President Bush wants the oil in Iraq [Archive]

avx

04-06-2003, 06:25 PM

No war in HISTORY has ever been fought with just one motive to do so, there are many motives in this war...revenge, money, freeing the world of an evil dictator...all kinds...are you really gonna be upset if the US government gets control of over 8trillion dollars worth of oil??? Do you know what that would do for our economy???? Entrepreneurship is not a 21st century concept...all wars are fought with both righteous and evil intentions behind them, why people make a big deal out of something that could bring the American Society into a golden era(Oil) I will never understand....

TimPoet

04-06-2003, 09:10 PM

1) The only oil America would take would be enough to pay for the cost of prosecuting the war.

2) The primary reason for prosecuting the war is to remove the threat to our vital national interest: Saddam's desire and increasing ability to obtain WMDs and the high likelihood of making them available for state sponsored terrorism.

3) We are the good guys, they are the evil guys.

sleepypost

04-06-2003, 10:18 PM

I don't think all those hippies are very well grounded when they claim Bush is only after the oil. You see, if we wanted oil that badly, we would have done SOMETHING when we were sitting on a gold mine of it in Kuwait. When you tell that to a liberal they just have to stop, think, and take another drag from the j... in their hand.

Paul Victorey

04-06-2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Kubie
Tuf,

There is quite a bit up in Alaska. Sure is something that the liberals won't let us drill in Alaska for fear of harming a frozen plant, but the "only reason" they are against the war is because Bush wants the oil.
The statement "but now WE know better" must come from the 25% against the war. Most of those must read the placards used by the professional protesters and won't go any further to find the truth for themselves.

Carl

Actually, there's not very much oil in the Alaskan refuge; the total amount of oil in Alaska would be about one year's worth of oil at the current rate of consumption, and the economically feasible oil is only about half that (the other half would cost more to extract than it could be sold for). So all this debate is over 6 months worth of oil -- not a trivially tiny amount, but not enough to really justify the operation.

avx

04-07-2003, 12:27 AM

I saw this great picture one time of this relaxed, clean shaving, decent lookign guy, holding a sign that said "We tried this with Hitler" and then these 2 hippies in his face looking all dirty and dingy, and arguing, and hes just sitting there like hes chilling on a corner or something, I laughed for like 5 mins...It was great, wonder if I saw it hear...?

Nuclear Krusader

04-07-2003, 02:42 AM

Wars have been fought for a lot of reasons throughout the history of mankind.

The reason is always the same one: power.

As for this specific war being fought for freedom that is BS. There are many nations and ppl opressed in the world by rulers worse than Saddam and they don't get a bit of attention. Why? Easy: because they have no resources that can be exploited and used to increase the economical power of a nation.

War is a business. It has always been and it will always be.

Tuf

04-07-2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Actually, there's not very much oil in the Alaskan refuge; the total amount of oil in Alaska would be about one year's worth of oil at the current rate of consumption, and the economically feasible oil is only about half that (the other half would cost more to extract than it could be sold for). So all this debate is over 6 months worth of oil -- not a trivially tiny amount, but not enough to really justify the operation.

Those certainly aren't the figures quoted by the American Petroleum Institute. There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to extract that trivial amount.

Of course seeing how I work in the Energy Industry I will reserve my opinion as to whether or not we should drill in Alaska, you probably know what it is anyway.

We have three choices as of now Oil, Coal or Nuclear Energy. Personally I think they are all viable and think we are foolish to not be using them all for their strong points.

drisley

04-07-2003, 09:16 AM

Its a tad interesting how the war-for-oil folks who started this thread have failed to back up their claim with anything.

mr krinkle

04-07-2003, 11:13 AM

Its far more difficult than to just Say"We are the good guys, they are the evil guys." Like some simple people here say,And statements like that and "the Ant-War people are Hippies" BS Just shows the childish mindset of some people in here Kubie,The Gulf War was indeed about Oil,Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? To gain access to there Corn Fields? If it wasnt about Oil what the hell was it about? Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people but remember We were in bed with him and backing him in the 80's,,How soon Americans forget.

mr krinkle

04-07-2003, 11:16 AM

drisley There are two sides to every story and arguement,,These are just my opinions and observations,I dont know of anyone who can back up what they say in most cases which can satisfy there doubters.

