Johnkaz Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Not to add a little fuel to the fire, but if you look up the word Insurgent in the dictionary, it says Rebel. A Rebel is one who rebels or resist authority. The mainstream Media would have you believe that these are all Iraqis standing up to the big bad U.S., when in reality many of them are Saudis, Iranians, Lebanese, and Syrians. My cousin just got back from Iraq, and he told me that a lot of the so called Insurgents that they killed or captured were from foreign countries. This being so, then why doesn't the press call them foreign invaders fighting against the Iraqi people and government. It's sad to say, but the press tells the public what they want you to hear. How about a story about freedoms that many of the Iraqis are now enjoying. It's got to be some positive News out there somewhere. And your point being, are you saying they have less right to be there than USA or allied forces, who have no right whatsoever to invade this country. The foriegn muslims who go to fight against the aggressors as they see it will use any ground they can, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, or our homelands. Wars of this type are hypocritical [censored], the USA helped put Saddam there in the first place, and left him there after the Kuwait invasion because they feared a radical taleban style fundamentalist government would fill the vacuum if they deposed him. I see no end to unrest in Iraq and acts of sick violence against innocent people will not help to halt this occupation. Cheers Johnkaz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk45ca Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 As posted before, I am very opposed to the war. However, if this is all about oil, which seems to be the premise of many that hold the same position I do, why is oil at it's highest cost ever (noninflation adjusted dollers)? If the US has "control" of such a great oil source, do you really think we would not flood the market with oil to reduce prices? Or is it part of the master plan for the oil companies to make more money? well, you have oil men in the white house on their way out with no way to stop them. this is just some more enron crap. it's all about the benjamin's and that is just sad. as far as the so called murders? it's a war where nobody can be trusted as freindlys. their is no murder in war. they have been sent their to kill people. it is the nature of war unfortunatly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exper Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 As posted before, I am very opposed to the war. However, if this is all about oil, which seems to be the premise of many that hold the same position I do, why is oil at it's highest cost ever (noninflation adjusted dollers)? If the US has "control" of such a great oil source, do you really think we would not flood the market with oil to reduce prices? Or is it part of the master plan for the oil companies to make more money? Might have to do with a certain fact that oil is indeed running out world wide and at best estimates its going to be another 10 years before a serious shortage and they are looking at in in a more long term way then just flooding the market now when they can sell it at a much much higher cost in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) I think Saudi Arabia has enough oil to supply the world for three hundred years. Great for oil, not so great to have it in one place - the world will be fighting over this patch of sand for generations to come. Oil prices are high on market speculation, not actual supply side shortages. The US has a gigantic stockpile of crude oil (that's not the same as refined in the short term though). So when there are fears over Iran's nuclear ambitions, oil prices go up, even though there has been no limit in actual supply. Indeed the oil speculation market has taken on a new nature in the past few years - becoming more of an investment vehicle than it used to be (more like gold than a commodity like sugar). At the moment the price is in a bubble; oil companies have also taken the opportunity to double their refining take; and in welfare state countries like the UK and Australia the government's taxes on top have soared too. The US did and does want to control Iraqi production - it wanted the cheaper (and secure) oil supply to ensure US productivity. The reason it hasn't worked out like that is that it didn't go to plan. They have also taken their eye off the ball in South America, where there is also oil. They were busy looking east. As TTK said - Iraq is an inherently unstable country. It was before Saddam became a dictator through assassination and fear. And through the natural order of things, it would have become again when he died or whatever. The problem is that it is now the US is stuck holding the baby. Even their own State Dept (Colin Powell) told Rumsfeld & Co that if you break it, it's yours. The chances are though, that the US would not have sat by and watched Iraq descend into civil war with all that oil there (nor Russia nor France for that matter). Their current predicament is all the more ironic for it. The biggest problems for Iraq's stability are its neighbours. The easiest way to 'fix' Iraq is not to - break it into three bits. Oil in Iraqi Kurdistan's hands would be great for the west - Turkey would go absolutely apeshit (Kurdistan is unacceptable to them for fear