War for oil

[sasKuatch]

Please indicate your opinion by selecting the appropriate option in the poll? Also, please indicate your citizenship status by voting in the appropriate choice groups.

I think it's just conspiracy theory. I haven't seen any evidence supporting this claim, at least nothing besides politically based sources who's motives are questionable at best. Last, I don't see what Bush has to gain if (cheap) foreign oil is introduced into the market; the US oil industry would suffer in the face of such competition.



OFF-TOPIC NOTE: "I think" means its my opinion, so any flames about my alleged ignorance/stupidity/narrow-mindedness/etc are essentially equivalent to Nazi propaganda, perhaps indicating the accuser(s)' own shortcomings where and if applicable. In other words, "He who felt it, dealt it." Thanks in advance.:)

[FoBoT]

back during the gulf war in the early 90's i thought that oil was the main reason, not "liberating" kuwait

but now, i think the security of the US is a bigger factor, as they say, the best defense is a good offense and after the Sept 11 attack, i am happy to send our military anywhere to fight the enemy on thier home turf, not wait for more nutjobs to come to the US and kill our civilians

soldiers know they may be asked to die for thier country, people going about thier normal lives inside the US expect to be safe from terrorist attacks

[hiker_42]

Those who think that it's a war for oil don't realize that the amount of oil we purchase from the middle east only amounts to around 12-15%.....

[carrja99]

I am glad all these people agree with my opinion. Yes, the amount of oil we recieve from the Middle East totals only 12%, with the largest majority of that coming from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

There is really no "capatalist greed" as some call it behind the upcoming war. Also, I am baffled as to how people will see Saddam on TV with his new found faith in Islam, squatting down in prayer, and instantly scream that the US is crusading against Islam by considering attacking Irq.

I'm baffled.
:confused:

[Stween]

Originally posted by carrja99
...Yes, the amount of oil we recieve from the Middle East totals only 12%, with the largest majority of that coming from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Given the west's current oil usage and the potential for no major oil fields discovered in the near future, we'll be taking much more oil from the middle east as time goes on.

Saddam Hussain currently has control over a lot of the oil fields in the middle east. Given time, he'll have control of over 50% of the worlds oil reserves. I don't have a solid link to that, and I'm far from an expert, and the figure's probably made up, but it's still food for thought.

Perhaps if there were more serious attempts to convert power generation to renewable resources across the west, the oil issue wouldn't even come up ;)

[carrja99]

Well, don't forget that Bush would rather tap into oil reserves within US borders rather than relying on foreign oil, but of course the bleeding heart environmentalists are in uproar over that.

[ssjf]

I personnaly think that Dubya wants to attack before its too late.

Back in WWII, the Allies (Britain, France, Russia, aka. Triple Entente) made the mistake of "appeasing" nazi germany, to prevent a war. And look what happenend. If the Allies had forced Germany back into submission, instead of just letting them get away with things and breaking the Treaty of Versailles. If germany had never been able to rearm, there never would have been a war (at least of the same magnitude of WWII) because germany had no arms.

Also - isn't it better just to be sure that Hussain has no weapons (I admit, that's a pretty serious "just to be sure" however) of mass destruction, before its too late? Its not like if he nukes the US, that the US is really going to gain anything by nuking him back. The US will nuke the oil that they may or may not want, and kill a few peasants. Dubya does at least care about the well-being of his citizens, but I highly doubt that Hussain gives a crap about the well being of his. If the US gets nuked, they have are stuck in a situation that they can only resolve with conventional warfare - useless against nukes.

From my perspective, Dubya may be taking proactive action against a major problem.

However:

Why Iraq?

Comment: There may be something big that I am missing - but that's my analysis of the situation from what I know.

BTW - I'm Canadain, if it matters.

[-wassup-]

this war is simply about oil. first of all if you are concerned about nuclear security there are bigger fish than iraq. for example north korea already has nuclear bombs while iraq does not. pakistan and india both have nuclear bombs and are a much bigger threat than iraq. what if pakistan has another coo and those bombs fall into the wrong hands? i have lived in pakistand and i currently live in jordan. iraq is not a big threat to the US. iraq can not do anything. george bush is simply trying to play God and its also a family fued. (when you walk into saddam's palace there is a picture of George Bush Sr. on the floor so when you walk in you walk over his face). (yes i do have inside sources :D ) if you also think this war is about UN resolutions that is also total crap. israel has defied UN resolutions since 1967 and the US hasnt even warned them about defying it. US has broken UN resolutions too.

[pruebens]

I'm glad to see most share the same educated position that this has nothing to do with oil.....hell we're getting most of our oil from venezuela (sp) I think now....and to those that still believe it's about oil I have a few words for you: HYDROGEN CAR .......you know that's one of the things Bush is pushing for. So going after oil when your ultimate plans are to eliminate the NEED for oil .... well that is just plain dumb, even for Democrats :)

[mope]

Here's a clip supporting the other side, saskuatch.
http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15069

Contact the author if you want "proof" supporting his pov.

In regards to the hydrogen car: 1.4 billion dollars isn't going to develop a hydrogen car nor will any development challenge the oil industry. First of all, tax dollars are going to be spent developing technology. Yet, private corporations are going to reap the benefits of whatever technology they find. I suspect that such cars won't be 20,000 (as if I could afford that anyway), but rather extremely expensive. What's that? Oh, we'll still be driving cars that suck gas for the next 20 years. Gas prices will affect us while wealthy individuals drive hydrogen cars. People who own oil companies don't need to be opposed to alternative energy sources-they just have to ensure that particular class sectors can't afford such technology. Of course, this could be "conspiracy" conjecture. But it seems logical to conclude that if I owned an oil company I would want to drive a non-gas powered vehicle that costs 45-80,000 dollars while selling gas to the rest of the US population that was unable to afford non-gas powered vehicles.

