It is about the oil

LordOpie · Mar 3, 2003

the problem with all that is, is the reverse. The reason why Germany and France don't want a regime change is because they lose a sh!t of money!

the issues can be confused and manipulated until everyone is blue in the face. Fact remains, Saddam has violated, what?, 17 different opportunities the UN has given them.

Another fact is, everyone, every country, will always have multiple agendas about every issue... I know, I was married

llkoolkeg · Mar 3, 2003

...than deoxygenate rooms with their endless bluster is like trying to coax a donkey forward with beef kabobs. :rolleyes:

Booker · Mar 3, 2003

Well if it is oil they need to hurry before i have to pay $2.00 a gallon. i only have half a tank left so lets get the ball rolling already.:devil:

Espen · Mar 4, 2003

It's not acceptable to kill several 100000's of innocent people to get control of the oilprices.
Another aspect of this, is that a war against Iraq will produce many new terrorists. They will not be "bombable" but will appear as sleeping cells around the world. When things seems to be quiet and stable, they will attack again. This scares me more than high fuel prices.

ummbikes · Mar 4, 2003

Do you Norlanders have have any idea how many people have died as a direct result of Hussein's policies in Iraq?

ummbikes · Mar 4, 2003

Trond-

Contrary to popular belief, not all Americans are ignorant tools of the media and transnational corporations.

The case hasn't been made that the United States as a country will benefit at all from a war with Iraq.

Sure Texaco, Shell, Arco and others will benefit, but last time I read the previously mentioned companies annual reports they had stock holders across the globe.

I personally know people sitiing in Kuwait wondering if today is the day they die.

That said, how come you are so quick to dismiss Husseins policies of human death and destruction?

Oh, maybe it's because some stock holders will profit. God forbid.

For the record, how do you feel about capitalism?

The people of Iraq, who will be able to worship freely without fear of execution, will be grateful we acted.

Rob

llkoolkeg · Mar 4, 2003

Originally posted by Trond
I guess that bombing of a breastmilk producing factory on the fourth day in 91 (of course they "thought" it was something else), and the following honest CNN report caused some trouble.

I was previously unaware the the U.S. had accidentally smartbombed somebody's +itties!!!

Brian HCM#1 · Mar 4, 2003

It has nothing to do about oil!!!!!!! We are going after a dictator who harbors terrorits. During the Gulf war WE continued to pay for our oil. I think if we really wanted to,could take most oil fields for ourselves. Iraq makes only a small % of oil production, Kwait produces more oil them Iraq. Saddam has no problem funding terrorist organizations and supplying them with all he can as far as wepons are concerned. You also look at it from an outsiders point of veiw, we have never highjacked airplanes and tried to murder other people. We are just defending our country.

patconnole · Mar 4, 2003

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
It has nothing to do about oil!!!!!!! We are going after a dictator who harbors terrorits. During the Gulf war WE continued to pay for our oil. I think if we really wanted to,could take most oil fields for ourselves. Iraq makes only a small % of oil production, Kwait produces more oil them Iraq. Saddam has no problem funding terrorist organizations and supplying them with all he can as far as wepons are concerned. You also look at it from an outsiders point of veiw, we have never highjacked airplanes and tried to murder other people. We are just defending our country.

Dude-- Have a look at this: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=44667&pagenumber=1

The essay is long, but worth reading..
What do you think?

ohio · Mar 4, 2003

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
Iraq makes only a small % of oil production, Kwait produces more oil them Iraq.

we have never ... tried to murder other people. We are just defending our country.

I definitely question the accuracy of all of the above.

It doesn't matter whether or not the nation as a whole will benefit... those in power, those making the decisions, WILL benefit economically. It is without a doubt a COMPONENT of our government's motivation, and a major one in my opinion. Similarly, I'm sure economics is a motivating FACTOR for many other countries involved in this debate.

