world? Doesn't the U.S. consume a quarter of the world's oil? Aren't George W. Bush and Dick Cheney oil men? STEVE KRETZMANN, INSTITUTION FOR POLICY STUDIES: If McDonald's, the world's largest consumer of potatoes, were to announce in advance that it was going to buy Idaho, and that that purchase had nothing to do with potatoes, what would you think? SCHNEIDER: Some Democrats running for president insinuate that it's all about oil. REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This administration, as Ralph Nader said, is marinated in oil. SCHNEIDER: That's ridiculous, says the Bush administration. PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: The issue is not about Iraqi oil. If the United States had wanted access to Iraqi oil, we could have dropped our whole policy 12 years ago, lifted the sanctions, and let Saddam Hussein have his weapons of mass destruction. SCHNEIDER: After all, there is plenty of oil available elsewhere in the world. And more Iraqi oil production would drive down price and profits. JIM PLACKE, CAMBRIDGE ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES: Oil companies don't have a habit of investing in oil production that drives down the price of oil. SCHNEIDER: The oil industry wants stability. PLACKE: It's better to have a stable price in a reasonable range. SCHNEIDER: And war is the ultimate instability. PETER HARTCHER, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW: The oil industry wants oil, but they don't want to have to go through a war to get it. SCHNEIDER : There's a reason why the rest of world readily accepts the idea that this is a war for oil. They have not heard any other convincing airport. The American public rejects the idea by two to one. Have they heard a more convincing argument? Yes, 9/11. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: September the 11th should say to the American people that we are now a battlefield. (END VIDEOTAPE) SCHNEIDER: But is 9/11 the real reason why the Bush administration wants this war? You know recent books by Bob Woodward and David Frum suggest that the administration had decided to confront Iraq long before 9/11. The real motivation, some analysts say, is idealism. For years, neo-conservative intellectuals like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, figures of great influence in the Bush administration, have been promoting the idea of a new world order based on the predominance of American power. But you know, bold agendas like that really make Americans nervous. Americans have no ambitions to dominate the world. They just want to feel safe -- Aaron. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #20 March 13, 2003 Quoteand even I can see that oil wealth is not the only objective. Reread my post. I didn't say it was about oil "wealth". Oil is more than wealth and riches to the world. Oil isn't the only reason but it is a major reason. If you don't believe that then you are being naive about the whole situation. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #21 March 13, 2003 If the US was motivated by oil, then their target would be Venuzela, not Iraq. Venuezela is closer, has fewer defences, and is actually where most of the US oil comes from. It's important to criticise Bush for the RIGHT reasons. While Bush's friends might profit from this, that has been the case with pretty much every war the US has fought in. Hell, it's pretty much usually the case even when the US ISN'T fighting a war. No change, really... This isn't about War. Bush is doing what he thinks is right. It's just unfortunate that 80% of the other countries in the world disagree with him. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #22 March 13, 2003 I completely agree with you!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #23 March 13, 2003 I dissagree, I truely think oil has nothing to do with it. I feel securing a strong foothold in the Middle east to "look after" other nations in the area is a much bigger player. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 March 13, 2003 QuoteI feel securing a strong foothold in the Middle east to "look after" other nations in the area is a much bigger player. And what exactly is our motivation for doing that? Edit to add: So you think we're attacking Iraq so that we can have a strong foothold in the middle east? That's even more preposterous than oil. We have Saudi Arabia, Kuwai, and Afghanistan as major footholds and a few other minor ones to boot. And if that were the reason, that's even more repugnant to think that we're going to start killing people so that we can have some military bases so we can "look after" people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #25 March 13, 2003 THat really does depend on ones interpretation of "look after" other nations....hmmm?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
