| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2009 : 10:45:48 AM
|
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/ |
|
|
|
darkstar
25947 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 10:49:12 AM
|
>>>>If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
Our weak leadership instituting policies to perpetuate the problem so they see no need to contract with a failing country?... |
|
|
Boulderco
1775 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 11:37:22 AM
|
| Because they won the bid? What's the problem with that? |
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 11:40:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
It was a war for oil, popularity Halliburton! |
|
|
darkstar
25947 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 11:43:00 AM
|
| Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)... |
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 11:44:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock. |
|
|
frank drigotas j
3845 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 11:47:59 AM
|
Agreed.
dollar |
|
|
dtabar
1147 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 12:23:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock.
Domestically as in Alaska? |
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 12:26:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dtabar
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock.
Domestically as in Alaska?
Alaska, Florida, California, etc...
Just the announcement that we were proceeding ahead with domestic drilling would drop the price overnight.
|
|
|
rudeness
5192 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 12:52:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by dtabar
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock.
Domestically as in Alaska?
Alaska, Florida, California, etc...
Just the announcement that we were proceeding ahead with domestic drilling would drop the price overnight.
The claim is that the world's largest supply of oil is here in the US under the Rockies. |
|
|
MisterVA
8615 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 1:40:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
It was a war for oil, popularity Halliburton
the ability to manipulate oil prices by speculation based upon possible interruptions in the world's oil supply.
Fixed it for ya! |
|
|
assassin17
7702 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 1:45:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rudeness
The claim is that the world's largest supply of oil is here in the US under the Rockies.
And we will never drill for it, because that would lower prices and save the car industry. The government will never let us remove our dependency upon their foreign interests, because that is where the large majority of bribe money comes from. It's the same reason we don't cure anything anymore. |
|
|
clydesnodgrass
769 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 1:46:53 PM
|
I've lived in Florida my whole life... anyone that lives here on the Gulf Coast will tell you that we're all for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico more closer inland. That's the problem. We ALREADY have over 700 platforms in the Gulf (my father is a captain on a 300ft relief boat for a handful of them)... one superfortress drilling platform would replace the work of a dozen smaller ones and they could get closer to the shore and still not even be remotely visible to anyone on shore - not even close.
If the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline kept going up last year and that's the only reason why Chevron/Exxon raised their prices having everyone follow suit - then explain to me how Chevron/Exxon made over $60billion combined dollars in PROFIT! Not revenue - PROFIT. |
|
|
nw@8brook
515 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 2:24:00 PM
|
that's special interest for ya! You think exxon and bp and the likes will favor the US to drill domestically so the price of oil will drop or stabalize? Those guys play both sides of the game. Unless we have a national policy to rid ourselves of oil dependency, domestic or foreign, we're always on the hook.
quote:
Originally posted by clydesnodgrass
I've lived in Florida my whole life... anyone that lives here on the Gulf Coast will tell you that we're all for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico more closer inland. That's the problem. We ALREADY have over 700 platforms in the Gulf (my father is a captain on a 300ft relief boat for a handful of them)... one superfortress drilling platform would replace the work of a dozen smaller ones and they could get closer to the shore and still not even be remotely visible to anyone on shore - not even close.
If the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline kept going up last year and that's the only reason why Chevron/Exxon raised their prices having everyone follow suit - then explain to me how Chevron/Exxon made over $60billion combined dollars in PROFIT! Not revenue - PROFIT.
|
|
|
seaRick1
834 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 2:36:05 PM
|
Are you serious? Wake up already! There are way too many factors that come into play for that to happen. And the problem is that drilling in the Rockies apparently is not 'cheap easy' oil to get......just like the oil shales up in Canada. They've got a sh__load of oil up there, it's just not cheap to extract - that's the problem. quote:
Originally posted by rudeness
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by dtabar
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock.
Domestically as in Alaska?
Alaska, Florida, California, etc...
Just the announcement that we were proceeding ahead with domestic drilling would drop the price overnight.
The claim is that the world's largest supply of oil is here in the US under the Rockies.
|
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 2:43:01 PM
|
It should be cheaper now.
