all oil fields in the middle east will be destroyed paving the way for NUCLEAR ENERGY all over the globe, duh, it's obvious. one such point which makes you wonder this is the failure to implement solar power ANYWHERE in the world. Who doesn't think that solar power is a great thing? it was invented back in the 80's or early 90's and it's still "TOO EXPENSIVE". Bloody mobile phones come out and within six months they are smaller, more effecient, CHEAPER and everybody has them, why isn't it the same with solar panels? Has anybody seen an electirc car? it's about the most ugly thing anyone has ever seen! why? cos they don't WANT people using them now, but soon enough when they NEED us in those cars electric cars will start to look asthetically pleasing. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. saddam, bush, they are all on the same team, the "energy=power" team. it's called common sense people.
I love Zankets ode to petroleum ...kicks arse Oil features in this sequel , but itss not only amerika .... some of their funny farm members have designs of their own ...like... Turkey Two of Iraq's great oilfields - around Mosul and Kirkuk - lie around a 100 km of Turkey's eastern border. Britain snatched these from the Ottoman Empire in the 1920's by creating the pupet kingdom of Iraq. Recently Turkey's foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, called for his nation to seize Mosul and Kirkuk if Iraq was invaded.
postaok while that article makes a lot of good points, nowhere does it say that IRAQ is not about oil. in fact, i disagree with many of Mr. O'neill's points, let me explain.. first of all, he's almost stereotyping every anti-war person as thinking it's all about the oil. i went to the anti-war demonstration in D.C. last saturday and there were plenty of people there against the idea of killing people for ANY reason. peace activists in general don't care what reason there is for war, they just want peace, no killing, no violence. so he's apparently missed that whole thing. second of all, the anti-corporate America stance he's calling a 'conspiracy theory' is actually a well-documented case, not a theory at all. i might actually write to him and show him proof of how the WTO, IMF, & the World Bank (all the largest financial institutions in the world, supposedly governed by the UN) have made regulations in the name of Free Trade that have left hundreds of thousands of people in poverty, dying of starvation, and living as slaves to corporate America (see: Coca-Cola in Columbia, Nike in Indonesia, etc). the proof is all there, it's just a matter of corporations arguing that they were just following orders, and i just showed where those orders came from. third of all, even if it WAS a conspiracy theory, i'm sick of people using that phrase to denounce anyone as a crackpot. he does this indirectly by attempting to disprove the war-for-oil case and then saying "this sounds more like a conspiracy theory than a considered political opposition to war." why can't a conspiracy theory be a political opposition to war? and lastly, like i said at first, nowhere does he talk about whether or not Iraq is about oil. he only talks about how people have protested against Somalia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan thinking it's about oil when it's more complicated than that. well, he may be right about that, i don't know much about those wars. but what i DO know is this: * our Vice President, Dick Cheney, who is very PRO-OIL and very PRO-WAR w/IRAQ, was former CEO of Halliburton Oil who does business with Iraq * Enron, U.S.'s largest energy company (oil), funded the largest portion of Bush's campaign for presidency, and turned out to be the biggest crooks of the century thus far. * Bush won the election by crime, and therefore we have a crook in the oval office. do i need to go on? i mean, what more do you need to understtand that this war was in these people's agendas since way back? controlling Iraq would mean U.S. was that much closer to controlling the whole world. whatever.
ya know.. this article was written in christian science monitor. it's no wonder O'Neill doesn't attempt to back up his claims with any evidence. he's going on FAITH ALONE!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! ahhh.... i crack myself up.
Absolutely a fact. By the way, you were there? I waved, did you see me? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! DAMN it was frigid! :m: Peace.
America -- Whatever is up with those middle eastern countries, America is supreme! Long live the U.S.A.
Probably in 1892 when those in America who aspired to become an imperialist nation tried to annex Hawaii. Our minister in Honolulu called marines ashore from the frigate <i>Boston</i> to aid in the white planters overthrow of the ruling monarch. Although incoming president Grover Cleveland nixed annexation, when we entered the Spanish-American War in 1898, the annexationists got Hawaii. After helping the Filipino insurrectionists repel the Spanish, we decided they were incapable of governing themselves and we would have to do so, even fighting a three year guerilla war with them because it was for their own good. We did allow Cuba its independence form the Spanish in 1902, but not without applying the Platt Amendment, which stated that we held the right to intervene when things got out of hand down there (meaning when US sugar business was effected) and we retained the right to land that would become Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
ownership over land is just a crazy dea in the first place, if you ask me. i wish i could control something, so by brute force i take it over, that's supposed to be legit? that's why we have so many wars on this planet. people take what isn't theirs in the first place and then get mad when someone else wants to take it from them.
The US really want to get thier foot into the area this time to my knowledge the war against iraq is an investment in the future. we keep hearing that our estimates of when we will actually run out of oil are largely exaggerated. this is most likely true, but we are talking about the known oil fields. the lagest ones are within the area of saudi arabie, but iraq comes second, and many believe that a lot more is to be found there. also it is the bes sort of oil that can be found. the saudi oil fields are exploited by ten times the rate of the iraqi fields, so the last drop will be found there. the dependenca on saudi oil also bugs the us since they are the only oil exporting country with a largecsale swing capacity. they can increase the amount of shipping oil by 20 percent in no time, which makes the the pricemakers of first order. french oil companies are getting open threats these days, that they will not be allowed to exploit the iraqi oil fields if they continue to work against war in alliannce with germany. how can anyone still say this is not about the oil. without it we are chickenshit, all of the western countries. and this time we might just have found reasons enough to take it.
that's why this war is so crazy. we don't even need oil in the first place! if the president made it mandatory that people CANNOT use their cars in the city and then spent the money we are spending on the war on more public transportation vehicles, that would help a lot with how much oil we require as a nation. another idea would be to change all oil burners into soybean biodiesel burners. again, it might cost a lot, but it's money we would otherwise be spending on the war. i just think there's an ulterior motive, that it's not JUST about the oil, that once we get the oil there's a bigger plan for it and the land we will be controlling.