that their own country will break up). Screw them. The south would have oil too, so they're happy. The middle bit would be totally buggered without oil - they're the problem. And the fear is that 'Iran' steps into the void. I say 'Iran' like that because Iran has by far the biggest pro-western population of the middle east's major players. That may surprise some people that don't recall the heydays of the Shah. But it is run by a religious fundamentalist regime (some could say the same of the US until the next congressional elections). The current Iranian president is a populist - and you end up with the same daft policies of other populists - jingoism, patriotism, sabre rattling. Sound like any other presidents we know? The Iranian fundamentalists the 'problem' - my point is that they always were going to be the real problem. The US, UK and Australia (yes, Australia - they sent a cheese toasty machine) charged into Iraq with such enthusiasm because they knew it was going to be easy. Iraq had no air cover. The north of Iraq was already autonomous. The south of Iraq didn't like Saddam. And it was a breeze. But they hadn't fixed the problem... Edited June 7, 2006 by cornerstone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertrinaustin Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Might have to do with a certain fact that oil is indeed running out world wide and at best estimates its going to be another 10 years before a serious shortage and they are looking at in in a more long term way then just flooding the market now when they can sell it at a much much higher cost in the future The only problem with that logic is that oil has been running out for over 30 years. We've had 10 years remaining supply since the oil crisis in the 70s, at least according to some experts. The problem is that these experts view oil through the technoligical limits of the day and don't account for the fact that oil unavailable today, will be actively drilled in the future. It is certain that the world's oil supply will one day run dry, but I expect oil to be less than $30 a barrel at some point in the next 5 years. There are many political uncertainties that have contributed to the current rise in prices, but the market will eventually stabilize. I can guaranty you that the large oil companies do not expect oil to remain this costly, so the "hold it for a later day" logic doesn't work either. The thing we must never foget is that war is horrible and results in the deaths of far too many innocent people. As such, it should be entered only after all other options have been exhausted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Oil is not running out......there are vast reserves of untapped oil out there......everybody keeps talking about Saudi oil......OPEC have just agreed with Caesar Chavez that Venezuela is now the world's largest oil resource.......but believe me there is still more than enough oil to see out everybody on this board......the big problem is that the US and many others prefer the soft option....easy to acquire oil....rather than the difficukt stuff that remains untapped....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekhunter Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 And your point being, are you saying they have less right to be there than USA or allied forces, who have no right whatsoever to invade this country. The foriegn muslims who go to fight against the aggressors as they see it will use any ground they can, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, or our homelands. Wars of this type are hypocritical [censored], the USA helped put Saddam there in the first place, and left him there after the Kuwait invasion because they feared a radical taleban style fundamentalist government would fill the vacuum if they deposed him. I see no end to unrest in Iraq and acts of sick violence against innocent people will not help to halt this occupation. Cheers Johnkaz. What a beautiful day--Iraq's top terrorist, a foreign fighter at that, Al Zaqhari is dead! Lets go back in time a bit, and get our facts straight! After the first Gulf War when Sadaam illegally invaded Kuwait and his forces were pushed out of Kuwait, he feared that the Coalition forces would continue into Iraq, and basically surrended. He made certain concessions to the U.N. and coalition forces, and signed off on these. Now, Second Gulf War. Weapons of mass destruction and all that crap aside, Sadaam was not abiding to what he had agreed to just over 10 years before. He is the one who kicked the U.N. Inspectors out. He brought all of this on himself. Which leads me to my point. If the U.N. had any spine and wasn't so impotent, then they would have been the ones to lead the charge. Kofi Annan's son was making so much money off of the Oil for Food program, no way they were going to mess that up. The U.S. had to lead the charge, along with it's small coalition. Furthermore, these so called foreign Muslim fighters are the ones who brought the fight to the U.S. (Twin Towers & Pentagon), before we were in Iraq. Now at least we are fighting and killing these terrorist(which is what they are) over there, and not here in our streets. Jihad all you want to in Baghdad, just not Baltimore! I say Kill them all (terrorist)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnkaz Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 What a beautiful day--Iraq's top terrorist, a foreign fighter at that, Al