happythoughts 0 #51 October 13, 2004 QuoteEquipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq Countries that are building reactors that "could" create weapons-grade fuel are deemed a threat by everyone. Yet, a country with tools that "could" build nuclear weapons is not going to do that? Why because the UN was supervising? The same people who were trading oil for missile parts instead of oil for food? Where did they get a bunch of credibility from? I suppose that he would never use the missile parts to build missiles either. It is amazing how people select the facts to conform to their opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #52 October 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteEquipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq Countries that are building reactors that "could" create weapons-grade fuel are deemed a threat by everyone. Yet, a country with tools that "could" build nuclear weapons is not going to do that? Why because the UN was supervising? The same people who were trading oil for missile parts instead of oil for food? Where did they get a bunch of credibility from? I suppose that he would never use the missile parts to build missiles either. It is amazing how people select the facts to conform to their opinion. Are you saying Duelfer and the CIA got it wrong again? Were Blix and Al-Baradei related to the oil for food program? Are you saying that the US did not inherit sealed and secured facilities and then fail to properly protect them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #53 October 13, 2004 QuoteIf this is about the evil America invading Iraq for the oil...I say this: Where is the oil?? Have you paid for gas lately? Have you watched oil prices rise steadily? Gee, you mean the price of oil and gas has gone up? Wonder who profits from that? Oh yeah, oil companies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #54 October 13, 2004 QuoteGee, you mean the price of oil and gas has gone up? Wonder who profits from that? Oh yeah, oil companies. Technically, oil companies do profit from the prices being higher... but not for long. It depends on the contracts they have to buy oil at fixed prices. These contracts aren't usually very long term, since no good trader would bet it all on something as volatile as oil. Keep in mind, if the oil prices drop, the same companies lose money. Either way, it's all relatively short term until the prices become somewhat stable. I do see a paradox here though... if you guys are all over saying that Bush and his "oil buddies" are guilty of wanting the oil prices inflated... how can you turn around and say that this war is for oil, since that would lower oil prices if we got ahold of Iraqi oil in large amounts?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #55 October 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteGee, you mean the price of oil and gas has gone up? Wonder who profits from that? Oh yeah, oil companies. Technically, oil companies do profit from the prices being higher... but not for long. It depends on the contracts they have to buy oil at fixed prices. These contracts aren't usually very long term, since no good trader would bet it all on something as volatile as oil. Keep in mind, if the oil prices drop, the same companies lose money. Either way, it's all relatively short term until the prices become somewhat stable. I do see a paradox here though... if you guys are all over saying that Bush and his "oil buddies" are guilty of wanting the oil prices inflated... how can you turn around and say that this war is for oil, since that would lower oil prices if we got ahold of Iraqi oil in large amounts? We don't actually know what Bush wants because the membership and deliberations of his energy policy committee have been kept secret from the people. Considering the behavior of companies like Enron, run by Bush personal friend, anything could be possible for Bush's goals and objectives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #56 October 13, 2004 QuoteI do see a paradox here though... if you guys are all over saying that Bush and his "oil buddies" are guilty of wanting the oil prices inflated... how can you turn around and say that this war is for oil, since that would lower oil prices if we got ahold of Iraqi oil in large amounts? It's control of the oil supply that's the key. Not the short term profitability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #57 October 13, 2004 QuoteIt's control of the oil supply that's the key. Not the short term profitability. Guess you're mad about Bush's connections to OPEC then, right? Since they control almost all the world's oil....Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #58 October 13, 2004 QuoteGuess you're mad about Bush's connections to OPEC then, right? Since they control almost all the world's oil.... Yes. I believe his business ties to OPEC producers clouds his judgment and influences his decision making. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #59 October 13, 2004 *tinfoil hat on* No shit, so now GWB has massive influence with OPEC? So much influence that he was accused of conspiring with the Saudis to have gas prices drop before the election? Look at the prices! Besides, wouldn't that, in your estimate, hurt his good buddies from the oil companies? Which way is it? Or should we just believe that GWB has the entire oil industry and OPEC under his thumb? Come on... OPEC often will reduce production just to say "fuck you" to the Americans. How can you say that Bush has influence there? Most of those countries aren't all that happy with us anyway right now.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #60 October 13, 2004 No, it's actually just the opposite. GWB does not have influence with OPEC. They have influence with him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #61 October 13, 2004 QuoteWonder who profits from that? Although the data is 1998 and may have changed somewhat it is interesting to note who the largest were since most people assume the largest are US Olil Companies. From Gibson Consulting On-line: COMPANY WORLDWIDE OIL PRODUCTION Million barrels per year, 1998 Saudi Arabian Oil Co.* 3028 Petroleos Mexicanos* 1278 Petroleos de Venezuela* 1258 China National Petroleum* 1168 BP Amoco + Arco 963 ExxonMobil 894 Royal Dutch/Shell 859 Nigerian National Oil Co.* 772 Iraq National Oil Co.* 770 Kuwait Petroleum* 757 Chevron + Texaco 756 Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #62 October 13, 2004 What's even more interesting is to look at what US interests those companies invest in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #63 October 13, 2004 Dude, don't waste your time, they will always insist that this is an oil war, no matter what facts you bring up. They will distort reality, and mindful logic, preferring to add some sorte of conspiracy, and still insists they have a "clear view". Nevermind Venezuela, (as far as conspiracies theories go)which is closer and has a lot of issues these days, and fairly easier (militarily) to take over and makes almost the double of barrels."