If its not about Oil, then what? Is the Cold War getting hot??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or does Bush have Kapitalism on his mind? After all, best profits are made in war time. Every nation leader knows this... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, one way or the other, americans may be affraid of WMD, and so may iraqees, but we (the Dutch, French, Belgians, Spain, and everything in western europe) will feel the heat, or not, depending of the kind of WMD's used... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One thing that I can look forward to though, eternal rest, no whining children in my future, no more work to go to, just sleep forever Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ya, i kno, im lazy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You know, the "Blood for Oil" argument is quite old. It was a major argument against action in Iraq in 1991... and guess what? We didn't take over Kuwait, or Iraq. We didn't take one square inch of territory for ourselves, and not one barrel of Oil. Okay, now let's count all of the military strikes under Clinton in Iraq...nope, we didn't take any oil then. Okay, how about Afghanistan? Ummm, we don't exactly control that region and probably won't ever, considering how the Afghanis respond to total invation. Russia learned the hard way... and I think we are going to leave that one alone. Suuuure, this is all for Oil. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Xevious, You forgot, oil companies make tons of money when the price of oil goes up. They don't need Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil to make a large profit, they make money from their own oil. Last I checked, oil was at $30 a barrel. Even if Bushy decides not to go to war with Iraq, the oil companies made a lot of money already with just Bushy's threat of going to war. Tom
You don´t really believe what you are saying, do you? If there was no oil in the gulf, the arabs could continue to kill each other to the end of days, and noone would even notice. I dare say, that Isreal would not be half as good a friend, if it did´nt have oily neighbours. But not to miss the point: This Washington moron is starting a war against one of the weakest armys in the world, with no MDW and not even a handfull of longdistance missiles, if any at all. But what some are overlooking, that thousands of people will be willing to blow themselves up in our supermarkets in revenge. Bush knows he is lying when he says, Iraq has strong connections to the Quaida. That is like saying the opus dei and jehovas witnesses work together. But it will have the same effect. I guess the mother in the supermarket won´t really care who that guy blew himself up for when she scrapes the remainders of her baby from the ceiling.
It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven then for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. I say this because we are all trying to rationalise the complete war scenario whilst still placing a value on human life. Take out the value of human life and then evaluate motives. Do not think that either sides decision makers really give two thoughts about those who would be dead. America is overwhelmingly hated and not wanted in every country where it has a military presence. As indeed you would hate it if you had soldiers(humans designed and trained to kill as effectively as possible) in your soveriegn land that were not of your culture religion language and of course constitution. (let me hear one american say that they would allow it) However if you had a pathetically greedy and stupid government as indeed the Saudi's and Turks etc do, then it would be a reality in your country although 99.99932654% of you would oppose, it would nonetheless be realised. Really what else could you do but cry in a forum such as this about it, really. This brings me to the problem with islam(comming from a muslim) which brought about a common realisation of most of the religions. Firstly the problem with islam is that, in practice, it facilitates exploitation of its constituients more easily than other religions I would juxtapose this is due to a contentment of life it gives to its believers. This rationale came about by a pattern i noticed growing up in Australia and that is that as a family or one gets poorer in the western world you do get a decay of morality in a somewhat direct proportional direction. This is not as directly proportional with the muslims however they copuld in deed be trailer trash and would still dearly grasp the morality that islam teaches even to the extent of an honour murder. (I do not suggest no exception exists to this pattern however it is my observation and i would back it). That brings me to the realisation i mentioned. I am of the opinion that the major effect of religion on the world really is to bring contentment to those who otherwise would not find it. Of these religious people who wouldn't otherwise find contentment i dare say overwhelmingly they are those that wouldn't find contentment due to poverty the rest would be all due to psychological wants or needs. I am not saying for a second this is how it should be because it definately shouldn't but this is how it is. But the decision makers do not fall into either of these groups and so all use gods name in vain as a means to perpetuate a farse they can't believe works. All the religions if i am correct have the same effect and therefore are different sides of the same....er triangular prism? What do you think?
Doing words, yes but for how long? What odds do you give for the long-term survival of al-Saud, al-Sabah, and similar mafias? Islam I believe Christianity is doing a marvelous job here in the USA through our leadership I think you are close to correct, that perhaps all religions are highly corruptible, and often employed as political power. Therefore, incidentally (sorry) are all false. Diverting this back from religion to politics, I would like to compare opinions more on where this war will take us. i posted mine already in sciforums.com > Life > World Events & Politics > When will the war start? > page 2 Salaam
So, when you been saying "it's about oil" you didn't really mean it's about oil: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DCBB.htm
Doing Words: This link was posted in the Relgion Forum. It may be of some interest to you considering your conclusion quoted above. et alia: Is the approaching war about oil? I agree with the premise that it is not (for the most part), nor should it be permitted to be about oil: The Modern Art of War
