Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Further Evidence We Should Be Glad W Invaded Iraq (Oil!)

Further Evidence We Should Be Glad W Invaded Iraq (Oil!)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:21 AM
 
Question: "How can I feel better about the current price of oil?

Answer: "Imagine there is NO MIDDLE EAST OIL available to the US!"


If terrorists were able to take over or disrupt the flow of oil from any one, some or all of these nations:

▪  Iraq
▪  Kuwait
▪  Qatar
▪  Saudi Arabia
▪  United Arab Emirates

The US would be in a bigger mess than we are in now.

Attack adds to oil security focus

Supply disruption could send price soaring

Monday, December 6, 2004

RAS TANURA, Saudi Arabia (CNN) -- Monday's attack on the U.S. Consulate in the port city of Jeddah has again put the spotlight on the security of Saudi Arabian oil supplies.

While oil prices have retreated from their record highs of October, a terrorist attack on oil installations in Saudi Arabia could send them soaring to new heights, according to a leading industry analyst.

Such attacks now take place on a regular basis in neighboring Iraq, where insurgents have targeted oil pipelines and even staged a suicide attack on an offshore oil facility.

CNN has been investigating security at Saudi Arabia's main oil facilities and found that while the installations have impressive and elaborate protective measures, they are not completely secure.

"I could sit down now with my training in the CIA and people I know and do a concerted military attack on Saudi facilities, standoff attacks with rockets, and take 5-6 million barrels off the market," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

That would represent more than half of Saudi Arabia's daily output. Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world and has one-quarter of the world's oil reserves.

Baer also points to the possibility of a suicide air attack, similar to the September 2001 coordinated attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., which could wipe out a key facility such as Ras Tanura, the world's largest oil refinery. Ras Tanura, like most Saudi facilities, is located in eastern Saudi Arabia, near the Persian Gulf.

Baer said he is not the author of this so-called doomsday scenario, but that it was first studied many years ago by engineers at Aramco, the state-owned oil company that operates Saudi Arabia's facilities.

"If a major facility was knocked out, such as Ras Tanura export facility, and it looked like it would be out for many months then the market would be absolutely frenzied and prices would rise through the sky almost," said Adrian Binks, publisher of the Petroleum Argus newsletter.
(...)

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ity/index.html
I know some of you will say that it is the invasion itself that has brought about the attacks on the Iraqi oil pipeline and the offshore facility.

To that I say it's clear the oil fields were vulnerable before our invasion and were inviting targets for terrorist attacks. The way to protect those facilities and that supply wasn't to leave it UNPROTECTED. The terrorists are not stupid. They would have looked for a way to disrupt the US economy and way of life. It only makes sense if the US and it's allies depend on M.E. oil and that a 4 million bbl/day disruption would cause the price of gasoline to rise even higher than we have seen to date, how long would it have been before the terrorists took out the oil facilities?

Remember what Saddam's men did as they were losing the 1991 Gulf War? They set the oil wells ablaze. Why? To deny it to the West.

Not that we were TAKING the oil, but that we counted on having that oil available to BUY on the open market.

He wanted to deny us the option to BUY the oil at ANY price.

The same thing the terrorists want.

And the disruption of oil means not only higher gas prices but higher prices for EVERYTHING manufactured from petroleum.

What we are starting to see, gas surcharges on long distance movers and restaurant menus and even a Dominos Pizza delivery surcharge irrespective of the tip you might or might not offer (for example), is nothing compared to what it COULD have been had President Bush not moved when he did to protect the oil supply.
( Last edited by mojo2; Aug 16, 2005 at 05:27 AM. )
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:44 AM
 
http://www.spinninglobe.net/crash.htm
Almost every current human endeavor from transportation, to manufacturing, to electricity to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies.

Commercial food production is oil powered. Most pesticides are petroleum (oil) based, and all commercial fertilizers are ammonia based. Ammonia is produced from natural gas.

Oil based agriculture is primarily responsible for the world's population exploding from 1 billion at the middle of the 19th century to 6.3 billion at the turn of the 21st.

Oil allowed for farming implements such as tractors, food storage systems such as refrigerators, and food transport systems such as trucks.

As oil production went up, so did food production. As food production went up, so did the population. As the population went up, the demand for food went up, which increased the demand for oil.

Oil is also largely responsible for the advances in medicine that have been made in the last 150 years. Oil allowed for the mass production of pharmaceutical drugs, and the development of health care infrastructure such as hospitals, ambulances, roads, etc . . .

We are now at a point where the demand for food/oil continues to rise, while our ability to produce it in an affordable fashion is about to drop.

Within a few years of Peak Oil occurring, the price of food will skyrocket because of the cost of fertilizer will soar. The cost of storing (electricity) and transporting (gasoline) the food that is produced will also soar.

Oil is required for a lot more than just food, medicine, and transportation. It is also required for nearly every consumer item, water supply pumping, sewage disposal, garbage disposal, street/park maintenance, hospitals & health systems, police, fire services, and national defense.

Additionally, as you are probably already aware, wars are often fought over oil.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:48 AM
 
I agree that having better control over our energy sources is good, but being in Iraq hasn't really helped, nor do I think it will. Your conclusion that we'd be SOL if terrorism impacted oil production is accurate, but I disagree with the premise that the war has helped prevent terrorism of this type. There weren't any attacks against Iraq's infrastructure before the war. Saddam was no nice guy, but he certainly wasn't blowing up his own oil pipelines. It was his only income, and he was trying to move as much of it to market, legally or illegally. Saddam would have increased output as much as possible to increase his (and incidentally Iraq's) income.

Current high prices are mostly due to increased demand from China and India, but that doesn't change the fact that we're grossly mismanaging Iraq's oil supply. Two years after the "mission accomplished" photo-op, we've just barely returned oil production to prewar levels. Oil was supposed to pay for the war and reconstruction of Iraq, but that didn't happen either.

It would be one thing to argue that establishing a US-friendly government in Iraq would help with energy security, but I think arguing that Iraqi oil fields are now better protected is a poor argument.

ImpulseResponse
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Asia Pacific
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:55 AM
 
Why are we so utterly dependent on oil in the first place? Has this need increased or decreased over the years?

Why do so many people use Windoze?

Has this figure increased or decreased over the years?