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 October 13, 2004 Here are a few simple questions for you.... What are our primary business interests in the Middle East? Who has the largest oil reserves in the world? What other reasons do we have to involve ourselves in middle eastern politics? Would we have defended a monarchy (Kuwait) from invastion by another country if their chief export weren't oil? What would happen to the US and world economy if the supplies of oil in the ME were disrupted? I'm not claiming we invaded to take over their oil fields. But we do have a vested interest in their being stability in the middle east for one simple reason. Oil. if it wasn't there, we wouldn't give a shit. Now, my opinion is, lets get to the point where we don't need to give a shit anymore and they can work out there own problems. The only way to do that would be to explore alternative energy sources. Drilling in Alaska and Venezuela are not sufficient to meet our growing oil needs. Unless we find alternate energy sources we HAVE to be involved in Middle Eastern politics. Our current leaders are deeply involved in the oil industry. The met behind closed doors with oil companies to create our national energy policy which has been classified and not released to the public. there is only one entity that benefits by keeping the US on the path of oil dependency for our energy needs. That is the oil companies. No matter what, it's about oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #65 October 13, 2004 There are two groups people who seem to be a little mypoic in the 'oil war' debate - those who claim that the war was all about oil, and those that claim that the war had nothing to do with oil. Of course there were more reasons to launch it than their oil reserves, and of course Bush knew that Iraq had the largest oil reserves in the world and factored that into his thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #66 October 13, 2004 Exaclty. It wasn't solely about oil. But if you take oil out of the equation, there's a 100% probablility we would not have gone to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #67 October 13, 2004 And I can definitely agree with this thought, not the one that is to "enrich his goonies"."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #68 October 13, 2004 QuoteBut we do have a vested interest in their being stability in the middle east for one simple reason. Oil. if it wasn't there, we wouldn't give a shit. Now, my opinion is, lets get to the point where we don't need to give a shit anymore and they can work out there own problems. That is, of course, the correct direction. Are we totally independent of oil now? No. Probably not for 20 more years. So, for now, there needs to be decisions made. In '91, SH did not have a nuclear weapons program (according to recent reports). This is understandable. It is doubtful that he had the cash to buy lunch at Dennys. Things have changed. It is estimated that SH personally pocketed billions during the UN sanctions. He did have 42 rocket motors that were banned. He was buying missile parts using OFF program money. If you are buying missile parts, then you have an active weapons program. Apparently, he did have the dual-use high-tech tools for a weapons program. Some of them were radioactive, so that is a hint that he wasn't making table-candles. That part could be re-activated easily once more money is available. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #69 October 13, 2004 Here is a weapon of mass destruction: Bodies of babies found in Saddam's 'killing field' A mass grave containing the bodies of children, babies and their mothers has been unearthed in Iraq... Shocked investigators reported finding "thighbones the size of matchsticks" at what they believe is the site of one of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Among the findings-were the skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys. A baby had been shot in the back of its head and was found still being clutched by its mother, who had been shot in the face. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the Eighties. The bodies had been bulldozed into the ground. One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. Some 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam's regime. Iraq's human rights ministry has reportedly identified 40 possible mass graves across the country. Source: This is London Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #70 October 13, 2004 So let me get this straight. Liberals are up in arms because we haven't found WMDs whose purpose is to cause mass deaths but they don't care about Saddam causing mass deaths? It is indeed confusing using liberal logic. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #71 October 13, 2004 So let me get this straight. Conservatives are claiming that we went to war in Iraq because of 20 year old mass graves, not non-existent WMD? You're right, it is confusing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #72 October 13, 2004 >but they don't care about Saddam causing mass deaths? Whereas conservatives raise a great hue and cry about Saddam killing people, but overlook cases where we asked him to kill people for us, or when the US kills thousands of innocent Iraqis. I'm tellin ya, if you want to end the insurgency, just put Saddam back in power. Ask him to crush the insurgency as we once asked him to crush the Iranians. Then, when he's done, execute him for crushing the insurgency. That way everyone's happy! The conservatives can not only bitch even _more_ about Saddam's injustices, but can be proud that we executed him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #73 October 13, 2004 There is some jailhouse logic that has convicted murderers as trustees. They get special priviledges for keeping the others in line. In a lot of places in the world, the most ruthless person eventually becomes in charge until someone can whack them. SH knocked off a lot of the opposition (some with the help of the US). I would imagine that the next regime will have to be similarly ruthless in order to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #74 October 13, 2004 >I would imagine that the next regime will have to be similarly ruthless >in order to continue. The question is - how long before we invade _them_? Other than keeping Halliburton in business, I don't see the long-term benefit of keeping up such a cycle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #75 October 14, 2004 "So let me get this straight. Conservatives are claiming that we went to war in Iraq because of 20 year old mass graves, not non-existent WMD? You're right, it is confusing." Now where is that picture, taken about 20 years ago, ah yes here it is, this was taken after we knew Saddam was a really bad guy.... FWIW Rumsfled is the guy on the right, Hussein is the guy shaking his hand and smiling.-------------------- 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