[sasKuatch]

Well, even that site mentioned that Iraq is several years away from producing nuclear weapons. That's several years too soon. What do you suggest be done, the rockets intercepted as they leave the silo?

[mychl]

Originally posted by carrja99
Well, don't forget that Bush would rather tap into oil reserves within US borders rather than relying on foreign oil, but of course the bleeding heart environmentalists are in uproar over that.

How how freakin' terrible.... can you believe that there are people out there who don't want to chop down forests and pollute ecosystems just to get some oil.... bleeding heart environmentalists... bah...

How come you guys always have to put a label on people who dissagree with you....

You don't see me calling people who are too focused on money and power to see that the environment is important to the well-being of all.... ooh, I got it.... Close minded, ignorant good ol' boys....

I for one value the pristine, untouched by man wilderness more than any amount of oil....

It's always about oil.... open your eyes to the inevitable.... oil sucks, it causes war, sickness, and harms all of us.... and it can't last forever!

With just a little imagination you might actually be able to imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels to survive....


sorry if I came across a little harsh, been a tough day at work.... and stereotyping like that really pi$$es me off..... that closes out a lot of options you see.

Yes, drill in alaska.......
(You're ok in my book....)

No, keep that wilderness
(Bleeding Heart Environmentalist)


Later

[chris_i386]

Why should Saddam nuke the US? Attacking Kuweit was a mistake he'll feel very sorry for by now... ;)
What makes you believe he'll do the same mistake again?
You really can't compare him to Hitler. When Hitler started WWII he had one of the most powerful armies of the world, and maybe the best-trained one.

Even if I'm wrong with this, please explain why you don't care for North Vietnam for example.

[carrja99]

Originally posted by -wassup-
its also a family fued. (when you walk into saddam's palace there is a picture of George Bush Sr. on the floor so when you walk in you walk over his face). (yes i do have inside sources :D )

I was unaware Time Magazine was an inside source. :D

[sasKuatch]

Originally posted by chris_i386
Why should Saddam nuke the US? Attacking Kuweit was a mistake he'll feel very sorry for by now... ;)
What makes you believe he'll do the same mistake again?
You really can't compare him to Hitler. When Hitler started WWII he had one of the most powerful armies of the world, and maybe the best-trained one.

Even if I'm wrong with this, please explain why you don't care for North Vietnam for example.

Who is "you"? I care about NV, it's just that they are a communist country, and China is kinda close (and then there would be some protest here at home if attacked a "poor, defenseless country")

[SuperRobo]

I agree with what Micheal Moore said

its a war of distraction, instead of focusing on issues at home, like bad economy and health care

lets start a war

yay

[sasKuatch]

Originally posted by mychl
How how freakin' terrible.... can you believe that there are people out there who don't want to chop down forests and pollute ecosystems just to get some oil.... bleeding heart environmentalists... bah...

You don't have to chop down a whole forest and kill all the wildlife in order to stick a pipe in the ground. If you think that it's necessery, I can understand your hate of industry.

How come you guys always have to put a label on people who dissagree with you....]

You don't see me calling people who are too focused on money and power to see that the environment is important to the well-being of all.... ooh, I got it.... Close minded, ignorant good ol' boys....
Who's "you guys"? Whos's putting a label on who?

I for one value the pristine, untouched by man wilderness more than any amount of oil....
So do I, that's why I live in the woods. I'll bet that you live in an urban area, so I can understand your feelings about that. Living among concrete can be depressing. Living in the woods, I can tell you that nature always conquers; cut down a tree, a dozen spring up to take its place; dig a whole, rain fills it; shoot a deer, dozens of animals grow stronger from eating the remains. Nature is strong, it is nothing but human arrogance to think we can destroy it.

[plattypus1]

Hi all! Judging from the comments already posted I'm probably just asking for a flame-fest but here goes...

Bush tried to push through the bill to drill in the north slope fields in Alaska. Thank guide that one didn't pass, good 'ol Democratic Congress. Then he declares a war on terrorism, which I'm not in opposition to at all. Then he decides to move in on Iraq, lumping them with the war on terror even though there is NO EVIDENCE linking Iraq to terrorism. Now, I may not like Saddam, but he still can't be lumped with the war on terror. If Bush isn't fighting against terrorism, what could he be fighting for? Hmmm, let's ask his oil tycoon buddies in Texas.

Please don't flame me. I'm very intolerant to heat.

[sasKuatch]

It can therefore be concluded due to the lack of unbiased evidence that oil is not a main reason for the possible upcoming war with Iraq.

Since only one source was provided, I will give my opinions of it alone. The first point addressed in the source are Weapons of Mass Destruction, from now on referred to as WMD for the purposes of this discussion. In the article, the author ventures to say that Iraq is several years from producing nuclear weapons. If that is the case, the critisism the United States has placed on Iraq is necessary.

The second point addressed in the article is the "War on Terror." I have no say for or against President Bush's view on the necessity of action in this matter.

The third and last point, "The Promotion of Democracy" is plain pathetic. Instead of supplying any evidence or reasoning to show that ousting Saddam will not further Democracy in the region, they skirted the issue and pointed to the United States' past actions and how they should be seen in today's context. The author seems to forget that 20 years can change much in politics.

[sasKuatch]

Now, on to the environmental issues. The day that I can get a vehicle that runs on methane or hydrogen or anything else that costs no more than a comparable petrolium-powered vehicle, I will happily buy it. However, until then, I don't want a $20,000 lawn tractor, and I don't want computer chips in it; it's complicated enough as it is. I don't want a car that requires licensensed, certified technicians working on it, I want to be able to fix things myself.

I think I shall start a thread on this....