Is this a good or bad thing?
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
"Naturally the common people do not want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and its always a simple matter to drag people along whether it's a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, people can always be brought to do the bidding of their leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the paficists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Herman Goering
Hitler's Reich Marshall
Quoted at the Nuremburg Trials
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
If terrorists were able to take over or disrupt the flow of oil from any one, some or all of these nations:

▪  Iraq
▪  Kuwait
▪  Qatar
▪  Saudi Arabia
▪  United Arab Emirates

The US would be in a bigger mess than we are in now.
That's a huge and massive "If", right there, and it implies a causality that the Bush administration has been very careful to establish, but not explicitly state, in order not to be nailable as liars.

The problem with that "if" is, once again, that there were no terrorists in Iraq UNTIL YOU INVADED.

Similar acrobatics were used in that absurd argumentation when terrorist attacks started in Iraq and people started getting killed by parties other than the US military, and Bush went on record stating that the War on Terror must be very effective if they're getting so nervous; it showed how you were hitting close to home...

Another irony that makes your point completely absurd is that Saudi Arabia, the ONE nation that really DOES support terrorism directly, is an ALLY of the US.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by GSixZero
I agree that having better control over our energy sources is good, but being in Iraq hasn't really helped, nor do I think it will. Your conclusion that we'd be SOL if terrorism impacted oil production is accurate, but I disagree with the premise that the war has helped prevent terrorism of this type. There weren't any attacks against Iraq's infrastructure before the war. Saddam was no nice guy, but he certainly wasn't blowing up his own oil pipelines. It was his only income, and he was trying to move as much of it to market, legally or illegally. Saddam would have increased output as much as possible to increase his (and incidentally Iraq's) income.

Current high prices are mostly due to increased demand from China and India, but that doesn't change the fact that we're grossly mismanaging Iraq's oil supply. Two years after the "mission accomplished" photo-op, we've just barely returned oil production to prewar levels. Oil was supposed to pay for the war and reconstruction of Iraq, but that didn't happen either.

It would be one thing to argue that establishing a US-friendly government in Iraq would help with energy security, but I think arguing that Iraqi oil fields are now better protected is a poor argument.
You say you don't think our having invaded has helped protect our oil supply? You have people who are smart enough, daring and calculating enough to hijack jet liners in the US and crash them into our buildings. Then there are people who are sufficiently motivated by hate or by what they believe is their religious duty that they would commit suicide bombings every day.

And you think these folks wouldn't have gotten around to using our dependence on oil as a weapon against us? No one thought they would use jetliners as weapons. I'll tell you what. You sound like a very nice man. In my day I was the kind of guy who would risk losing a limb if I thought I could take off your finger. And no one, neither freind nor family should think they were close enough to me to keep me from doing it. Loved ones standing in my way would be sorry they did so.

I was not as motivated, though, as these al Qaeda guys. Still don't believe they would stop at nothing to punish the US economy by using oil as a weapon?

Here's a quote from a moderate muslim.

If Mecca and Madinah are bombed by any government that country would at the same second be in a war against Islam. That same second it would be the duty of every Muslim to defend Islam. It would have nothing to do with being a moderate or not. It would be my duty, just like every other Muslims, to fight the one who attacked Islam. I'm not going to be PC about this but just explain it as well as I can.

The second you(meaning the US gov) would bomb Mecca and Medinah you would be attacking Islam and would have stabbed every Muslim in the heart. The second the US gov would attack Mecca I would be starting to preparing attacks on every single US government building and employee here. You might ask why I would attack every single government employee. I would because everyone working for the government that bombed Mecca would be assisting the attack on Islam and every single employee can stop working at the government if he so wishes. Where I am now we have probably two high-profile targets(embassy and air-base) and a couple of more low-profile targets. I would hunt down and punish every single US government official in this country. I would make sure not a single US gov building here would stand the day after. And I'm a moderate.

Now imagine this in every single country with Muslim residents. Now think about those who will not show the same restraint as I when it would come to innocent civilians. To win this war your government would have to kill about 1.5 billion people because this war would not end until the annihaliation of the US government or until every single Muslim on this earth would be dead.

I can promise you that this is what would happen. This is not a guess. You would have about 1.5 billion people hunting down every single US government official and building. Of those some would not be able to show restraint when it comes to innocent civilians and some would broaden the definition of legal targets. 9/11, Israel/Palestine and WWII would all look like paradise if this would be set in motion. And unfortunately it's completely in your hands. It's unfortunate because I don't trust your government one bit.

Does this explanation still sound "extreme"? Of course it does. But it has nothing to do with being a moderate or extremist. It has to do about justice.
So think about what would have happened in that little corner of the world had we not invaded.

There has been a whole 'pack' of posters who have been and still (as recently as the past 36 hours) are saying that Saddam and the terrorists absolutely wouldn't have colluded in order to bring down the Great Satan, citing a difference in religious philosophies.

This is utter nonsense as they had enough in common that Saddam DID send funds to the families of dead Islamic suicide bombers.

But now I'm going to introduce a supposition that may have you come dangerously close to trying to have it both ways.

If Saddam and the terrorists had no relationship and the terrorists were looking for a way to bring US down they would have looked at the economic value of denying us oil. It was done at the end of the Gulf War. It's being done now. But you are going to say the terrorists weren't going to attack the oil supplies as a way to hurt the US?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
That's a huge and massive "If", right there, and it implies a causality that the Bush administration has been very careful to establish, but not explicitly state, in order not to be nailable as liars.

The problem with that "if" is, once again, that there were no terrorists in Iraq UNTIL YOU INVADED.

Similar acrobatics were used in that absurd argumentation when terrorist attacks started in Iraq and people started getting killed by parties other than the US military, and Bush went on record stating that the War on Terror must be very effective if they're getting so nervous; it showed how you were hitting close to home...

Another irony that makes your point completely absurd is that Saudi Arabia, the ONE nation that really DOES support terrorism directly, is an ALLY of the US.
What you call acrobatics I call the natural way of life and events. Using your questionable logic, one could say that the 9/11 attacks would never have happened. Why? Because they never happened before.

I may disagree with you, I may get angry at your posts, but I never doubt your intelligence, analogika. And I won't doubt it now.

I KNOW you don't believe this assertion that the terrorists were going to remain frozen as though they were playing a schoolyard game of "freeze tag." They, like we all do when trying to accomplish a goal, would be counted on to try to enhance their position. To gain more resources. Attract new supporters. Find better cover and concealment. Locate better targets. Make new alliances, and etc.

There were terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. They were members of Saddam's Baathist Party. And many of them have taken part in the Iraqi insurgency but some of them are giving up their wicked, wicked ways and returning to the civilian life and engaging in the democratic process, now.

