LavarIsAnAnimal 0 Posted July 17, 2006 That's part of the reason we want to maintain strong influence in the region, to help ensure that oil keeps flowing to the west and not to India and China. You think we're preventing oil from going to India and China? Thought provoking, but that isn't happening. I am not one to say that this war was all about oil because anyone with three braincells knows it is far more complex than that. But it is equally simplistic to say... Semantics and hypocritical Why do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait? He wanted their oil fields. We went in and kicked him out because we had a defense treaty with Kuwait. Why would we agree to defend Kuwait in a regional skirmish? Again, Oil. Is that the same reason for any of our military aid anywhere? Oil? Our involvement in the region has nothing to do with oil? Please. Where do you get off being so dismissive? The oil has been in the mideast for quite some time, we could have gone to get it ages ago. The US is the first empire in history that isn't imperialist. Is there a catalyst more time relative that you could think of other than oil? The US will continue to have a vested interest in the area in relation national security. Even in the event that the US is successful, oil prices aren't really going to come in. This has gotten way offtopic though. Good for Newt, should help his presidential campaign if we're in WWIII Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted July 17, 2006 More access to the Persian Gulf including port infrastructure. Yeah, those oil fields never crossed his mind. In fact he probaly wanted those ports to facilitate Iraqi goat's milk and camel dung exports. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted July 17, 2006 Is that the same reason for any of our military aid anywhere? Oil? Where do you get off being so dismissive? The oil has been in the mideast for quite some time, we could have gone to get it ages ago. The US is the first empire in history that isn't imperialist. Is there a catalyst more time relative that you could think of other than oil? The US will continue to have a vested interest in the area in relation national security. Even in the event that the US is successful, oil prices aren't really going to come in. This has gotten way offtopic though. Good for Newt, should help his presidential campaign if we're in WWIII Well parrot,you gonna answer??? Is that the same reason for any of our military aid anywhere? Oil? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 785 Posted July 17, 2006 Yeah, those oil fields never crossed his mind. In fact he probaly wanted those ports to facilitate Iraqi goat's milk and camel dung exports. For those with a short memory.......the reason given for invading Kuwait was a claim that Kuwait was "Slant-Drilling" into Iraqi oil fields......not saying it was true just stating the reason given. TIA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted July 17, 2006 You think we're preventing oil from going to India and China? Thought provoking, but that isn't happening.I think we would much rather have western companies have first crack at it than have them signing agreements with the Chinese like Venezuela seems increasingly inclined to do. But regardless as long as the U.N restrictions were in place that oil wasn't flowing anywhere, except surreptitiously, thus the global supply pool was constrained. Wherever the oil flows when it flows it should exert downward pressure on price. Still waiting for that link btw. Semantics and hypocriticalSemantics maybe, but what's hypocritical? What I said was that saying it's not at all about oil is equally simplistic as saying it is all about oil. That's a personal opinion. Is that the same reason for any of our military aid anywhere? Oil?No, but I think in this case it was quite clearly a driving force behind the immediacy and intensity of the response. We didn't like him being in Kuwait and we sure as hell didn't like him lined up along the Saudi border. Where do you get off being so dismissive? Sorry, if that came off as overly rude. But I think certain statements call for it, like the idea that our abiding interest in the middle east isn't at least partly driven by oil. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LavarIsAnAnimal 0 Posted July 17, 2006 Sorry, if that came off as overly rude. But I think certain statements call for it, like the idea that our abiding interest in the middle east isn't at least partly driven by oil. I can live with that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted July 17, 2006 Well parrot,you gonna answer??? I hope that was quick enough for you. I probably should have just gone the gocolts route and offered up some canned talking points. Much quicker and spares the poster all this 'thinking about stuff'. I can live with that I seriously apologize. That was uncalled for. Ugliness and sarcasm just get to be second-nature around here sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted July 17, 2006 Um... India is Hindu, and to my knowledge we've no records of Hindus bombing anything. So I don't knw what they're doing on your list. Actually India is increasingly Christian since the colonization by the UK. Anyways, are you trying to say they haven't been impacted by the people waging Jihad? They just lost 200 citizens and had 700 injured. They have terrorist cells within their borders that they are trying to eliminate. They are in an ongoing struggle with Pakistani renegages, etc... What are you trying to say? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LavarIsAnAnimal 0 Posted July 17, 2006 Ugliness and sarcasm just get to be second-nature around here sometimes. no worries, after all it is the internet. I enjoyed the spirited discussion. Just anxious for the football season to start so we can start talking about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted July 17, 2006 Still waiting for that link btw. Not sure what link your looking for, but here's a link to oil production bbl/day http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/oi...ion_2006_0.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted July 17, 2006 Not sure what link your looking for, but here's a link to oil production bbl/day http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/oi...ion_2006_0.html I was looking for reserves. That is how I interpreted the statement regarding how much oil each country has. Iraq wouldn't be expected to have production commensurate with their reserve levels because it was forbidden by the U.N. for a long time and they still haven't been able to get things back up to speed after the war. The info I have seen regarding reserves puts Iraq fourth, behind SA, Canada, and Iran. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomad99 785 Posted July 17, 2006 I was looking for reserves. That is how I interpreted the statement regarding how much oil each country has. Iraq wouldn't be expected to have production commensurate with their reserve levels because it was forbidden by the U.N. for a long time and they still haven't been able to get things back up to speed after the war. The info I have seen regarding reserves puts Iraq fourth, behind SA, Canada, and Iran. 2006 PROVEN reserves Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted July 17, 2006 2006 PROVEN reserves Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,388 Posted July 17, 2006 Actually India is increasingly Christian since the colonization by the UK. Anyways, are you trying to say they haven't been impacted by the people waging Jihad? They just lost 200 citizens and had 700 injured. They have terrorist cells within their borders that they are trying to eliminate. They are in an ongoing struggle with Pakistani renegages, etc... What are you trying to say? I thought that you were lumping them in with the terrorists and I'm gald that you weren't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravens 03 0 Posted July 18, 2006 I used to respect you...but if you think Nancy Pelosi is "far left"...it doesn't bode well for you. Pelosi is about as far left as they come. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted July 18, 2006 I thought that you were lumping them in with the terrorists and I'm gald that you weren't. Nope, I wouldn't do that, but I would say most of the people in the country understand the situation and how much the whackos hate Hindus, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Pagans and even Muslims that don't practice the same as they do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