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
Are you serious? Wake up already! There are way too many factors that come into play for that to happen. And the problem is that drilling in the Rockies apparently is not 'cheap easy' oil to get......just like the oil shales up in Canada. They've got a sh__load of oil up there, it's just not cheap to extract - that's the problem. quote:
Originally posted by rudeness
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by dtabar
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock.
Domestically as in Alaska?
Alaska, Florida, California, etc...
Just the announcement that we were proceeding ahead with domestic drilling would drop the price overnight.
The claim is that the world's largest supply of oil is here in the US under the Rockies.
|
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2009 : 3:00:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
Are you serious? Wake up already! There are way too many factors that come into play for that to happen. And the problem is that drilling in the Rockies apparently is not 'cheap easy' oil to get......just like the oil shales up in Canada. They've got a sh__load of oil up there, it's just not cheap to extract - that's the problem. quote:
Originally posted by rudeness
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by dtabar
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
Where's all that gratitude from Kuwait for allowing them to exist and continue to rape us monetarily on oil prices?...You would have thought they owed us a few decades of price locked oil(or free since they wouldn't own it anymore had we not protected them)...
Not to take this off topic, but if we started drilling domestically, OPEC pricing of oil would drop like a rock.
Domestically as in Alaska?
Alaska, Florida, California, etc...
Just the announcement that we were proceeding ahead with domestic drilling would drop the price overnight.
The claim is that the world's largest supply of oil is here in the US under the Rockies.
Can you imagine the boom to our economy if domestic oil exploration were encouraged?
This is what I don't get. If we really wanted to get America working again and have cheap energy, the answer is all too simple. Or, maybe getting our economy back to full strength isn't the desire now.
Shale...at some point yes. But for now, I believe we have years of reserves just waiting to be tapped. Even the talk of domestic drilling would cause OPEC to panic and plummet prices. |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
8850 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 07:15:52 AM
|
It was never about te oil. It was simply a personal vendeta for treat on daddy's life. The rest was all dressing/props for the show.
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
|
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 07:26:53 AM
|
| Yea...and President Bush was the mastermind of 9/11 <tic> |
|
|
djorge44
3635 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 07:28:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by clydesnodgrass
I've lived in Florida my whole life... anyone that lives here on the Gulf Coast will tell you that we're all for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico more closer inland. That's the problem. We ALREADY have over 700 platforms in the Gulf (my father is a captain on a 300ft relief boat for a handful of them)... one superfortress drilling platform would replace the work of a dozen smaller ones and they could get closer to the shore and still not even be remotely visible to anyone on shore - not even close.
If the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline kept going up last year and that's the only reason why Chevron/Exxon raised their prices having everyone follow suit - then explain to me how Chevron/Exxon made over $60billion combined dollars in PROFIT! Not revenue - PROFIT.
I live in Tampa, I don't notice any offshore drilling. |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 08:50:36 AM
|
Oh so now it was never about the oil but personal vendetta? Saddam was inviting for an attack. Remember, he was playing games long before Kim Jong Il.
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
It was never about te oil. It was simply a personal vendeta for treat on daddy's life. The rest was all dressing/props for the show.
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
|
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 08:56:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Oh so now it was never about the oil but personal vendetta? Saddam was inviting for an attack. Remember, he was playing games long before Kim Jong Il.
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
It was never about te oil. It was simply a personal vendeta for treat on daddy's life. The rest was all dressing/props for the show.
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
There are those who will never believe we went there because we saw an imminent threat.
Imagine for a momement, if we hadn't gone into Iraq and then a terrorist attack originating from Iraq occurred. President Bush would have then been impeached, and rightfully so.
|
|
|
Quicksilver
5908 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 09:15:32 AM
|
Shale before was doable, but way to cost prohibited, now though technologies are coming out to make it a more efficient and cheaper process. Here's something recent to help extract from shale deposit:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22403/ |
|
|
the_mortgage_guy
2596 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 10:07:56 AM
|
| WE HAVE THE LARGEST NATURAL GAS RESERVES IN THE WORLD!!! What the hell is wrong with some of us? I think there is gas in their brains. |
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 10:15:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_mortgage_guy
WE HAVE THE LARGEST NATURAL GAS RESERVES IN THE WORLD!!! What the hell is wrong with some of us? I think there is gas in their brains.