A good thing. But they are not who we are discussing.

It is the jihadists from out of town to whom you refer, and I agree they weren't there before we invaded. But we also invaded Afghanistan in search of OBL. Just as the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan during the Carter administration. And Islamic fighters from all over the world travelled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets there. And we have no reason to believe that at least some of these same jihadists we are fighting in Iraq wouldn't have made the journey to fight us in Afghanistan. Actually, many of them have. One, in fact came from as far as Northern California, USA...a jihadist named Lindh.

But not all of them would have targeted us tactically in the field of battle.

Others would have found other ways to attack the US. The attacks on oil facilities and government installations in Saudi Arabia have been going on before and since our invasion of Iraq. They've been going on since 1991 when our dirty pignesses created bases in S.A. And maybe the Saudi's would have been able to prevent terrorist attacks from disrupting the flow of oil to the US and the free world, but having the action in Iraq right there has lit a fire under everyone in the area on both sides and so the Saudis are certainly tougher and more diligent now than they were before the invasion.

Your last statement about the Saudis being our allies but also supporting terrorism directly is a bit of a puzzle to me. How do they DIRECTLY support terrorism?

I know it is a very fine line the Royal Family has to walk between staying in the good graces of their islamic citizenry. Yet, they have much to lose by turning their backs on their allegiance with the US.

The US recognizes this complex situation and makes some allowances for it. Yet the administration is not displeased with the support and cooperation we get from the Saudi government in the WoT and the conduct of the Iraq war or in our oil arrangements.

If the terrorists disrupted the flow of oil we'd be up shix creek.

Our presence there HAS attracted suicide terrorist jihadists.

But you are in effect saying that a homicidal bank robber is only going to rob a bank because there is an armed guard in the bank lobby that he can kill.

No.

The robber's goal is to get the money and he'll kill the guard if he can. The terrorists' goal is to punish the US any way they can to get our troops out of the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia. They would have found their way to the oil eventually.

Would somebody please pull up OBL's stated threat to use economic and also I believe he actually mentioned using oil as a weapon in one of his rants?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
"Naturally the common people do not want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and its always a simple matter to drag people along whether it's a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, people can always be brought to do the bidding of their leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the paficists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Herman Goering
Hitler's Reich Marshall
Quoted at the Nuremburg Trials
You are paying $3.00+ a gallon now for gasoline and that is with the US military overseeing the safety of the oil supplies and the pipeline and etc.

Do you really think the terrorists would sit idly by while millions of gallons per day were being sent to the USA?


Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by GSixZero
It would be one thing to argue that establishing a US-friendly government in Iraq would help with energy security, but I think arguing that Iraqi oil fields are now better protected is a poor argument.
I say we are less likely to suffer a major disruption in oil supplies because GWB chose to invade.

The way to protect a vital natural resource is NOT to sit idly by and do nothing, letting other forces, hostile forces, set the agenda to which we'd have to react.

We HAVE oil flowing to us and that is what has been assured.

And for that we should thank Pres. Bush.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:34 AM
 
And here I was under the impression that the invasion of Iraq had "nothing to do with oil" ... or at least that was the pretty standard Bush lackey mantra ...
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
And here I was under the impression that the invasion of Iraq had "nothing to do with oil" ... or at least that was the pretty standard Bush lackey mantra ...
Well, I got tired of hearing the same old arguments and thought I'd make one up that actually makes sense and can give us all some new mantras to learn.

jk
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:43 AM
 
It seems the "Green" crowd, which is liberal/anti-war would want the US to develop our own oil fields so we wouldn't go to war over oil.
Since either they can't see it, or are really wanting the downfall of the US They would not want the US to develop the fields.

We should wind up production of oil, revamp the refineries and get ready for the day when only the US has any left. The green crowd needs to have alternatives that are realistic before nixing the systems already in use.

The coal users spent the bucks to put scrubbers on the smokestacks so I'd wanna see somehing like that commitment from the oil guzzlers too.

How about doing EPA checks on the trucking industries and rail locomotives?
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:52 AM
 
<< ou are paying $3.00+ a gallon now for gasoline and that is with the US military overseeing the safety of the oil supplies and the pipeline and etc.

Do you really think the terrorists would sit idly by while millions of gallons per day were being sent to the USA? >>

You are of course assuming that the rest of the world is not using ANY OIL??

Ever hear of China? You know, that funny little 3rd world nation with Nukes and geriatric leadership and 6 billion+ folks??? We aren't the only country with rapidly increasing oil needs.

You have to wonder HOW MUCH OF THE $3.00 you pay for gas is taxes.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
<< ou are paying $3.00+ a gallon now for gasoline and that is with the US military overseeing the safety of the oil supplies and the pipeline and etc.

Do you really think the terrorists would sit idly by while millions of gallons per day were being sent to the USA? >>

You are of course assuming that the rest of the world is not using ANY OIL??

Ever hear of China? You know, that funny little 3rd world nation with Nukes and geriatric leadership and 6 billion+ folks??? We aren't the only country with rapidly increasing oil needs.

You have to wonder HOW MUCH OF THE $3.00 you pay for gas is taxes.
You make some interesting points. Do I take it you are thankful that W invaded Iraq?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 12:48 PM
 
Did you read my post at all?


Originally Posted by mojo2
You say you don't think our having invaded has helped protect our oil supply? You have people who are smart enough, daring and calculating enough to hijack jet liners in the US and crash them into our buildings. Then there are people who are sufficiently motivated by hate or by what they believe is their religious duty that they would commit suicide bombings every day.

And you think these folks wouldn't have gotten around to using our dependence on oil as a weapon against us? No one thought they would use jetliners as weapons. I'll tell you what. You sound like a very nice man. In my day I was the kind of guy who would risk losing a limb if I thought I could take off your finger. And no one, neither freind nor family should think they were close enough to me to keep me from doing it. Loved ones standing in my way would be sorry they did so.

I was not as motivated, though, as these al Qaeda guys. Still don't believe they would stop at nothing to punish the US economy by using oil as a weapon?
I already agreed with you that we'd be screwed if terrorists disrupted the oil supply. Yes, I think they're smart enough to do it. They pretty much have the ways and the means to do anything they want these days. I don't know why we're still arguing this point. But this has nothing to do with how invading Iraq has strengthened our energy security.

Originally Posted by mojo2
So think about what would have happened in that little corner of the world had we not invaded.

There has been a whole 'pack' of posters who have been and still (as recently as the past 36 hours) are saying that Saddam and the terrorists absolutely wouldn't have colluded in order to bring down the Great Satan, citing a difference in religious philosophies.