Brian HCM#1 · Mar 4, 2003

So after we are done with this war that will happen soon, and we continue to pay Iraq for their oil as always during and after. What will everyones excuses be then?

patconnole · Mar 4, 2003

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
So after we are done with this war that will happen soon, and we continue to pay Iraq for their oil as always during and after. What will everyones excuses be then?

Damnit man, I'm gonna copy and paste so you'll read it!:

For the last time! (well, no, I'll say it again if I have to), it IS about the OIL, but not in the conspiracy theory "so Bush can get rich" or "our oil companies can get rich" sense. And the explanation you give for why it isn't about oil (purchasing it for less than the cost of invading) makes it seem like our only goal is to have an abundance of cheap oil in the US. No, our goals are further reaching than that. .........

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.or...warreasons.html

"First, on U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil and the Carter Doctrine. Ever since World War II, when American policymakers first acknowledged that the United States would someday become dependent on Middle Eastern petroleum, it has been American policy to ensure that the United States would always have unrestrained access to Persian Gulf oil. At first, the United States relied on Great Britain to protect American access to the Gulf, and then, when Britain pulled out of the area in 1971, the U.S. chose to rely on the Shah of Iran. But when, in 1979, the Shah was overthrown by Islamic militants loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Washington decided that it would have to assume responsibility on its own to protect the oil flow. The result was the Carter Doctrine of January 23, 1980, which states that unrestricted access to Persian Gulf is a vital interest of the United States and that, in protection of that interest, the United States will employ "any means necessary, including military force."

This principle was first invoked in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iranian gunboats fired on Kuwaiti oil tankers and the U.S. Navy began escorting Kuwaiti tankers through the Gulf. It was next invoked in August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and posed an implied threat to Saudi Arabia. President Bush the elder responded to that threat by driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, in Operation Desert Storm; he did not, however, continue the war into Iraq proper and remove Saddam Hussein himself. Instead, the U.S. engaged in the "containment" of Iraq, entailing an air and sea blockade.

Now, President Bush the younger seeks to abandon containment and pick up Operation Desert Storm where it left off in 1991. The reason being given for this is that Saddam is making more progress in the development of WMD, but the underlying principle is still the Carter Doctrine: Iraq under Saddam poses an implied threat to U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil, and so must be removed. As noted by Vice President Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002, in his important speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "Armed with these weapons of terror and a seat at the top of 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Stripped to its essence, this is a direct invocation of the Carter Doctrine.

To underscore this, it is useful to compare Cheney's VFW speech to his comments 12 years earlier, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Iraq controlled 10% of the world's reserves prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Once Saddam Hussein took Kuwait, he doubled that to approximately 20% of the world's known oil reserves.... Once he acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses [on the border of Saudi Arabia], he was clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world as well." The atmospherics may have changed since 1990, but we are still dealing with the Carter Doctrine: Saddam must be removed because of the potential threat he poses to the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. and its allies.

The second administration objective springs from the language employed by Cheney in his 1990 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee: whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a "stranglehold" not only on our economy but also "on that of most of that of the other nations of the world as well." This is a powerful image, and perfectly describes the administration's thinking about the Gulf area, except in reverse: by serving as the dominant power in the Gulf, WE maintain a "stranglehold" over the economies of other nations. This gives us extraordinary leverage in world affairs, and explains to some degree why states like Japan, Britain, France, and Germany--states that are even more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than we are--defer to Washington on major international issues (like Iraq) even when they disagree with us.

Maintenance of a stranglehold over Persian Gulf oil is also consistent with the administration's declared goal of attaining permanent military superiority over all other nations. If you read administration statements on U.S. national security policy, you will find that one theme stands out above all others: the United States must prevent any potential rival from ever reaching the point where it could compete with the United States on something resembling equal standing. As articulated in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (released by President Bush in September 2002), this principle holds that American forces must be "strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