Zaqhari is dead! Lets go back in time a bit, and get our facts straight! After the first Gulf War when Sadaam illegally invaded Kuwait and his forces were pushed out of Kuwait, he feared that the Coalition forces would continue into Iraq, and basically surrended. He made certain concessions to the U.N. and coalition forces, and signed off on these. Now, Second Gulf War. Weapons of mass destruction and all that crap aside, Sadaam was not abiding to what he had agreed to just over 10 years before. He is the one who kicked the U.N. Inspectors out. He brought all of this on himself. Which leads me to my point. If the U.N. had any spine and wasn't so impotent, then they would have been the ones to lead the charge. Kofi Annan's son was making so much money off of the Oil for Food program, no way they were going to mess that up. The U.S. had to lead the charge, along with it's small coalition. Furthermore, these so called foreign Muslim fighters are the ones who brought the fight to the U.S. (Twin Towers & Pentagon), before we were in Iraq. Now at least we are fighting and killing these terrorist(which is what they are) over there, and not here in our streets. Jihad all you want to in Baghdad, just not Baltimore! I say Kill them all (terrorist)! Yes, that's the official line, and had there been no oil in Iraq, Saddam would still be there, and the civilised west would be selling him arms to keep control of insurgents. Cheers Johnkaz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekhunter Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Yes, that's the official line, and had there been no oil in Iraq, Saddam would still be there, and the civilised west would be selling him arms to keep control of insurgents. Cheers Johnkaz. Oil is what makes the world go round! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new & improved osteopath Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Sadly this war probably was about oil (certainly I don't buy the'part of the global war on terror' ascertion.) However, like most of the other things this administration has planned, the war was horribly executed. Many military experts, consultants and the like noted that for the US to truly secure Iraq (and thereby the oil) we would have needed to send over way more troops than we had. But like everything else Bush touches, he has left them short changed. For someone who spends as flagrantly as he does, it is amazing how many programs/operations this guy has initiated remain under-resourced and underfunded. War was a mistake. No two ways about it. This massacre is a sad example of what happens when you go into a country to fight a war without a clear goal or mission statement. Our position in the global hierarchy has been so dreadfully compromised, I shudder to think of the world our kids will be living in when they reach adulthood. -O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekhunter Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Sadly this war probably was about oil (certainly I don't buy the'part of the global war on terror' ascertion.) However, like most of the other things this administration has planned, the war was horribly executed. Many military experts, consultants and the like noted that for the US to truly secure Iraq (and thereby the oil) we would have needed to send over way more troops than we had. But like everything else Bush touches, he has left them short changed. For someone who spends as flagrantly as he does, it is amazing how many programs/operations this guy has initiated remain under-resourced and underfunded. War was a mistake. No two ways about it. This massacre is a sad example of what happens when you go into a country to fight a war without a clear goal or mission statement. Our position in the global hierarchy has been so dreadfully compromised, I shudder to think of the world our kids will be living in when they reach adulthood. -O How true! Sadly, every War in the future is going to be about Oil or Water. That's right! One day we will fight over water. Better enjoy it while we can. Buy all the Reps you can now while we can still afford it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekhunter Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 I guess then we won't care about whether our watches are waterproof? It could still rain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dani Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 ohh that must be a good way to detache stress levels just go AMOK whit a m16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasng Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 its war. people die, innocent or guilty. get over it. Let me get this straight, if your mother/father/children were in a country that was being occupied for foreign forces, and they were shot and killed, would you get over it because it was a war? I don't think so......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtM3 Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 (edited) CIA fact book Oil - consumption: 80.1 million bbl/day (2003 est.) Oil - proved reserves: 1.349 trillion bbl (1 January 2002 est.) consider: most oil reserves are accounted for...not much has been left 'undiscovered', just not economically feasible to harvest yet... China/India/etc. consumption is growing exponentially 6 years ago China was not on the radar, within 5 years it will be competing with us for top consumer status (we are <5% of the population and use 25% of the oil) 1.349 x 10^12 / 80.1 x 10^6 ~ 16,840 days ~ 46 years... taking into consideration the rate of consumption increase, maybe 20 years... Edited June 9, 2006 by ArtM3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fliieiieilie Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Bhagdad morgue reports 6000 corpses so far this year. Does not comment on how many may be lying in ditches. Amnesty International reports on secret US "Extrodinary Rendition" torture camps in eastern Europe. 