We do. Guess who just got done with starting a gas pipeline from Alaska?
Still, I believe we have huge oil reserves right here, ready to be drilled. Allow the exploration companies to explore in "protected area's" such as ANWR, then drill away!
|
|
|
SirThomas
279 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 10:41:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterVA
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
It was a war for oil, popularity Halliburton
the ability to manipulate oil prices by speculation based upon possible interruptions in the world's oil supply.
Fixed it for ya!
Actually, more logical reason for going to war would be to maintain
US Dollar as "the oil trade currency"...
Nothing is more important to the United States than US Dollar being
a world's leading currency. It may sound harsh, but many would tell
you that protection of $ would justify ANY war.
By having US $ as an "exchange tool", we don't need to control ANY
resources to collect "global taxes" (getting a cut from everything
around the planet)...
All we need is the control of the currency used to enable those transactions.
No need to make your hands dirty...
However, there is a problem with that "US Dollar hegemony" -
that very dollar is no longer US Dollar but.... FED's note.
So, in essence, we wouldn't really go into ANY war for the US,
but rather for... you know :-)
On the other hand, if the US dollar is no longer "the exchange
currency" for global transactions... we might have more problems
than high gas prices or profitability of domestic oil drilling :-)
Thomas
|
|
|
nw@8brook
515 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 10:53:29 AM
|
large oil consumption countries like China and India are putting a lot of effort in developing alternative energy to either consume less or replace oil as their main energy source. When they are further along on their development, will the US$ lose it's prestigous spot of being the most demanded currency in the world?
quote:
Originally posted by SirThomas
quote:
Originally posted by MisterVA
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
It was a war for oil, popularity Halliburton
the ability to manipulate oil prices by speculation based upon possible interruptions in the world's oil supply.
Fixed it for ya!
Actually, more logical reason for going to war would be to maintain
US Dollar as "the oil trade currency"...
Nothing is more important to the United States than US Dollar being
a world's leading currency. It may sound harsh, but many would tell
you that protection of $ would justify ANY war.
By having US $ as an "exchange tool", we don't need to control ANY
resources to collect "global taxes" (getting a cut from everything
around the planet)...
All we need is the control of the currency used to enable those transactions.
No need to make your hands dirty...
However, there is a problem with that "US Dollar hegemony" -
that very dollar is no longer US Dollar but.... FED's note.
So, in essence, we wouldn't really go into ANY war for the US,
but rather for... you know :-)
On the other hand, if the US dollar is no longer "the exchange
currency" for global transactions... we might have more problems
than high gas prices or profitability of domestic oil drilling :-)
Thomas
|
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 10:54:35 AM
|
| You know, I've wondered if the only way out of the current economy is the same as what led us out of the Great Depression? |
|
|
SirThomas
279 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:12:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
You know, I've wondered if the only way out of the current economy is the same as what led us out of the Great Depression?
You mean "global war"? Sure, both world wars helped (assisted) USA to establish US Dollar
as the world trading currency. I am afraid, another war could only help to establish a NEW
world trading currency... Not that good for us...
I think it's more about letting certain others having "their cut" out of US Dollar business :-)
Thomas
|
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:19:46 AM
|
I'm sorry, but I don't think India and China are developing alternative technology. CHina is more focusing on military expansion.
quote:
Originally posted by nw@8brook
large oil consumption countries like China and India are putting a lot of effort in developing alternative energy to either consume less or replace oil as their main energy source. When they are further along on their development, will the US$ lose it's prestigous spot of being the most demanded currency in the world?
quote:
Originally posted by SirThomas
quote:
Originally posted by MisterVA
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
It was a war for oil, popularity Halliburton
the ability to manipulate oil prices by speculation based upon possible interruptions in the world's oil supply.
Fixed it for ya!
Actually, more logical reason for going to war would be to maintain
US Dollar as "the oil trade currency"...
Nothing is more important to the United States than US Dollar being
a world's leading currency. It may sound harsh, but many would tell
you that protection of $ would justify ANY war.