One way to accomplish this, of course, is to pursue advances in technology that allow the United States to remain ahead of all potential rivals in military systems--which is what the administration hopes to accomplish by adding tens of billions of dollars to the Department of Defense budget. Another way to do this is maintain a stranglehold on the economy of potential rivals, so that they will refrain from challenging us out of fear of being choked to death through the denial of vital energy supplies. Japan and the European countries are already in this vulnerable position, and will remain so for the foreseeable future; but now China is also moving into this position, as it becomes increasingly dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf. Like the U.S., China is running out of oil, and, like us, it has nowhere to go to make up the difference except the Gulf. But since WE control access to the Gulf, and China lacks the power to break our stranglehold, we can keep China in a vulnerable, subordinate position indefinitely. As I see it, then, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by someone beholden to the United States is a key part of a broader U.S. strategy aimed at assuring permanent American global dominance. Or, as Michael Ignatieff put it in his seminal essay on America's emerging empire, the concentration of so much oil in the Gulf "makes it what a military strategist would call the empire's center of gravity" ("The Burden," The New York Times Magazine, January 5, 2003).

And finally, there is the issue of America's long-term energy dilemma. The problem is as follows: The United States relies on oil to supply about 40% of its energy requirements, more than any other source. At one time, this country relied almost entirely on domestic oil to supply its needs; but our need for oil is growing all the time and our domestic fields--among the oldest in the world--are rapidly being exhausted. So our need for imported oil will grow with each passing year. And the more we turn to foreign sources for our oil, the more we will have to turn to the Persian Gulf, because most of the world's untapped oil--at least two-thirds of it--is located in the Gulf area. We can of course rip up Alaska and extract every drop of oil there, but that would reduce our dependence on imported oil by only about 1-2 percentage points--an insignificant amount. We could also rely for a share of our oil on non-Gulf suppliers like Russia, Venezuela, the Caspian Sea states, and Africa, but they have much less oil than the Persian Gulf countries and they are using it up faster. So, the more you look into the future, the greater will become our dependence on the Gulf.

Now, at the current time, U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil means, in all practical terms, American dependence on Saudi Arabia, because Saudi Arabia has more oil than everyone else--about 250 billion barrels, or one-fourth of world reserves. That gives Saudi Arabia a lot of indirect influence over our economy and our way of life. And, as you know, there are many people in this country who are resentful of the Saudis because of their financial ties to charities linked to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. More to the point, Saudi Arabia is a major backer of OPEC and tends to control the global availability of oil--something that makes American officials very nervous, especially when the Saudis use their power to put pressure on the United States to alter some of its policies, for example with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict............. continued below

patconnole · Mar 4, 2003

For all of these reasons, American leaders would like to reduce America's dependence on Saudi Arabia. But there is only ONE way to permanently reduce America's reliance on Saudi Arabia: by taking over Iraq and using it as an alternative source of petroleum. Iraq is the ONLY country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia: at least 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and as much as 200-300 billion barrels of potential reserves. By occupying Iraq and controlling its government, the United States will solve its long-term oil-dependency dilemma for a decade or more. And this, I believe, is a major consideration in the administration's decisionmaking about Iraq.

It is this set of factors, I believe, that explain the Bush administration's determination to go to war with Iraq--not concern over WMD, terrorism, or the spread of democracy. But having said this, we need to ask: do these objectives, assuming they're the correct ones, still justify a war on Iraq? Some Americans may think so. There are, indeed, advantages to being positioned on the inside of a powerful empire with control over the world's second-largest supply of untapped petroleum. If nothing else, American motorists will be able to afford the gas for their SUVs, vans, and pick-up trucks for another decade, and maybe longer. There will also be lots of jobs in the military and in the military-industrial complex, or as representatives of American multinational corporations (although, with respect to the latter, I would not advise traveling in most of the rest of the world unless accompanied by a small army of bodyguards). But there will also be a price to pay. Empires tend to require the militarization of society, and that will entail putting more people into uniform, one way or another. It will also mean increased spending on war, and reduced spending on education and other domestic needs. It will entail more secrecy and intrusion into our private lives. All of this has to be entered into the equation. And if you ask me, empire is not worth the price.

ohio · Mar 5, 2003

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
So after we are done with this war that will happen soon, and we continue to pay Iraq for their oil as always during and after. What will everyones excuses be then?