This is utter nonsense as they had enough in common that Saddam DID send funds to the families of dead Islamic suicide bombers.

But now I'm going to introduce a supposition that may have you come dangerously close to trying to have it both ways.

If Saddam and the terrorists had no relationship and the terrorists were looking for a way to bring US down they would have looked at the economic value of denying us oil. It was done at the end of the Gulf War. It's being done now.
This is utter nonsense. You have a number of questionable premises. I disagree that because Saddam was paying families of suicide bombers, that he was so intimately linked to the terrorists that they'd go to the same lengths to achieve their goals.

I will say that Saddam wouldn't have attacked his own oil supply. Oil was Saddam's gravy boat, and he wasn't going to be without it in the way that you think he would.


Originally Posted by mojo2
But you are going to say the terrorists weren't going to attack the oil supplies as a way to hurt the US?
No, I'm not going to say the terrorists won't attack the oil supply. See above. I still don't know why you keep arguning this point. Perhaps you have no other point.

ImpulseResponse
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 12:56 PM
 
I've been thinking a lot about your oil theory, Mojo, particularly the stuff you wrote to me in the Bush Liar thread (I hope you don't mind moving the conversation over here).

My problem with your theory is the concept of supply and demand. How much of the world's supply does Iraq supply (I don't know the answer to this)? I'd assume that in addition to oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq contributes a fair bit. However, your theory is based on the notion that our invasion will help stablize the prices of oil and the global economy over the long haul.

It just makes no sense to jack up the prices when you are not the only player in town. In a competitive market, producers of a product try to deliver at the lowest prices possible to capture as much business as possible. This is just good business sense, and I see no logic in Iraq intentionally sabatoging their own business.

Also, why now? If Iraq wanted to do this, they could have done so pre-invasion. I don't see why we were so fearful right at this point of time. Iraq's control of oil and Saddam's power are nothing new, did we have reason to believe this would change?

Finally, if the US really wanted to stablize the global economy by controlling the oil fields, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Maybe our relationship with them is better, and maybe the Saudis have proven to be more trustworthy. Still, they are just as capable to jack up their prices to screw us over as any other country.

Am I missing something here?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
"Naturally the common people do not want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and its always a simple matter to drag people along whether it's a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, people can always be brought to do the bidding of their leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the paficists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Herman Goering
Hitler's Reich Marshall
Quoted at the Nuremburg Trials
If only they'd understand how relevant this quote is...
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
If only they'd understand how relevant this quote is...
So? Sun Tzu said the same. But, I suppose it's more dramatic to use a quote from a Nazi, more effective when trolling.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 01:54 PM
 
mojo2's assertion is ridiculous. Terrorists have not threatened to "take over" or distrupt the oil supply from any of the countries he listed. If that did happen, I have no doubt that the U.S. would go to war to protect the oil supply, much like it did back in the first Persian Gulf War. But to defend the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq by saying that it prevented a threat that had not yet even begun to materialize is absurd. Even if that had been the intention, is the oil supply any more secure today than it used to be? Are Saudi oil fields locked down by U.S. military forces? I don't think so. Terrorists are still fully capable of launching rocket attacks against refineries all over the Middle East.

As GSixZero pointed out, Iraq hasn't even added much oil to the world supply. It won't do so until significantly after the political situation there has stabilized. The reason crude oil prices are so high is because world demand has begun to hit the upper limits of the world supply, in part because of China and India's growing economies. We would be in the same boat today with respect to oil prices even if Iraq hadn't been invaded.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
So? Sun Tzu said the same. But, I suppose it's more dramatic to use a quote from a Nazi, more effective when trolling.
Yeah. I think Nazi quotes lose their effectiveness. Oh.. I forgot..

<John Stewart>
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the first Nazi reference in the MacNN Iraq Oil Thread at...
</John Stewart>
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:32 PM
 
Ummm..... consider this. Mojo: it's NOT American oil that you need to feel the compulsion to defend it against some immiganary threat of all things !!!! if IFs and BUTs and MAYBEs are justfication enough for any country to goto war then can you even comprehend the number of wars that would be going on right now ? its anarchy.

So anyway, I think it would literally be WWIII if America tried to do anything about Saudi Arabia, even though many of the terrorists on 9/11 were from there. Think about it....it would be the crusades all over again....all hell would break loose. So whats the next best thing ? Iraq....fabricate some shady accusations that cant be substianted and associate them with a villian, and voila, you have an opium for the masses.

But what i dont understand is...i know Saddam is a villain, a tyrant,etc. Why didnt the Iriqis revolt ? or even the other Muslim nations try and oust him ? I mean Iran succesfully revolted against a tyrant and instituted a democracy of sorts. Just strange.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Aug 16, 2005 at 02:51 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 02:59 PM
 
mojo2--
Question: "How can I feel better about the current price of oil?

Answer: "Imagine there is NO MIDDLE EAST OIL available to the US!"

If terrorists were able to take over or disrupt the flow of oil from any one, some or all of these nations:

▪ Iraq
▪ Kuwait
▪ Qatar
▪ Saudi Arabia
▪ United Arab Emirates

The US would be in a bigger mess than we are in now.
Well, then this sounds like a good reason to reduce our dependence on oil. Alternate energy sources (probably nuclear -- nothing else is significantly feasible) will be required. Also, our energy consumption must drop significantly, and this means altering our lifestyle, e.g. urbanizing, replacing suburbs with farms, improving rail transit, elimating most cars and planes, changing to less energy intensive farming methods, etc.

Since we'll run out of oil eventually anyway (probably quite soon), and since there is really no chance of being able to just replace oil with some other energy technology that still supports our lifestyle, we need to do this. But the people who are too comfortable with their lifestyle have their heads in the sand about the inevitability of losing it. This is unfortunate, since the more we prepare, the more gentle the transition, and the better the new one. As it stands, we're probably in for quite a shock.

Going to war over the ability to drive a mile down a sidewalk-less highway to get a burger, instead of being able to pleasantly walk to the shop around the corner is tremendously apalling.

We HAVE oil flowing to us and that is what has been assured.

And for that we should thank Pres. Bush.
No, we should be blaming him. He's just delaying the inevitable, and it's going to make things worse.