Paul Victorey

04-07-2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Tuf
Those certainly aren't the figures quoted by the American Petroleum Institute. There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to extract that trivial amount.

Of course seeing how I work in the Energy Industry I will reserve my opinion as to whether or not we should drill in Alaska, you probably know what it is anyway.

We have three choices as of now Oil, Coal or Nuclear Energy. Personally I think they are all viable and think we are foolish to not be using them all for their strong points.

From Yahoo News:

How much oil can be recovered from the refuge is a contentious point in the debate. [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton told the committee that government estimates range from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil within Area 1002, with the mean value of technically recoverable oil coming in at 10.4 billion barrels.

But the term "technically recoverable" is not the same as "economically recoverable," which many believe is a more accurate figure. This figure takes into account the cost of finding, developing, producing and transporting the oil to market based on a 12 percent return on investment after taxes.

For example, using 1996 dollars, the USGS [United States Geological Survey] estimated that at $24 per barrel, there is a 95 percent chance that at least two billion barrels can be economically recovered and a five percent probability that 9.4 billion barrels are economically recoverable.

So, we're looking at something between 2 billion and 9 billion barrels of oil. The US uses 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, which comes out to 7 billion and change per year. So we're looking at somewhere between 3 months to 15 months of oil. 6 months of oil (approx. 3.5 billion barrels) works out to be the 50% probability point -- i.e. every barrel of oil beyond the 3.5 billion mark has less than a 50% chance of being economically recoverable.

Tuf

04-07-2003, 12:39 PM

I don't doubt you could find some projections even worse than that. The fact is any multi billion barrel discovery is significant. A large percentage of the gasoline you consume today is from wells that have been considered salvage by the major oil companies and have been sold off to independant oil companies that will continue to produce them for another twenty plus years.

The real truth is nobody knows how much oil is in any field until it is completely depleted and the wells are plugged. Estimates of reserves are simply that ... estimates. They are very seldom accurate.

But if those formations do produce like the ones near them have they will produce significantly more oil and gas than your Yahoo articles would indicate.

Paul Victorey

04-07-2003, 12:54 PM

Those were government estimates, and they took into consideration the surveys and the nearby production, so I think they're probably quite accurate.

Considering that 95% of the oil fields in Alaska are already open to drilling, this isn't going to make much of an effect on the oil production of the US. And it would be nice if we leave at least one place on earth that we won't destroy for its resources.

avx

04-07-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by mr krinkle
Its far more difficult than to just Say"We are the good guys, they are the evil guys." Like some simple people here say.
They attacked us for no other reason other than they consider us to be evil. We waited, put the situation into scope, found out who did this, why they did this, and if they are planning to do it again, then we asked our allies to please back us while we go into Iraq to do what we feel is necessary to protect the US from ever suffering like that again. Do you think Sadaam, or Osama will ask the UN for its approval before they attack again? Do you think they will single out soldiers only, and leave innocent civilians unharmed? Its not complicated, they are the psychos, we just want to protect ourselves. Its not rocket science

And statements like that and "the Ant-War people are Hippies" BS Just shows the childish mindset of some people in here
Hippie or hippy(n)(pl.)hippies - A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles. By definition, if you are a peace activist, you are doing exactly what is defined here. So you aren a hippie..Its not a childish mindset, its just a fact...;)

Kubie,The Gulf War was indeed about Oil,Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? To gain access to there Corn Fields? If it wasnt about Oil what the hell was it about?
Let me use an argument out of a hippies own handbook here. Its not "Iraq" that invaded Kuwait, it was Sadaam and his army.Just like the US Military is not attacking Iraq, we are attacking Sadaam and his army. The guy is a power hungy maniac, do the names Alexander the great, Ghangis Kahn, Hitler...any of them ring a bell...He wants nothing but power and will go to any lengths to get it.

Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people but remember We were in bed with him and backing him in the 80's, How soon Americans forget
You say brutal dictator who killed his own people so litely, as if it really makes no big deal... :confused: And yet you jump on Bush because he is trying to protect us from becomming a society ruled by fear of terrorism...And yes we were in bed with him in the 80's, I dont see how you say "we forget" I hear it mentioned atleast 10 times a day on any news station. Back then he was "playing ball" he worked with is, seemed like he would be just the right person to establish diplomatic, equally beneficial treaties with, but they he went on his power trip...The man is worshiped like a god over there...His mind has taken a serious walk off the map, how can you reason with that???

shazam

04-07-2003, 01:39 PM

From what i remember about history, all most[if not all] wars are fought for economical reasons.

avx

04-07-2003, 01:45 PM

While there is many reason for this war, more than I think we could all give credit and reason too in 1 day. You are right, this war does have a major economical motive...we win the war, people stop being so afraid and paranoid, new confidence in the average american, economy bounces back...all is well...Thats the ideal outcome.

