Either way, it's all about oil!
-
On the other hand, if the US was only concerned about oil, it could easily allow US corporations to build a pipeline through Iran. (Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them.) Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq. Oops! I'm sorry if I'm clumbsily destroying your arguement. Did I mention that oil can be routed through Russia? (Oh gosh, am I making too much sense?) How about the fact that alternative fuel vehicles are starting to arrive (8 major car manufacturers will have alternative-fuel vehicles available by 2005). Hence, there is no need to secure oil reserves over the course of the next few decades. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. What real hurts is that the US is one of the few countries that don't even *need* foreign oil.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
not saying it wasn't his fault or that he wasn't guilty - only that it wasn't worth the time and effort the govt wasted on it. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
Chris Losinger wrote: only that it wasn't worth the time and effort the govt wasted on it. True, but you also have to look at the flip side - Bill should have been paying attention to world events more and looking for his next "piece of ass" less. Also imagine how much time would have been saved if he would have been honest in the first place.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
"You might not be too far off if you wondered if..." "Now expand your concerns to include..." "You wouldn't be paranoid if..." "By this time you would not be too far off if..." "Having reached this point, you couldn't be blamed if..." "Given that conclusion, the next step would be..." "Given all of the above, can you be blamed if..." "Wouldn't it be nice, you'd think, if..." "Then you might remember..." "From that point on it's only a simple step from going ahead and..." There are quite a few "blind leaps" of faith here, call me crazy, but I like my editorials with a little more substance.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? ;P Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? ;P Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
peterchen wrote: Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources. I don't generally disagree with the idea that oil might have something to do with Bush's desires in Iraq, but I'm not ready to accept it blindly due to preconcieved notions like the author of the article. I just thought the editorial was VERY poorly written. I would have graded it a C-/D+ in a college level rhetoric class. peterchen wrote: Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? Damn, am I getting that predictable?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
peterchen wrote: Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources. I don't generally disagree with the idea that oil might have something to do with Bush's desires in Iraq, but I'm not ready to accept it blindly due to preconcieved notions like the author of the article. I just thought the editorial was VERY poorly written. I would have graded it a C-/D+ in a college level rhetoric class. peterchen wrote: Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? Damn, am I getting that predictable?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Brit wrote: Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. What real hurts is that the US is one of the few countries that don't even *need* foreign oil.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... Assuming that Russia, France, and China get the lion's share of the oil freed up by dropping sanctions, it would still have the net effect of reducing Russian, French, and Chinese draws on oil in other parts of the world. This would increase the availablity of oil from other countries and reduce oil prices. Hence, the US doesn't have to buy a single drop of Iraqi oil to gain the benefits of increasing Iraqi oil production. The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. And build a pipeline through Pakistan (because Afghanistan is landlocked). From what I've read, the US has so far given more aid money to the new Afghanistan than any other country. In any case, a pipeline would benefit the new Afghanistan because it can tax it. So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment from the cash-strapped Afghani viewpoint. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Doesn't every Texan yearn for national, if not global conquest? (we Coloradoans don't like Texans much... ;P ) "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
Chris Hambleton wrote: Coloradoans don't like Texans much... News flash... Nobody likes Texans much, except maybe Texans...:-D
-
Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... Assuming that Russia, France, and China get the lion's share of the oil freed up by dropping sanctions, it would still have the net effect of reducing Russian, French, and Chinese draws on oil in other parts of the world. This would increase the availablity of oil from other countries and reduce oil prices. Hence, the US doesn't have to buy a single drop of Iraqi oil to gain the benefits of increasing Iraqi oil production. The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. And build a pipeline through Pakistan (because Afghanistan is landlocked). From what I've read, the US has so far given more aid money to the new Afghanistan than any other country. In any case, a pipeline would benefit the new Afghanistan because it can tax it. So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment from the cash-strapped Afghani viewpoint. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". :cool:
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Brit wrote: So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". :cool:
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". I'm not quite sure what the point of your statement is, and how a non-functioning East German pipeline compares to a functioning pipeline which allows Afghanis to tax the oil that goes through it. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". I'm not quite sure what the point of your statement is, and how a non-functioning East German pipeline compares to a functioning pipeline which allows Afghanis to tax the oil that goes through it. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind. You do realize that a pipeline through Afghanistan would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars every year to Afghanistan, right? Are you arguing that a pipeline should not be built simply to prove that the US didn't attack Afghanistan to create a pipeline? What are the counterarguments against a pipeline? :confused: ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Breaking Eggs "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