Y3a--
It seems the "Green" crowd, which is liberal/anti-war would want the US to develop our own oil fields so we wouldn't go to war over oil.
No, I think they probably want the US to stop using so much oil all together; then there's no war over oil, and no need to go after the dregs left in the US. (which would only be enough for a very little while anyway)

There are no more new significant sources of oil coming along.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:05 PM
 
What is new now with the global struggle of power over oil? How does this discussion differ from a discussion which may have taken place 10 years ago? In other words, why is it that we feel compelled to invade Iraq for oil now?

And, why Iraq? They aren't the biggest supplier.

And, why has Bush stated that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people? Was this a lie?


I'm not trying to war monger here, there is just so much that I feel that I don't understand. Maybe these are all hypothetical questions, but they prevent me from embracing this oil theory that Mojo has come up with.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
mojo2's assertion is ridiculous. Terrorists have not threatened to "take over" or distrupt the oil supply from any of the countries he listed. If that did happen, I have no doubt that the U.S. would go to war to protect the oil supply, much like it did back in the first Persian Gulf War. But to defend the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq by saying that it prevented a threat that had not yet even begun to materialize is absurd. Even if that had been the intention, is the oil supply any more secure today than it used to be? Are Saudi oil fields locked down by U.S. military forces? I don't think so. Terrorists are still fully capable of launching rocket attacks against refineries all over the Middle East.

As GSixZero pointed out, Iraq hasn't even added much oil to the world supply. It won't do so until significantly after the political situation there has stabilized. The reason crude oil prices are so high is because world demand has begun to hit the upper limits of the world supply, in part because of China and India's growing economies. We would be in the same boat today with respect to oil prices even if Iraq hadn't been invaded.
thanks for saving the thread.

mojo2, you have the distinction of posting more words devoid of any historical truth in a single thread than anyone on this board has accomplished in quite some time. Congrats.

research hint: who was rotting in Saddam's prisons for 30 years?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 03:40 PM
 
First of all, the scenario is not realistic, because you underestimate human greed. It's not a Western thing, it's the same all over the world. There is nothing to be gained of all of the countries deny America access to oil.

Even if a few did (like Iran and Iraq), it's their natural resources and it's also legal not to do business with someone.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 05:48 PM
 
They couldn't have invaded Saudi Arabia because they have us by the balls with 1/4 of the world's oil supply. Even if the hijackers were mainly Saudis, that doesn't matter, just point the finger at an easier target and Gung-Ho!
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Actually, to me, the whole oil thing (esp. how mojo presents it) is the most compelling and strongest pro-war argument I've heard.
I'll list a few countries that produce more oil per month than Iraq:
Iran, Kuwait, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela. (That's just OPEC members that out-produce Iraq)
In addition we've got:
Norway, Canada, China, Mexico, Russia, and the United States that out-produce Iraq.

When Saddam actually truly threatened an oil supplier (by invading Kuwait), did the U.S. just sit back and watch? Nope. We sent him running back to his stinky country. This time, he threatened nobody, didn't invade another country, so we went in and took him out. It all makes very little sense to me, but I don't think this was about oil.

If we want to go ahead and make up theories, I'll bite.

The Bush's hate Saddam. He tried to kill Bush senior, and for that he was taken down.

Perhaps some in the administration actually believed the whole "we'll be welcomed with open arms and flowers" crap, and seriously thought that a nice, american-style democracy would be accepted instantly, but it seems like such a ludicrous thing (especially now that we have some hindsight) that I can't really believe that was it either.

No WMD's, not a lot of oil that we're "protecting", just a breath away from a civil war instead of a stable democracy, but we got that bastard Saddam!! Mission accomplished indeed.

The source for the oil figures, so you can peruse the excel spreadsheets for yourself:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/internat...tml#Production
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 06:20 PM
 
I don't think mojo2 is arguing we invaded to control oil production/prices. He seems to be arguing that we invaded to prevent "terrorists" from using oil as a weapon against us.

Of course our Iraq policy has everything to do with oil. Our entire ME policy has everything to do with oil. There's no other reason to give a flying f*ck about the ME.

But to argue that somehow the oil supply was imperilled by terrorists is totally ridiculous. Saddam's #1 job for the last 30 years was guard the oil from "terrorists" on behalf of western interests. A job he performed, we might add, with horrifying effeciency and ruthlessness.

As already pointed out by others, the facts on the ground demonstrate the exact opposite of mojo2's argument.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Dakota, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 08:41 PM
 
It seems Americans all around the country are being much more open to vocalizing criticism's against the war in Iraq, and this thread seems to be proof of that, as well.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker
thanks for saving the thread.

mojo2, you have the distinction of posting more words devoid of any historical truth in a single thread than anyone on this board has accomplished in quite some time. Congrats.

research hint: who was rotting in Saddam's prisons for 30 years?
Number of words devoid of historical truth in a single thread: 7, 249

Getting posters to actually begin trying to use their brains to THINK about the problem in new ways in search of the REAL reason for the invasion instead of spouting and arguing the same old hackneyed evidence, answers, accusations and denials: PRICELESS!

OK, now that I see we are all engaged in the effort...

Here it is what, two and a half years since the start of the invasion and the issue is still in question. I'm still trying to sift through the evidence, the pieces of information that we know about the invasion to try to make sense of this thing because there are things that STILL don't make sense about it. And the administration is still not talking about certain things. When historians finally have ALL the info I wouldn't be surprised if the clues weren't here right before our eyes the whole time.

That's what we are doing here. Examining the evidence with fresh eyes. Putting two seemingly unrelated pieces together to see IF they fit. When they don't we try two different pieces and so on and so forth until we find some that do fit and then we follow the evidence until we can't any longer. Then we retreat to the point where we were certain that things still made sense.

I DO believe that OIL should be the primary focus here. But we're going to have to expand our way of dealing with possible theories.

I don't think mojo2 is arguing we invaded to control oil production/prices. He seems to be arguing that we invaded to prevent "terrorists" from using oil as a weapon against us.
You are partially right with your assessment here and I thank you for trying to clear up any confusion I may have caused in my sleep deprived state.

What I was alternately doing, if you'll notice, was trying to fit the known indisputable information with a possibility.

Did W fear that the WoT would incite known and would be terrorists to mount attacks on targets and in ways previously unattempted? Attacks such as jetliners crashed into oil tankers. Attempts such as concerted suicide bomb attacks on oil storage facilities?

But I ALSO floated the possibility that the Administration feared Saddam would just allocate the oil he was going to sell the US to China instead, leaving us with a shortage of however many millions of barrels? This action could impact our economy to the point where it might start a chain reaction of events that would be truly disastrous.