250 UK police mobilised in a dawn raid to arrest two - yes, just two - suspected terrorists. So far, unable to find any evidence against them. Nevertheless, one of the suspects was shot. "Hey, guys... while we are here we may as well use some of this fancy armament..." All this, for a tank of gas. Hang your head in shame. The world was a lot more secure when Sadam was running Iraq. [censored]. Iraq was a lot more secure when Sadam was running the place. 80,000 deaths per month under Sadam Insane. Get real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fliieiieilie Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 CIA fact book Oil - consumption: 80.1 million bbl/day (2003 est.) Oil - proved reserves: 1.349 trillion bbl (1 January 2002 est.) consider: most oil reserves are accounted for...not much has been left 'undiscovered', just not economically feasible to harvest yet... China/India/etc. consumption is growing exponentially 6 years ago China was not on the radar, within 5 years it will be competing with us for top consumer status (we are <5% of the population and use 25% of the oil) 1.349 x 10^12 / 80.1 x 10^6 ~ 16,840 days ~ 46 years... taking into consideration the rate of consumption increase, maybe 20 years... "(we are <5% of the population and use 25% of the oil)" And feed 80% of the world with that 25%. Without the US having oil the whole world will perish eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 "(we are <5% of the population and use 25% of the oil)" And feed 80% of the world with that 25%. Without the US having oil the whole world will perish eventually. The great thing about this is that the opposite is also true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 CIA fact book Oil - consumption: 80.1 million bbl/day (2003 est.) Oil - proved reserves: 1.349 trillion bbl (1 January 2002 est.) consider: most oil reserves are accounted for...not much has been left 'undiscovered', just not economically feasible to harvest yet... China/India/etc. consumption is growing exponentially 6 years ago China was not on the radar, within 5 years it will be competing with us for top consumer status (we are <5% of the population and use 25% of the oil) 1.349 x 10^12 / 80.1 x 10^6 ~ 16,840 days ~ 46 years... taking into consideration the rate of consumption increase, maybe 20 years... This is amazing stuff. But all is not lost, as time progresses the economics of oil and other fuels change, and the 'proved reserves' figure has quite a strict meaning which gives it a lot of scope for growth in terms of actual oil. But the point stands - oil won't be around for ever. As I said, though, all is not lost - the technology just isn't quite there yet. Things would change dramatically if we could find ways to store and transport electricity more efficiently. I believe (and I'm no physicist) that the daily 80.1 million barrels of oil is equivalent to the energy contained in one tin of baked beans.... (assuming 440g of baked beans + weight of tin 105g (guess) = 545g) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 I believe (and I'm no physicist) that the daily 80.1 million barrels of oil is equivalent to the energy contained in one tin of baked beans.... (assuming 440g of baked beans + weight of tin 105g (guess) = 545g) Cornerstone, I've often thought exactly the same thing myself. It's better that I don't go into the reasons why, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonthebhoy Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 I believe (and I'm no physicist) that the daily 80.1 million barrels of oil is equivalent to the energy contained in one tin of baked beans.... (assuming 440g of baked beans + weight of tin 105g (guess) = 545g) Are we talking wind or gas? JTB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryyannon Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 We're talking muzzle velocity, sort of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Cornerstone, I've often thought exactly the same thing myself. It's better that I don't go into the reasons why, however. Are we talking wind or gas? JTB Hmm, wind or gas. I'm not sure you can have a roaring 490,000,000,000,000,000 joule fart and still call it a 'botty burp', put it that way. I mean, it would be a conversation stopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk45ca Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Hmm, wind or gas. I'm not sure you can have a roaring 490,000,000,000,000,000 joule fart and still call it a 'botty burp', put it that way. I mean, it would be a conversation stopper. methane gas is very explosive, i just don't want the job of collecting it. i think it would be a shtty job. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 (edited) @JTB.....Are we talking wind or gas? A bit like a meeting in Celtic FC boardroom......Baird's Bar....mebbes aye......mebbes naw..... Edited June 9, 2006 by TTK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.