Pat's response was long. My short response is this: yes, we the public, will continue to pay 1.50 at the pump for gasoline from wherever we can get it. However, we will be getting it through American-run companies with extremely (unconstitutionally) close ties to the government that will benefit MASSIVELY from regime change in Iraq. Because of this, I question the motives of our decision makers.

I'll say it again: we, the public, matter very little or not at all in regards to this decision.

patconnole · Mar 5, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
Pat's response was long. My short response is this: yes, we the public, will continue to pay 1.50 at the pump for gasoline from wherever we can get it. However, we will be getting it through American-run companies with extremely (unconstitutionally) close ties to the government that will benefit MASSIVELY from regime change in Iraq. Because of this, I question the motives of our decision makers.

I'll say it again: we, the public, matter very little or not at all in regards to this decision.

If it ever goes over $2.40 though, I'm joining the f-ing Marines. That's the last straw for me- $2.40 a gallon.

Thanks Trond.

ummbikes · Mar 5, 2003

Originally posted by patconnole
If it ever goes over $2.40 though, I'm joining the f-ing Marines. That's the last straw for me- $2.40 a gallon.

Thanks Trond.

I am sure you know that the United States isn't the only government who wants to be cozy with Iraqi oil.

<hint>

France, Germany, Russia all have oil contracts with Bagdad that they want to see honored.

So if we are not going to Iraq to liberate her citizens as is the story spun by Bush and Company can we atleast see that when the Marines land and dispose of the current regime that Iraqis will be able to worship how they choose?

The hatred of corporations is well understood by myself. It sucks that Texaco is running the show in D.C. it also sucks that Iraqi minorities are being slaughtered by Hussein. So yes I agree the multinational oil companies have much to gain. So do Iraqi minorities.

patconnole · Mar 5, 2003

Originally posted by ummbikes

I am sure you know that the United States isn't the only government who wants to be cozy with Iraqi oil.

<hint>

France, Germany, Russia all have oil contracts with Bagdad that they want to see honored.

So if we are not going to Iraq to liberate her citizens as is the story spun by Bush and Company can we atleast see that when the Marines land and dispose of the current regime that Iraqis will be able to worship how they choose?

The hatred of corporations is well understood by myself. It sucks that Texaco is running the show in D.C. it also sucks that Iraqi minorities are being slaughtered by Hussein. So yes I agree the multinational oil companies have much to gain. So do Iraqi minorities.

Yep, that's why I posted the thread "Pro-war now?". The phrase "Bush's rule would be 1000 better than Saddam's" got me. I haven't taken down my no war sign, but I'm still thinking about it.

As far as I know, the French, German, and Russian monetary interests in Iraq are relatively short-term-- while our "empire" interest is-- a bit different.

ummbikes · Mar 5, 2003

Originally posted by patconnole
Yep, that's why I posted the thread "Pro-war now?". The phrase "Bush's rule would be 1000 better than Saddam's" got me. I haven't taken down my no war sign, but I'm still thinking about it.

As far as I know, the French, German, and Russian monetary interests in Iraq are relatively short-term-- while our "empire" interest is-- a bit different.

I think you and I are very close to having a meeting of the minds that come from two vastly different starting points.

patconnole · Mar 5, 2003

Originally posted by ummbikes
I think you and I are very close to having a meeting of the minds that come from two vastly different starting points.

I need a new sign that says "Pro Iraq War" and "Anti-Empire".

DRB · Mar 6, 2003

Originally posted by Trond
America pumped in funds, anthrax, satelite images, intellegence and weapons into Iraq in the early 80s (Iran/Iraq war) and KNEW that Saddam was using chemical weapons almost daily against Iran. How many died then?
Trond.

Your oil arguements are not even close to the reality of the situation.