We KNOW the US invaded Iraq for the oil.

Of course our Iraq policy has everything to do with oil. Our entire ME policy has everything to do with oil. There's no other reason to give a flying f*ck about the ME.
So, if we invaded because of oil, but Saddam wasn't going to imperil the oil...
But he WAS going to protect the oil as he had been doing the past 30 years or so, then what was accomplished by invading?

There WAS a reason for the invasion and none of us is sure it was about democracy...ONLY. Or Saddam's brutality...ONLY. Or the arguable existence of WMD's...ONLY.

So, if it wasn't about WMD's, if it wasn't about ending Saddam's oppression, if it wasn't about democracy, but it WAS about oil, but we didn't have to invade to protect the oil supply...

Then why did we invade?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
If only they'd understand how relevant this quote is...
Frighteningly so.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
There WAS a reason for the invasion and none of us is sure it was about democracy...ONLY. Or Saddam's brutality...ONLY. Or the arguable existence of WMD's...ONLY.

So, if it wasn't about WMD's, if it wasn't about ending Saddam's oppression, if it wasn't about democracy, but it WAS about oil, but we didn't have to invade to protect the oil supply...

Then why did we invade?
That's the question of the day!

Given that even your oil theory is not an absolute slam-dunk given, and the overall mission statement for invading Iraq seems questionable, if I may ask, why do you seem to want to support this administration so bad? Do you have strong trusting instincts of this administration? Do you really want to believe that GWB is an awesome president that will be remembered fondly when history looks back up upon him?

A clear mission statement is a requirement for the success of just about any endeavor - a business, or any other sort of project. Even if the mission statement is privately about oil, this is not the public mission statement. How are the hundreds/thousands of people involve in the success of this operation supposed to do their job effectively with such a flimsy mission statement that has proven to be a moving target?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by AKcrab
I'll list a few countries that produce more oil per month than Iraq:
Iran, Kuwait, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela. (That's just OPEC members that out-produce Iraq)
In addition we've got:
Norway, Canada, China, Mexico, Russia, and the United States that out-produce Iraq.

When Saddam actually truly threatened an oil supplier (by invading Kuwait), did the U.S. just sit back and watch? Nope. We sent him running back to his stinky country. This time, he threatened nobody, didn't invade another country, so we went in and took him out. It all makes very little sense to me, but I don't think this was about oil.
if you think about oil production then it makes little sense to think we invaded for oil. saddam's infrastructure suffered greatly under years of war and sanctions. under sanctions, little equipment could be imported to improve this situation, and as such, as equipment failed, little could be done to replace it.

saudi arabia has enjoyed heavy investment from the west not only in exploration but extraction and as such can pump out a lot more oil than iraq can. the same can be said of the above listed countries.

however, what those other countries (aside S.A.) lack is they don't sit on the second largest proven reserves of oil. iraq has this vital distinction and is the reason that it makes sense to have control over it. some experts even think that as more exploration is done in iraq, the proven reserves may rise. look down the road (the downslope of peak oil) and as other countries exhaust their supplies, iraq and S.A. will still be able to produce.

the fact that iraq is _not_ producing lots now, makes it even more attractive in the future. and most of the current increase in oil prices is market futures speculation. though, the price will probably never ever fall much at all in the future.

bbt
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 09:55 PM
 
Mojo:

When it comes to this war, you sound like a moderate Republican, or perhaps independent-ish moderate.

I take great issue with the whole "you're either with us or against us" thing. It is okay to disagree with the administration on the war and still call yourself a card carrying Republican. People forget that the stance of this particular administration is pretty far to the right, and fall victim to the idea that this administration seems to have successfully made "liberal" a bad word that loyalists are proud to perpetuate. You don't have to push yourself to the far right just to place your own political loyalties.

I haven't lived in the US long enough nor am I old enough to feel a particular allegiance to a party. I like to think of myself as a social democrat with some fiscal and philosophical leanings towards the core values of the right and/or Libertarian party. I really have a hard time seeing many of these values in this administration.

Perhaps this opens me up as prey for the aggressive, hawk-type people in this forum who feel an unconditional loyalty to their fearless leader, GWB, and feel the need to defend him at every opportunity (after all, he's their boy!), but at least I don't feel like an apologist to either party, and that I'm actually trying to do my duty as an, ahem, citizen to act as a check and balance to this government.

I'll call B.S. on Democrats and Republicans alike. If anything I've said hits home, I inspire you to do the same if you aren't already
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
I've been thinking a lot about your oil theory, Mojo, particularly the stuff you wrote to me in the Bush Liar thread (I hope you don't mind moving the conversation over here).

My problem with your theory is the concept of supply and demand. How much of the world's supply does Iraq supply (I don't know the answer to this)? I'd assume that in addition to oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq contributes a fair bit. However, your theory is based on the notion that our invasion will help stablize the prices of oil and the global economy over the long haul.

It just makes no sense to jack up the prices when you are not the only player in town. In a competitive market, producers of a product try to deliver at the lowest prices possible to capture as much business as possible. This is just good business sense, and I see no logic in Iraq intentionally sabatoging their own business.

Also, why now? If Iraq wanted to do this, they could have done so pre-invasion. I don't see why we were so fearful right at this point of time. Iraq's control of oil and Saddam's power are nothing new, did we have reason to believe this would change?

Finally, if the US really wanted to stablize the global economy by controlling the oil fields, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Maybe our relationship with them is better, and maybe the Saudis have proven to be more trustworthy. Still, they are just as capable to jack up their prices to screw us over as any other country.

Am I missing something here?
We're ALL missing something here. The real reason for invading.

Actually, I'm not as much addressing the issue of price as I am availability and what it would mean to our economy and what might result from that.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket
by 400%.
As you can see, it wouldn't take much of a disruption to bring on serious consequences.

But I will address price as somewhat of an aside. Thanks to ABC News' Betsy Stark.

149 US oil refineries process appx. 17 million barrels of sweet, light, crude oil a day, which, btw, leaves us about 10% short of what we need daily. We make up the difference by importing gasoline from other nations. The last new US oil refinery went on line 30 years ago and despite a greater demand than ever before, because of the boom and bust nature of the oil business there are fewer refineries now than in 1981 when 324 US refineries processed almost 19 million barrels/day.

New refineries would ease gas prices but current refineries are maxxing out and making record profits so the owners are less interested in plowing those profits into new processing plants.
Eventually they'll have to though, because some of the current plants are starting to break down, causing even greater shortages, which supports higher prices at the pump.

