kallend 2,150 #26 March 13, 2003 QuoteI 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. As in, to have control of the oil supply. Maybe the idea needs re-phrasing. It's not about taking oil, it's about controlling the world's oil supply and the economic strength that goes along with that control.... 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
mountainman 0 #27 March 13, 2003 If there was a huge oil field that a murdering tyrant who oppresses his people is ruling over... I'd move in and kick his ass too. There... I said it. Big deal. http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #28 March 13, 2003 If I was a mudering tyrant who was about to get obliterated by invading capital imperialists, I'd nuke the oil field just to flip the Great Satan off. Or at least I'd trash the production strings at or around about the casing hangoffs, maybe even run some reservoir-fucking frac jobs into the bargain, oh and I'd take out the trees just for good measure. Thats assuming I hadn't been injecting aerated water into the well for the last couple of years to sour it up nicely. Nothing quite like a kick of hydrogen sulphide when you least expect it.... Any kid with "oilwell technology 101" could do this.....-------------------- 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
PhillyKev 0 #29 March 13, 2003 QuoteIf there was a huge oil field that a murdering tyrant who oppresses his people is ruling over... I'd move in and kick his ass too. Yeah...we should be the ones ruling over the oil field and murdering his people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 March 13, 2003 As in, to have control of the oil supply. Maybe the idea needs re-phrasing. It's not about taking oil, it's about controlling the world's oil supply and the economic strength that goes along with that control. I thought you were asking how we were going to pay for the war? Didn't you post something predicting the negative impact the war would have on the U.S. economy? Now you say taking over the oil fields is a bad thing? How can it be a bad decision if we take control of the oil fields, sell oil to the French and Germans at vastly inflated prices and use whats left over to give a major tax cut to the U.S. taxpayer? After all, we have been supporting a large part of the worlds poor and undeveloped countries for so long, it's about time we got somethig back. "It's not about oil, it's about tax cuts". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #31 March 13, 2003 >If the US was motivated by oil, then their target would be Venuzela, not Iraq. We could not have invaded Venezuela without kicking off a massive worldwide reaction against the US. It probably would not have been military, but even an embargo by a few countries would put our economy in the dumper and ensure Bush's loss in the next election. He knows this. Iraq is a far more popular target. >It's important to criticise Bush for the RIGHT reasons. While I would not claim that oil is the only reason we're going to war, it's certainly one of the reasons. Let me put it in Bush speak: "We must secure our energy sources so that those who would do us harm cannot use them to manipulate us. Only by ensuring stability in our vital sources of energy can we protect the american people from economic blackmail by terrorist organizations." I don't happen to agree with that line of reasoning (better to change our sources of energy than try to impose stability on an unstable region) but I think that's what _he_ believes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #32 March 13, 2003 Well, the saudi's are one of the countries we are concerned about, and there is a move to take bases out of there. Now, It is not perposterous. SH had to go because of weapons and this whole "Axis of Evil" bit. Getting rid of SH will calm the Middle east a bit, and will also give us a country which will like us in the region. Iraqs will again have a lot of influcence over places like Iran. Knowing 15 of 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, we have realized we need to take a closer look at them, and start to question their intentions. They have been friendly, because we have been business partners. Look at both sides of Iraq, On one side Saudia Arabia, and on the other Iran.The nieghbors will think twice when we have troops permenantly stationed in Iraq for peace keeping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 March 13, 2003 Once again...why do we need troops there to keep the peace? Why don't we just let them at each other? If we stay out of it, the terrorists have no reason to target us...they'll be fighting each other. Hmmm...geee, let me think. There must be something that we want from them. Is it camel hair? Good will and happy thoughts? Burkas? I know I'll think of it soon...wait...could it be oil? Nahhh....that's just something the liberal media would say. Hello!!! I don't think oil is the only reason we're in this, but you're the one saying it has nothing to do with it. That we're just there to occupy and police the area. What justification do we have for doing that? Geez...come on...2+2=????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainman 0 #34 March 13, 2003 Quote Quote If there was a huge oil field that a murdering tyrant who oppresses his people is ruling over... I'd move in and kick his ass too. Yeah...we should be the ones ruling over the oil field and murdering his people. That is one of the dumbest things I've heard. http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainman 0 #35 March 13, 2003 QuoteGeez...come on...2+2=????? We can't figure it out on our own. Let's get the UN to vote on it. They probably STILL couldn't figure it out.http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #36 March 13, 2003 Even if we didn't go into Iraq, i am pretty sure the terrorist would still hate us. You see, it is not just because we are there, it is because of our beliefs. Much like the crusade were, extreamist muslims seek to destroy all western influence in the world. Then there are those that just hate us, and it has nothing to do with religion... I don't think you get it. If we don't go into Iraq, it is just one more place terroeist can hang out without fear of government interference. As far as 2+2 goes... The UN is putting off taking action on that problem, they will discuss it next week to give you the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainman 0 #37 March 13, 2003 Quote As far as 2+2 goes... The UN is putting off taking action on that problem, they will discuss it next week to give you the answer. Actually, I think France is going to vote "5" on that, so we're screwed either way. http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #38 March 13, 2003 >Even if we didn't go into Iraq, i am pretty sure the terrorist would still > hate us. Probably true, but they would surely hate us more if we kill more of them. >You see, it is not just because we are there, it is because of our >beliefs. That's a load of crap. They hate us because we kill them, the same reason we hate the 9/11 hijackers. We drop bombs on them and kill their families. We sell weapons to Israel and they use those weapons to kill their families. You'd hate the US too if you watched your kids die in the aftermath of a US-led bombing campaign. I know a few people from Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. They're pretty much like us, hard as that may be to believe. >Much like