But this one....
First, the level of support that Iraq received during the Iran/Iraq war consisted of little or no material support. As many weapons that folks claim were sold to Iraq by the US, he would have a military made up almost exclusively of US weapons. Is that what we found in the first Gulf War? There are certain example of direct war materials being shipped to Iraq via unapproved third country transfers, 300 2000lb bombs in 1986. Additionally, there was a transfer of artillery repair parts in 1984. Most of these parts were found to be carriage items (axles, wheels, etc) The fact of the matter is that at the time Iraq didn't need US weapons. Virtually all of Saddam's weapons systems were of Soviet and French design. Funny how those are the countries holding some of the oil contracts. So even the dual use items (civilian helicopters and parts, air control systems, and a variety of electronic items) for the most part were found to have gone to civilian uses. There were reports of US manufactured helicopters being used to spray poison gas on Kurds. But the fact of the matter is that the Iraqi military never employed US helicopters, but that is not the case of French and Soviet designed helicopters.

You indicate that the US also supplied funds to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Where is the basis for this assertion? How much are you talking about?

You are correct in your statement about intelligence support. There was a great deal of intelligence support in terms of satellite photos that the US provided Iraq. While it is not well known, the US was also supplying some of the same information to the Iranians. (Hedging bets)

Now for the anthrax. The US did transfer numerous cultures of "bacteria, fungi and protozoa" during late 1983. It is unknown in common circles as to the exact content of those cultures other than the above description. Based on CDC records, where all of these cultures came from, Anthrax spores were certainly among those cultures. So yes the US did give anthrax to Iraq. However, and I need to make this very clear, every single chemical and biological weapon destoryed by the UN in the 1990's was of Soviet design. The anthrax strains were ones that were known to have been produced at the Soviet Biological weapons facility in Stepnagorsk, Kazakhstan. Furthermore, the tactics employed for the use of the chemical weapons against Iranian forces were rght out of Soviet tactical manuals on the battlefield use of chemical weapons. The fact of the matter is that the US had abondoned its offensive biological weapons programs in the late 60's has dangerous, uncontrollable, unreliable and unnecessary. Chemical weapons research didn't continue that much longer. The reason behind this was that our nuclear weapons systems specifically the Posideon and then the Trident made it unecessary.

As for supporting a regime that was used chemical weapons, was simply dumb. But it is water under the bridge. I certainly don't see the world beating the Soviets about the head and arms for putting those weapons in their hands. But it brings me to my last point..... you seem to indicate the US was irresponsible in not doing something to stop Iraq in 1985 when they first stated to employ chemical weapons. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that. HOWEVER, why now is it okay to not do anything? Is that to give you something in 10 years to complain about?

mdavid · Mar 10, 2003

It would make sense to me for us to take their oil to pay for the war. Of course OPEC and the UN wouldn't allow it. Just makes sense.

D_D · Mar 10, 2003

Originally posted by mdavid
It would make sense to me for us to take their oil to pay for the war. Of course OPEC and the UN wouldn't allow it. Just makes sense.

Lets make slaughtering people profitable what a great idea. How about giving the iraq people whos country has just been flatened help.
Even though I am sure you need the cash so much more than someone who has nowhere to live and nothing to eat.

manimal · Mar 11, 2003

Originally posted by D_D
Lets make slaughtering people profitable what a great idea. How about giving the iraq people whos country has just been flatened help.
Even though I am sure you need the cash so much more than someone who has nowhere to live and nothing to eat.

friggin' euro trash; haven't you read anything? :rolleyes:

Shortbus · Mar 11, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
friggin' euro trash; haven't you read anything?

LMAO

Originally posted by ohio
I'll say it again: we, the public, matter very little or not at all in regards to this decision.

I wish all the protester in DC would start realizing this, with their neon pink anti-war signs

Rip · Mar 11, 2003

Sorry, fell asleep.