Especially promising would be new refineries which are able to process the heavy crude oil. Heavy crude is harder and more costly to refine than sweet, light crude but the heavy crude is $14/bbl cheaper and there are millions of barrels available but few refineries today are capable of processing the stuff.

Analysts agree that a few big refineries could help bring down gas prices but building new capacity is a daunting task.

Because of government red tape and EPA requirements and etc., one company, Arizona Clean Fuels will have spent 15 years trying to get a relatively small refinery built by the time their first product is sold in 2010.

And even more of a problem is that despite the hue and cry for lower gas prices no one wants a refinery built in THEIR 'backyard.'

Ok. Back to Iraq.

You and TF and some other posters here have made some valid points. Now, from there let's seek out some new conclusions that we all can agree make some sense.

My contention is that there's some reason for the invasion we still have yet to really understand and that when we do it will make everyone go, "ahhhh!"
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
You and TF and some other posters here have made some valid points. Now, from there let's seek out some new conclusions that we all can agree make some sense.

My contention is that there's some reason for the invasion we still have yet to really understand and that when we do it will make everyone go, "ahhhh!"

I truly appreciate your willingness to continue the search, and to bring your findings to our attention. Please continue to do so.

In the meantime, I hope you won't mind my distrusting this administration. Do you think I'm being irrational with this line of thinking?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
My contention is that there's some reason for the invasion we still have yet to really understand and that when we do it will make everyone go, "ahhhh!"
using your body example. say world is starting to dehydrate and you could somehow slow that dehydration while everyone else dies out, hoping that someone (or something) will rescue you, would you do it?

probably.

moving to alternate fuel is not an if rather a when. though, many ideas exist about how to do it, it will require that people change their ways. the US economy will become unsustainable very soon for the lack of oil. ironically, those who can move the change don't want to because it will cut into profits in the short-term though such a move would improve humanity many times over for future generations.

but, i guess we don't really know what they talked about in those energy bill meetings. maybe they were figuring out how to make the US oil free by 2020.

[edit: what do you think bush is talking about when he talks about preserving our way of life for future generations? liberty and freedom? probably but i bet a lot of it has to do with our (oil-based) economy.]
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 11:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Mojo:

When it comes to this war, you sound like a moderate Republican, or perhaps independent-ish moderate.

I take great issue with the whole "you're either with us or against us" thing. It is okay to disagree with the administration on the war and still call yourself a card carrying Republican. People forget that the stance of this particular administration is pretty far to the right, and fall victim to the idea that this administration seems to have successfully made "liberal" a bad word that loyalists are proud to perpetuate. You don't have to push yourself to the far right just to place your own political loyalties.

I haven't lived in the US long enough nor am I old enough to feel a particular allegiance to a party. I like to think of myself as a social democrat with some fiscal and philosophical leanings towards the core values of the right and/or Libertarian party. I really have a hard time seeing many of these values in this administration.

Perhaps this opens me up as prey for the aggressive, hawk-type people in this forum who feel an unconditional loyalty to their fearless leader, GWB, and feel the need to defend him at every opportunity (after all, he's their boy!), but at least I don't feel like an apologist to either party, and that I'm actually trying to do my duty as an, ahem, citizen to act as a check and balance to this government.

I'll call B.S. on Democrats and Republicans alike. If anything I've said hits home, I inspire you to do the same if you aren't already
I think I'll adopt my own version of a "Canadian" stance on this point. I do believe George W. Bush will be seen in time as one of our greatest Presidents. I'm just waiting to see how. Seriously though, I believe the oil thing (whatever it turns out to actually be) will prove to be something he already KNOWS will vindicate his decision to invade.

(Just look at his Cheshire cat expression and confident demeanor. THAT comes when one knows they have the aces to win the hand. I believe he knows he's done good. And when the time is right we will discover what the reason for the invasion was and he'll be lionized or greatly celebrated then. He knows it's bound to happen, IMO.)

When I'm feeling frisky I'll give in to my loyalty to the President and lambaste the occasional fuzzy liberal. When I'm feeling really frisky I'll embrace the doubts I sometimes feel about the conduct of the war and the surprised Bushie will get ticked at me for flip-flopping. lol

However, that said, I like the Bushie side better.

They are more fun (usually), they make more sense (usually), they seem to be able to use their hearts AND their brains where the liberals seem to be pretty much emotion-led creatures.

If you find it difficult to relate to the current administration, I'd ask that you consider the tough, self sufficient, no nonsense pioneers who first settled Canada. They embodied the values that are at the core of the Republican party I believe. There are differences of course, but the Republicans seem more in tune with what made the US what it great. Timeless values not fads or social experiments. There are plusses and minuses on either side but as I've said, I feel I am closer to the right than the left.

Please don't let this get out, ok?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2005, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
I truly appreciate your willingness to continue the search, and to bring your findings to our attention. Please continue to do so.

In the meantime, I hope you won't mind my distrusting this administration. Do you think I'm being irrational with this line of thinking?
A healthy suspicion is a sign of intelligence. But when it closes a person to taking in new information I feel that's when they fall in love with some grotesque bastardized construct which takes the place of the truth.

I fully understand the need to be dogmatic during the contest. But once the issue of the election is over this is the time when a search for truth is supposed to take place. To remain dogmatic reduces the person to the level of a cliche.

We have seen them on these boards on both sides of the aisle.

But as I've said before I sometimes enjoy scrapping and that's the best reason afaic for being dogmatic. It allows you to do some pretty mindless scrapping. Fun and games.

But every once in a while I want more from these boards and if everyone is still playing the dogma game...I can understand the attraction, but it's kinda disappointing. But hey, it's all good. Right?

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929
They couldn't have invaded Saudi Arabia because they have us by the balls with 1/4 of the world's oil supply. Even if the hijackers were mainly Saudis, that doesn't matter, just point the finger at an easier target and Gung-Ho!
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
So? Sun Tzu said the same. But, I suppose it's more dramatic to use a quote from a Nazi, more effective when trolling.
The more I post here the more I appreciate your "angelic" presence. When I'm out on a limb or when there are snappers right and left I notice you will sometimes stop by and clarify a point, saving me some time and/or grief or you'll drop a thought or two which shuts a mouth or two. Other times you just remind me that there's at least one objective thinker in sight and often that's all anyone could hope for...except for the times when you crack me up!

Thanx for this pick-up (bowling analogy) as well as for those past and future!
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:22 AM
 
I'm a little confused (normal state for me) after reading this thread but I've got a couple of extra cents (sense) I want to plunk down.