By having US $ as an "exchange tool", we don't need to control ANY
resources to collect "global taxes" (getting a cut from everything
around the planet)...
All we need is the control of the currency used to enable those transactions.
No need to make your hands dirty...
However, there is a problem with that "US Dollar hegemony" -
that very dollar is no longer US Dollar but.... FED's note.
So, in essence, we wouldn't really go into ANY war for the US,
but rather for... you know :-)
On the other hand, if the US dollar is no longer "the exchange
currency" for global transactions... we might have more problems
than high gas prices or profitability of domestic oil drilling :-)
Thomas
|
|
|
assassin17
7702 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:20:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
You know, I've wondered if the only way out of the current economy is the same as what led us out of the Great Depression?
Of course it would, but it doesn't have to be a war. It was the production needs of the war that did it. You had the war artificially creating "jobs" for the men, while the increased factory work gave jobs to the women. It's all about producing something that is needed. It could be achieved in other ways.
Keep an eye out for Sandra Bullock's husband. He's claiming that he has built a hydrogen-powered engine that runs on water steam and is going to release the technology free publicly. He'll probably be killed very soon in an "accident", but if its true it could be a game-changer for production in America. |
|
|
SirThomas
279 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:24:22 AM
|
If China and India only want to trade within their own borders ie. no international trade,
they are free to do so...
However, if they plan to trade internationally (sell their goods to other countries) and
I bet they do - they will be forced to accept ANY payments in US Dollar or no
transaction would be allowed. That's off course if the US maintains it's influence
on all other countries... Arguments stronger than words are sometimes necessary for this to be accomplished.
Thomas
quote:
Originally posted by nw@8brook
large oil consumption countries like China and India are putting a lot of effort in developing alternative energy to either consume less or replace oil as their main energy source. When they are further along on their development, will the US$ lose it's prestigous spot of being the most demanded currency in the world?
quote:
Originally posted by SirThomas
quote:
Originally posted by MisterVA
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
It was a war for oil, popularity Halliburton
the ability to manipulate oil prices by speculation based upon possible interruptions in the world's oil supply.
Fixed it for ya!
Actually, more logical reason for going to war would be to maintain
US Dollar as "the oil trade currency"...
Nothing is more important to the United States than US Dollar being
a world's leading currency. It may sound harsh, but many would tell
you that protection of $ would justify ANY war.
By having US $ as an "exchange tool", we don't need to control ANY
resources to collect "global taxes" (getting a cut from everything
around the planet)...
All we need is the control of the currency used to enable those transactions.
No need to make your hands dirty...
However, there is a problem with that "US Dollar hegemony" -
that very dollar is no longer US Dollar but.... FED's note.
So, in essence, we wouldn't really go into ANY war for the US,
but rather for... you know :-)
On the other hand, if the US dollar is no longer "the exchange
currency" for global transactions... we might have more problems
than high gas prices or profitability of domestic oil drilling :-)
Thomas
|
|
|
lemeuss
1842 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:34:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Oh so now it was never about the oil but personal vendetta? Saddam was inviting for an attack. Remember, he was playing games long before Kim Jong Il.
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
It was never about te oil. It was simply a personal vendeta for treat on daddy's life. The rest was all dressing/props for the show.
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
There are those who will never believe we went there because we saw an imminent threat.
Imagine for a momement, if we hadn't gone into Iraq and then a terrorist attack originating from Iraq occurred. President Bush would have then been impeached, and rightfully so.
Well then here's a query for ya....what are the repercussions for going there, killing thousands, having our own soldiers die and starting an unwinnable and extremely costly war that's crippled the country, all while realizing there was no imminent danger nor WMD's.........I think that scenario is worse, and that's the path we chose. War crimes much? |
|
|
SirThomas
279 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:34:56 AM
|
That is exactly correct. It doesn't have to be a war industry. It could be
anything else. You just need to convince masses of it's importance...
Green energy jobs and the whole "global warming" industry is a perfect example!
You just need a strong reason to pull it off and have masses accept it as
a necessary direction.
national threat (invasion, terrorist attacks etc)
vs.
global threat (raising waters, climate changes, disasters, epidemics etc)
Fun, isn't it?