the crusade were, extreamist muslims seek to destroy >all western influence in the world. Actually the crusades were extremist christians trying to kill the infidels (i.e. muslims) living in Palestine. Nine million died during those little outings. >I don't think you get it. If we don't go into Iraq, it is just one more >place terroeist can hang out without fear of government interference. If you think that Iraq is currently a place where Al Quaeda could operate "free from government interference" you don't understand what a totalitarian despot Hussein is. He regularly squashes even minor organizations that do not worship him. Bin Laden and Hussein hate each other's guts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #39 March 13, 2003 this is rumour now, not fact..YET. so bear this in mind. i was having a conversation with "someone in the know" just this evening, i was advised we have spotted trucks in the oilfields of iraq today. (via U-2) there are suggestions that C-4 is being placed on the iraqi oil wells today. the "new plan" is to place explosives on the wells that will not only blow the "X-Trees" off, but will destroy the integrity of the casing down to 200' so as to make salvage next to impossible. again, this is speculative for now, but i do know technology does exists to achieve such an objective, and i also know for fact that oilfield firefighting specialists are planning for such activities and every imageanable well destruction scenario. how bad do we want this? this would be FUBAR to say the least. and this sadaam fella is just the egomaniac to "pull the trigger" on his own wells. last time they were relatively easy to put out, this time, it won't be so easy. i think they learned from they're last attempts how to make the destruction of wells more effective.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #40 March 13, 2003 wouldn't surprise me!!!! Although if you read the Dan Blather interview, you will see the SH said he wouldn't do that. And we all know he wouldn't lie to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #41 March 13, 2003 >"That's a load of crap. They hate us because we kill them, the same reason we hate the 9/11 hijackers. We drop bombs on them and kill their families. We sell weapons to Israel and they use those weapons to kill their families. You'd hate the US too if you watched your kids die in the aftermath of a US-led bombing campaign>" I disagree. I would say hate, but there are many religous groups I don't like. Mainly because they knock on my door and try to "SAVE" me. I think the terrorist genuinely hate us for who we are. The Taliban definately did. It wasn't because we attacked the Taliban, in fact we armed the bastards. They just thought our beliefs were destroying the world. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #42 March 13, 2003 QuoteGetting rid of SH will calm the Middle east a bit, and will also give us a country which will like us in the region. Every civilian killed (aka 'collateral damage') in Iraq by an American or British bomb will have friends and family who might not *like* us. Good luck explaining to them that their friends/family were better off dying from a friendly bomb than an evil dictator. The impression I've got is that Bush wants his High Noon no matter what, he is wearing his white stetson and he's going in to settle a score. He's gonna finish what his daddy done started... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #43 March 13, 2003 Quote As in, to have control of the oil supply. Maybe the idea needs re-phrasing. It's not about taking oil, it's about controlling the world's oil supply and the economic strength that goes along with that control. I thought you were asking how we were going to pay for the war? Didn't you post something predicting the negative impact the war would have on the U.S. economy? Not me - musta been someone else. I KNOW how the war will be paid for.... 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
rgoper 0 #44 March 13, 2003 yeah, Chris we all know he's a proven liar but that's a given. the biggest point i was trying to make to your posts, is it's not ALL about oil, because the US KNOWS what this imbicile is capable of. we don't want him to blow his wells up, and we fear he may do just that. that's the biggest reason we haven't busted his ass to date, you people didn't really think the US cares about UN consences did you? even as the US is making strategic moves at this very moment, there are counter measures being taken elsewhere. he knows the U-2's see what he's doing, the man's a terroists, not a fool.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #45 March 13, 2003 Quotethis is rumour now, not fact..YET. so bear this in mind. i was having a conversation with "someone in the know" just this evening, i was advised we have spotted trucks in the oilfields of iraq today. (via U-2) there are suggestions that C-4 is being placed on the iraqi oil wells today. the "new plan" is to place explosives on the wells that will not only blow the "X-Trees" off, but will destroy the integrity of the casing down to 200' so as to make salvage next to impossible. again, this is speculative for now, but i do know technology does exists to achieve such an objective, and i also know for fact that oilfield firefighting specialists are planning for such activities and every imageanable well destruction scenario. how bad do we want this? this would be FUBAR to say the least. and this sadaam fella is just the egomaniac to "pull the trigger" on his own wells. last time they were relatively easy to put out, this time, it won't be so easy. i think they learned from they're last attempts how to make the destruction of wells more effective. If it's not about oil, why would we care?... 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
cgross 1 #46 March 13, 2003 all you Non-american people call GWB a cowboy.... WTF does that mean, and is it an insult? I always wanted to be a cowboy when I grew up. I surely didn't want to be a French Chef Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #47 March 13, 2003 Quote>"That's a load of crap. They hate us because we kill them, the same reason we hate the 9/11 hijackers. We drop bombs on them and kill their families. We sell weapons to Israel and they use those weapons to kill their families. You'd hate the US too if you watched your kids die in the aftermath of a US-led bombing campaign>" I disagree. I would say hate, but there are many religous groups I don't like. Mainly because they knock on my door and try to "SAVE" me. I think the terrorist genuinely hate us for who we are. The Taliban definately did. It wasn't because we attacked the Taliban, in fact we armed the bastards. They just thought our beliefs were destroying the world. Chris Our beliefs ARE destroying THEIR world.... 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
skreamer 1 #48 March 13, 2003 GWB is a cowboy who wants to be president... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #49 March 13, 2003 I agree, it is good to see you make a SH/terrorist connection. Because let's face it, the guy is a terrorist. But hey, the ACLU are terrorists too, but that is a different thread... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #50 March 13, 2003 Well apparently the US population wanted him to be president too... Am I right? Don't give me that Florida argument either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