Given that conclusion, the next step would be to realize that in order to get the oil you need to keep your nation's economy moving along at a price you can afford, you will henceforth have to approach Uncle Sam with your hat in your hands, becoming, in effect, a supplicant at America's feet and willing to do whatever the U.S. demands whenever the U.S. makes the demands. Yes, because if the US was in control of Iraq and a pipeline through Afghanistan, they would have a monopoly on oil! Oh wait. No they wouldn't. Did I fail to mention that OPEC is composed of 11 countries? Iraq contains roughly 10% of the world's oil. The US itself contains about 2% of the world's oil. With the US in control of 12% of the world's oil, the world must come groveling to the US, right? Oh wait. That doesn't make sense. (It might if the US controlled 50% of the world's oil, but 12%? Additionally, with the US' own need for oil, how much would be available to sell anyway? Certainly not much - if any. But, the author seems convinced that the US would have some sort of monopoly on oil exports! :omg: Maybe he's just really bad at math! ) It makes even less sense when you consider that Saudi Arabia alone contains 26% of the world's known oil reserves. (Ah ha! They are the real threat, right?) I think it's clear that the US is the focus of a campaign of FUD. If the world turns on the US it won't be because of anything they did, but rather, for the rumors and disinformation that they believe about the US. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind. You do realize that a pipeline through Afghanistan would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars every year to Afghanistan, right? Are you arguing that a pipeline should not be built simply to prove that the US didn't attack Afghanistan to create a pipeline? What are the counterarguments against a pipeline? :confused: ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: You do realize that a pipeline through Afghanistan would bring in... Yes. Brit wrote: Are you arguing that a pipeline should not be built simply to prove... No. Brit wrote: What are the counterarguments against a pipeline? Against the pipeline as such? Nothing noteworthy. The US will write down in their diary, "we liberated an opressed country, sowed the fragile seeds of demcracy, and spent gazillion million dollars to rebuild their economy." My diary will read, "the US stirred up a mess they made up themselfes, let's guess when it will crumble down again. Oh, they now have their pipeline. And only to feed an attitude like this." Somewhere, inbetween, is the truth. And I would go softer if the US wouldn't be so proud of their own mess.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Brit wrote: You do realize that a pipeline through Afghanistan would bring in... Yes. Brit wrote: Are you arguing that a pipeline should not be built simply to prove... No. Brit wrote: What are the counterarguments against a pipeline? Against the pipeline as such? Nothing noteworthy. The US will write down in their diary, "we liberated an opressed country, sowed the fragile seeds of demcracy, and spent gazillion million dollars to rebuild their economy." My diary will read, "the US stirred up a mess they made up themselfes, let's guess when it will crumble down again. Oh, they now have their pipeline. And only to feed an attitude like this." Somewhere, inbetween, is the truth. And I would go softer if the US wouldn't be so proud of their own mess.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
peterchen wrote: The US will write down in their diary, "we liberated an opressed country, sowed the fragile seeds of demcracy, and spent gazillion million dollars to rebuild their economy." My diary will read, "the US stirred up a mess they made up themselfes, let's guess when it will crumble down again. Oh, they now have their pipeline. And only to feed an attitude like this." And mine will read, "It is very comforting to people to blame Islamic fundamentalism on the US. It allows them to believe they will not be the victim if they retreat from world affairs. Strangely, they ignore the lessons of over a thousand years of Muslim holy wars which spread from Saudi Arabia, across the Middle East, across North Africa, into Spain, across the Balkans, as far as Hungary and Poland, into Africa, across Persia, and into India. It also harks back to older times, when people blamed disease and death of one's neighbor on some divine punishment for a crime their neighbor had committed. The belief was comforting for them, too, because it afforded them a logic which told them they were safe because they were 'decent people'. I'm growing more convinced that the US is suffering in the world from an uneasiness over the ubiquity of US power. Not because it is evil, but because its strength and ubiquity, itself are unsettling. It is Frankenstein's monster. Ugly, powerful, and deeply distrusted. Every move it makes is analyzed and scrutinized for any evidence that the creature, itself, is evil. Further, with every accusation of wrongdoing, Americans themselves are becoming defensive and quickly respond with past 'rights' that they have done - to convice the critics that the US is good, too. Which only emboldens it's critics, and strengthens their belief that Americans can only see good in their country and need to be re-educated. So, they attack the Americans again with criticism (as if accusations of greed and arrogance was the best way to win someone to your way of thinking), which again repeats the cycle of defensiveness. To make matters worse, some of the criticism is simply born out of half-logic and fear. Unfortunately, people believe what they feel is true, not what is logical." Here's a good example of that half-logic and fear-mongering (from the original article): Given that conclusion, the next step would be to realize that in order to get the oil you need to keep your nation's economy moving along at a price you can afford, you will henceforth have to appr