Thomas
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
You know, I've wondered if the only way out of the current economy is the same as what led us out of the Great Depression?
Of course it would, but it doesn't have to be a war. It was the production needs of the war that did it. You had the war artificially creating "jobs" for the men, while the increased factory work gave jobs to the women. It's all about producing something that is needed. It could be achieved in other ways.
Keep an eye out for Sandra Bullock's husband. He's claiming that he has built a hydrogen-powered engine that runs on water steam and is going to release the technology free publicly. He'll probably be killed very soon in an "accident", but if its true it could be a game-changer for production in America.
|
|
|
SirThomas
279 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 11:52:57 AM
|
War crimes are war crimes regardless of WHY someone goes to war.
There are very specific criterias for what "war crimes" really are.
In other words, even it there was an imminent threat to our national
security and some WMD were found - any war crimes committed would
remain war crimes - justified or not.
Thomas
quote:
Originally posted by lemeuss
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Oh so now it was never about the oil but personal vendetta? Saddam was inviting for an attack. Remember, he was playing games long before Kim Jong Il.
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
It was never about te oil. It was simply a personal vendeta for treat on daddy's life. The rest was all dressing/props for the show.
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
There are those who will never believe we went there because we saw an imminent threat.
Imagine for a momement, if we hadn't gone into Iraq and then a terrorist attack originating from Iraq occurred. President Bush would have then been impeached, and rightfully so.
Well then here's a query for ya....what are the repercussions for going there, killing thousands, having our own soldiers die and starting an unwinnable and extremely costly war that's crippled the country, all while realizing there was no imminent danger nor WMD's.........I think that scenario is worse, and that's the path we chose. War crimes much?
|
|
|
cspatmon
5276 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 12:20:51 PM
|
| Unfortunately, all the lives lost and the control over the oil has been elusive and unobtainable to the US. |
|
|
VVance
6508 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 12:37:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemeuss
quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Oh so now it was never about the oil but personal vendetta? Saddam was inviting for an attack. Remember, he was playing games long before Kim Jong Il.
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
It was never about te oil. It was simply a personal vendeta for treat on daddy's life. The rest was all dressing/props for the show.
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
What the hell?
So we went to war for nothing? Were we actually going to war to liberate the Iraqis?
If we went there for oil, then why BP and CHINESE won the bid for oil?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/07/01/iraq.oil.contracts/
There are those who will never believe we went there because we saw an imminent threat.
Imagine for a momement, if we hadn't gone into Iraq and then a terrorist attack originating from Iraq occurred. President Bush would have then been impeached, and rightfully so.
Well then here's a query for ya....what are the repercussions for going there, killing thousands, having our own soldiers die and starting an unwinnable and extremely costly war that's crippled the country, all while realizing there was no imminent danger nor WMD's.........I think that scenario is worse, and that's the path we chose. War crimes much?
As of now, I would say we did indeed win the war.
Regardless, if that's what you believe, then how can you preclude the current President from being charged with war crimes? He's been in office for 6 months and we haven't pulled out all our troops yet?
The argument doesn't hold water.
They acted upon the best intelligence they had. Aside from the moonbat "get even for dad" people, there was certainly nothing to gain for the prior administration, meaning, we went for the reasons they said we went. |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 1:15:31 PM
|
| Remember, after 9/11, Bush and the whole damn congress declared war on Iraq. Back then, I remembered the majority wanted to bomb Iraq. |
|
|
SirThomas
279 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 2:16:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Remember, after 9/11, Bush and the whole damn congress declared war on Iraq. Back then, I remembered the majority wanted to bomb Iraq.
Saddam mentioned on many occasions switching away from the US dollar as medium of
exchange for oil transactions...
I believe that was a much bigger threat than personally threatening pres G.H. Bush...
Recently, Iran's leadership committed a similar "sin" and announced creating a new
oil/commodity exchange located in Iran. Euro was a suggested currency to be used.
Within few days, U.S. media "reported" finding possible uranium enrichment facilities
in Iran as being an immediate threat to our and world's security...