The US receives only a few drops if any oil at all from the Middle East.
Whatever oil is needed that the US cannot provide for itself it imports from Canada (90%) and Venezuela (10%).

That's why the little US backed coup attempt in Venezuela a while back because it's leader (Chavez) wants to stick it to Bush.

BUT, nothing lasts forever or is forever secure. Some intelligent person, I forget who it was but he was (is) smarter than anyone here said..."In order to control the oil you have to be standing on it"

2 centablos.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:26 AM
 
Are you "Besson" as well? You both are quite "Confused" very often....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
Are you "Besson" as well? You both are quite "Confused" very often....
True, but in my defense, even after reading your posts several times some of your most recent posts have been incomprehensible without somebody quoted, or some context to put your statements in. Without this context, they just seem like some sort of drive-by-shooting deal (no real context, and provoking people).
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster
The US receives only a few drops if any oil at all from the Middle East.
Whatever oil is needed that the US cannot provide for itself it imports from Canada (90%) and Venezuela (10%).
in may 2005 a little under 50% was OPEC (~20% venezuela, more from S.A.) and the rest from non-OPEC (~30% canada). still a good bit of ME oil in there.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...df/table37.pdf
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by black bear theory
using your body example. say world is starting to dehydrate and you could somehow slow that dehydration while everyone else dies out, hoping that someone (or something) will rescue you, would you do it?

probably.

moving to alternate fuel is not an if rather a when. though, many ideas exist about how to do it, it will require that people change their ways. the US economy will become unsustainable very soon for the lack of oil. ironically, those who can move the change don't want to because it will cut into profits in the short-term though such a move would improve humanity many times over for future generations.

but, i guess we don't really know what they talked about in those energy bill meetings. maybe they were figuring out how to make the US oil free by 2020.

[edit: what do you think bush is talking about when he talks about preserving our way of life for future generations? liberty and freedom? probably but i bet a lot of it has to do with our (oil-based) economy.]
I'm not sure bbt, but I bet he knows SOMETHING he's not saying.

In May 2001, Bush stated, "What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America."
Some geologists expect 2005 to be the last year of the cheap-oil bonanza, while estimates coming out of the oil industry indicate "a seemingly unbridgeable supply-demand gap opening up after 2007," which will lead to major fuel shortages and increasingly severe blackouts beginning around 2008-2012.

The long-term ramifications of Peak Oil on your way of life are nothing short of mind blowing. As we slide down the downslope slope of the global oil production curve, we may find ourselves slipping into what some scientists are calling a "post-industrial stone age."
While many analysts claim the market will take care of this for us, they forget that neoclassic economic theory is besieged by several fundamental flaws that will prevent the market from appropriately reacting to Peak Oil until it is too late. To illustrate, as of April 2005, a barrel of oil costs about $55. The amount of energy contained in that barrel of oil would cost between $100-$250* dollars to derive from alternative sources of energy. Thus, the market won't signal energy companies to begin aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy until oil reaches the $100-$250 mark.

*This does not even account for the amount of money it would take to locate and refine the raw materials necessary for a large scale conversion, the construction and deployment of the alternatives, and finally the retrofitting of the world's $45 trillion dollar infrastructure to run on these alternative sources.

Once they do begin aggressively pursuing these alternatives, there will be a 25-to-50 year lag time between the initial heavy-duty research into these alternatives and their wide-scale industrial implementation.

However, in order to finance an aggressive implementation of alternative energies, we need a tremendous amount of investment capital - in addition to affordable energy and raw materials - that we absolutely will not have once oil prices are permanently lodged in the $200 per barrel neighborhood.

While we need 25-to-50 years to retrofit our economy to run on alternative sources of energy, we may only get 25-to-50 days once oil production peaks.

Within a few months of global oil production hitting its peak, it will become impossible to dismiss the decline in supply as a merely transitory event. Once this occurs, you can expect traders on Wall Street to quickly bid the price up to, and possibly over, the $200 per barrel range as they realize the world is now in an era of permanent oil scarcity.

With oil at or above $200 per barrel, gas prices will reach $10 per gallon inside of a few weeks. This will cause a rapid breakdown of trucking industries and transportation networks. Importation and distribution of food, medicine, and consumer goods will grind to a halt.

The effects of this will be frightening. As Jan Lundberg, founder of the Lundberg Survey, aka "the bible of the oil industry" recently pointed out:

The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will,
within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies
can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million
barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices
too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in
"advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears
to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will
be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or
other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno
-toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be
fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger
outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the
police and military be able to maintain order, if at all.

The collapse will be hastened by the fact that the US national debt will become completely unsustainable once the price of oil gets into the $100 range. Once this mark is passed, the nations of the world will have no choice but to pull their investments out of the US while simultaneously switching from the dollar to the euro as the reserve currency for oil transactions. Along with the breakdown of domestic transportation networks, the global financial shift away from the dollar will wholly shatter the US economy.

If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked.

In summary, we are a prisoner of our own dilemma:

1.Right now, we have no economically scalable
1 alternatives to oil. (Emphasis placed on economic
1.scalability, not technical viability.)

2.We won't get motivated to aggressively pursue
2.economically scalable alternatives until oil prices are
2.sky high;

3.Once oil prices are sky-high, our economy will be
3.shattered, and we won't be able to finance an
3.aggressive switch-over to whatever modest
3.alternatives are available to us.

4.An aggressive conservation program will bring down
4.the price of oil, thereby removing the incentive to
4.pursue alternatives until it is too late.

5.The raw materials (silicon, copper, platinum) necessary
5.for many sources of alternative energy are already in
5.short supply. Any attempt to secure enough of these
5.resources to power a large scale transition to
5.alternative energies is likely to be met with fierce
5.competition, if not outright warfare, with China.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
Are you "Besson" as well? You both are quite "Confused" very often....
All true goomba...

so...suck on my teet...
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by black bear theory
in may 2005 a little under 50% was OPEC (~20% venezuela, more from S.A.) and the rest from non-OPEC (~30% canada). still a good bit of ME oil in there.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...df/table37.pdf
My source was different..of course, when I need it I can't find it. If I find it I'll post it.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
Are you "Besson" as well? You both are quite "Confused" very often....
Oh c'mon budster101. I've seen you be really nice and reasonable and I know you also get a thrill by scrapping with liberals. Nothing confusing going on, man.

I am not besson. I'm not confused.

But I AM the walrus...coo coo ka choo!

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2