Archslater · Mar 11, 2003

Here is an article that makes some interesting points. I recommend reading it. The author is very good about researching his subject matter, so I highly doubt he is pulling figures out of the air:

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/columns/2003/april/0304_columns_steering.xml

I would hardly call 12% of our oil coming from the middle east "foreign oil dependence"

Funny that it deals with both the oil and suv debates, both of which are popular subjects with this forum.

patconnole · Mar 11, 2003

Originally posted by Archslater

I would hardly call 12% of our oil coming from the middle east "foreign oil dependence"

Haven't read the article yet, but from DT's thread "the oil issue", the info from snopes says it's more like 31%. And "foreign oil dependence" means "not from USA", not, "from the middle east".... You probably meant that anyway.

Archslater · Mar 11, 2003

I actually read your previous post this time Patconnole (skimmed it before). It was very interesting, although difficult to follow for a right brained type like myself.

This demonstrates one of the problems with this issue. With so many different sources out there quoting different statistics to make conflicting points, it is difficult for many people like myself to know what to think. It is too easy to make generalizations and convince people either way. I guess that is why I have always avoided politics.

ohio · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by Archslater
The author is very good about researching his subject matter, so I highly doubt he is pulling figures out of the air:

I would hardly call 12% of our oil coming from the middle east "foreign oil dependence"

I won't argue his figures, but Csaba's conclusions don't follow from his premises in anything resembling a logical manner. His arguments are certainly no better than Huffington's, though I wouldn't award either of them a Pulitzer.

As for foreign oil dependence... do you have any idea what would occur in this country if that measly 12% suddenly disappeared? Hell, it's still there, and just the threat of it going along with problems in Venezuela have sent the price of gasoline up 30 cents a gallon... not to mention what's going on in the electricity market. Thank goodness all the other inefficiencies in that market are buffering the effects of oil prices, but companies are still taking a beating.

Sideways · Mar 13, 2003

Our president and vice president are both oil barons.
Does that alone not make it completely obvious?

nicklin · Mar 16, 2003

Patriotism is so abused that now it's like the role religion plays. we are getting in a mess bigger than we think. Sure, the "patiots" are repeating every word the administration tells them with out hesitation of the validity to it. Has anyone noticed the role religion and demographics play in the dispute? I mean, it's the old Arab versus jews. Why does France oppose ANY actions against Iraq or the middle east in general? Has any one read the census in France? they are the country with the highest percentage of Arabs in Europe. They have huge holdings in the middle east and north africa, both in and ut of their colonial past(think morocco). We are not just ousting Sadam, we are telling the world that it needs to "respect my authority" and the hell with your pathetic problems. if we chase out saddam, we effectively become once again the savior of Israel, and the muslims around the world wil have their blood boiled up even more. How many more world trade center will that create? God knows. Come to think of it, if there is a god, he's already two counties away and running fast. He doesn't like killing anybody.

CouchingTiger · Mar 18, 2003

I think that alot of folks love to believe that our society (American primarily, the world secondarily) could tighten our belts and survive an exponential oil price increase. I belive that to be wrong, entirely.

The US is currently teetering on the edge of financial meltdown. The markets are rough, consumer confidence is low and we keep loosing more and more high paying jobs by the week. What happens if the price of fuel doubles, or triples or worse? Sure, we don't drive 3 hours to go skiing every weeekend and we can't afford to put gas in the Canyonero. Those are the obvious answers. Lets go deeper though.

What about the head of lettuce that gets shipped from the central valley via truck to New England. How much is that .$89 head of lettuce going to cost now. How about the folks in the rural NorthEast that have to pay to heat their homes with heating oil. People like my mom/dad and grandmother all on fixed incomes are now (this year) paying 1/3 more to heat their homes and in the NorthEast (especially VT) this has been one of the coldest winters in decades. Those folks literally can't afford to pay to heat themselves.

I'm simply suggesting that our society is fundamentally wrapped around the concept of low oil prices and that we literally would cease to function if that were to change. It really scares me to think what would come of our society if that were to happen.