Thomas |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2009 : 3:24:32 PM
|
Iran does have nuclear capabilities. But given fact, what will Obama do about it?
My friends who are still in MI, they told me a while ago that Iran will be next and I believe them.
quote:
Originally posted by SirThomas
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Remember, after 9/11, Bush and the whole damn congress declared war on Iraq. Back then, I remembered the majority wanted to bomb Iraq.
Saddam mentioned on many occasions switching away from the US dollar as medium of
exchange for oil transactions...
I believe that was a much bigger threat than personally threatening pres G.H. Bush...
Recently, Iran's leadership committed a similar "sin" and announced creating a new
oil/commodity exchange located in Iran. Euro was a suggested currency to be used.
Within few days, U.S. media "reported" finding possible uranium enrichment facilities
in Iran as being an immediate threat to our and world's security...
Thomas
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
8850 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2009 : 06:48:55 AM
|
"They acted upon the best massaged intelligence they had. Aside from the moonbat "get even for dad" people, there was certainly nothing to gain for the prior administration, meaning, we went for the reasons they said we went."
There ... I fixed it for you. |
|
|
rbell
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2009 : 08:11:20 AM
|
We won't "invade" Iran, ever. No need. Bringing down the Iranian government will be a huge victory for us. It will win the hearts and minds of the people in the middle east if we can do it without a military assault. This war has been on since 2003, and we are winning that as well (your an idiot if you don't think we have won in Iraq). Until the day Saddam died, he insisted that Iran was his and the Arabs biggest enemy.
Only folks with an agenda suggested we invaded Iraq to "get their oil". If they had a clue, they would have understood that is was not possible to do things like that. It wasn't for daddy, and it wasn't for WMD's. Saddam just provided the right excuse. We went there to pick the battle ground for a fight that was going to happen no matter what. We went to fight two enemy's, three if you count Saddam. Al Qaeda is retreating now which is big. Much better then flowing into the US to fight here. And the much more powerful enemy is on the verge of collapse. Few understand exactly how big the recent revolts and actions have been in Iran. Most of the world, not just Israel and US is waiting/hoping for the other shoe to drop.
We already lost the financial war. Deal with it. We didn't really have a chance. If there was a chance that we could win that, our "enemy" could bankrupt us in a heart beat. They don't need to, the devastation it would cause them would be severe, and like I said, they already won. |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2009 : 8:17:31 PM
|
I doubt our government can win the hearts and minds of Iranians. Both sides of Iranians hate Americans equally.
quote:
Originally posted by rbell
We won't "invade" Iran, ever. No need. Bringing down the Iranian government will be a huge victory for us. It will win the hearts and minds of the people in the middle east if we can do it without a military assault. This war has been on since 2003, and we are winning that as well (your an idiot if you don't think we have won in Iraq). Until the day Saddam died, he insisted that Iran was his and the Arabs biggest enemy.
Only folks with an agenda suggested we invaded Iraq to "get their oil". If they had a clue, they would have understood that is was not possible to do things like that. It wasn't for daddy, and it wasn't for WMD's. Saddam just provided the right excuse. We went there to pick the battle ground for a fight that was going to happen no matter what. We went to fight two enemy's, three if you count Saddam. Al Qaeda is retreating now which is big. Much better then flowing into the US to fight here. And the much more powerful enemy is on the verge of collapse. Few understand exactly how big the recent revolts and actions have been in Iran. Most of the world, not just Israel and US is waiting/hoping for the other shoe to drop.
We already lost the financial war. Deal with it. We didn't really have a chance. If there was a chance that we could win that, our "enemy" could bankrupt us in a heart beat. They don't need to, the devastation it would cause them would be severe, and like I said, they already won.
|
|
|
Rampart
1269 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2009 : 8:25:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
quote:
Originally posted by rudeness
The claim is that the world's largest supply of oil is here in the US under the Rockies.
And we will never drill for it, because that would lower prices and save the car industry. The government will never let us remove our dependency upon their foreign interests, because that is where the large majority of bribe money comes from. It's the same reason we don't cure anything anymore.
Spot on commentary! |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Search for: 