-Couch

patconnole · Mar 18, 2003

Originally posted by CouchingTiger
I think that alot of folks love to believe that our society (American primarily, the world secondarily) could tighten our belts and survive an exponential oil price increase. I belive that to be wrong, entirely.

The US is currently teetering on the edge of financial meltdown. The markets are rough, consumer confidence is low and we keep loosing more and more high paying jobs by the week. What happens if the price of fuel doubles, or triples or worse? Sure, we don't drive 3 hours to go skiing every weeekend and we can't afford to put gas in the Canyonero. Those are the obvious answers. Lets go deeper though.

What about the head of lettuce that gets shipped from the central valley via truck to New England. How much is that .$89 head of lettuce going to cost now. How about the folks in the rural NorthEast that have to pay to heat their homes with heating oil. People like my mom/dad and grandmother all on fixed incomes are now (this year) paying 1/3 more to heat their homes and in the NorthEast (especially VT) this has been one of the coldest winters in decades. Those folks literally can't afford to pay to heat themselves.

I'm simply suggesting that our society is fundamentally wrapped around the concept of low oil prices and that we literally would cease to function if that were to change. It really scares me to think what would come of our society if that were to happen.

-Couch

Cool stuff. The balance between our way of life, and what we're willing to do to sustain it = Foreign Policy. If this is what's driving our foreign policy, I wish we'd be more honest with ourselves.

indieboy · Mar 18, 2003

i think the president pretty much summed it up last night by saying "don't destroy the oil fields".........

goosemagoo · Mar 18, 2003

Originally posted by indieboy
i think the president pretty much summed it up last night by saying "don't destroy the oil fields".........

...because we have almost 300 million people who like a lifestyle that is different than yours. Much of that lifestyle's quality depends on our cost for fuel. Your lifestyle may depend on other things. Let us know what they are and we will provide you with it in return for cheap oil and some type of political stability in your country. The form of government doesn't matter but what you have now doesn't work with us or most of the free world.

You sit on what is a gold mine to us. Your murdering, raping, torturing, lying and general dick of a leader knows this too. He stands on that gold mine and waves a big stick at the world and says "I'm gonna do what ever the hell I wanna do. To hell with whoever doesn't like it. I'll even kill my own people if I want. I've still got my gold mine and this big stick!" Gold mine=oil, Stick=weapons.

Now he wants a bigger stick because he sees how successful the terrorists have become at controlling people through fear. He already does this to you. He hangs out with them. Now he sees no problem with doing the same to us.

We are pissed off about this and he's giving us the finger. We are coming to kick his ass. We are getting rid of him and giving the country back to you. But, we are taking all of his weapons with us. You won't need them. Now the gold mine will be yours and you can enjoy the wealth it will bring. You will reap the rewards not sadam. We'll even give some of the weapons back if you promise to kill people like him.

We win, you win. He wins, we lose and you lose too unless you are perfectly happy with how things are now.

Remember, our sticks are still bigger than his and we aren't afraid. He will lose and many people involved will die. So, don't get involved and don't destroy your gold mine. You owe it to yourselves.

Good Luck,
G. W. B.

P.S. Don't forget we have a bunch of tree huggin hippies here and around the world that have awful plans for your gold mine. They are working at a feverish pace to rid the world of the dependency on oil. They will do many good things to preserve the world for our grandchildren along the way. When they succeed you will be left with lots of sand and no gold mine and no money. Get your money now and invest it wisely or take a good hard look at the Ethiopians.

Damn True · Mar 18, 2003

Brilliant post. :thumb:

It is about the oil

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Ranger LL

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Don't mess with the Santas

Monkey

Don't mess with the Santas

Ranger LL

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

Monkey

The Fresno Kid

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

The Fresno Kid

Monkey

Don't mess with the Santas

Monkey

Don't mess with the Santas

Monkey

unemployed bum

Chimp

Monkey

Ociffer Tackleberry

Turbo Monkey

Mr. Excitement

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

The Fresno Kid

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Want fries with that?

Chimp

Monkey Pimp