Nuclear Krusader

04-07-2003, 04:36 PM

Well, people will be even more afraid and paranoid because of this war. Terrorism will be far from over when Saddam is dead.

And I don't think it's fair to compare Alexander the Great to Saddam. Alexander strove for the unity of people along with his hungry for power. He never exterminated the persians; in fact, when the persians were defeated he married lots of persian princesses to his generals. He was an honorable man and shouldn't be compared to Hussein. He leaded his army to battle and fought on the front lines, he was wounded many times but still he had the courage to present his face to the enemy. I don't see Saddam doing this, or even Bush for that matter.

OK. The coallition is attacking Saddam's army, yet it is the iraqi ppl who are dying and the country of Iraq what is being destroyed. Conclussion: Iraq is being attacked.

I agree Saddam wants nothing but power, yet Bush wants the same. Everyone wants it. Saddam wants power for himself, Bush wants power for his country. But it comes down to the same reason wars have always been fought for: power.

avx

04-07-2003, 05:01 PM

I knew I was thinking of the wrong person when I said Alexander the great...I just couldnt think of the right name, you win, bad example:D I need to brush up on my hostory, cause I know there was another one I am thinking of who you would have no problem trying to compar to Hussien...

mr krinkle

04-07-2003, 05:26 PM

avx487 are you trying to be cute? It Ain't working!:) But again like others you say that somehow Iraq=Saddam were somehow responsible for 9-11 but you have no proof of that do you? I never said Saddam was a nice guy,He is,Or Was I should say a two-bit dictator But if thats the sole reason besides the 9-11 myth that the USA attacked Iraq then by rights we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. Isnt that where most of the 9-11 Killers came from?As far as your "Hippy" babble is you better go find that dictionary and look up "Fact",:) avx487,If you want to stick with the Hippy analogy than I guess the Pope ands tens of thousands of members of the Clergy are hippies too eh?LOL

Kubie

04-07-2003, 05:41 PM

Saddam wants power for himself, Bush wants power for his country. But it comes down to the same reason wars have always been fought for: power.

What happened to ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator, or did you miss that?

Power? Bush risks a short political career (8 years maybe) by doing this honorable thing and you say he wants power?

No, I will NOT be paranoid or more scared of terrorism. I sure would be if we did NOTHING. And talking for 12 more years would be doing NOTHING!!

Carl

Tiretool

04-07-2003, 06:36 PM

mr krinkle

Kubie,The Gulf War was indeed about Oil,Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? To gain access to there Corn Fields? If it wasnt about Oil what the hell was it about?

The Gulf War was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait for whatever their reason was for invasion. The actual "Gulf War" was a liberation action for Kuwait, not directly for oil.

and Paul

So, we're looking at something between 2 billion and 9 billion barrels of oil. The US uses 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, which comes out to 7 billion and change per year. So we're looking at somewhere between 3 months to 15 months of oil. 6 months of oil (approx. 3.5 billion barrels) works out to be the 50% probability point -- i.e. every barrel of oil beyond the 3.5 billion mark has less than a 50% chance of being economically recoverable.

That very vague article is only quoting "known" reserves of oil. Much of America's oil resources are still undiscovered and untapped. The following is from an American Petroleum Institute statement to the US Senate Comittee on Energy and Natural Resources.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Minerals Management Service, federal lands contain 77 percent of our nation’s estimated, undiscovered oil; and 59 percent of its estimated, undiscovered natural gas. Almost all of these resources lie in Alaska, on the Outer Continental Shelf, and in the mountain west.

These volumes amount to almost 100 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, or 47 years of current domestic production; and 577 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, or 30 years of current domestic production.

So you see... there's much more than Yahoo would lead you to believe. Probably a tree hugger wrote that Yahoo article. ;)

Tuf

04-07-2003, 07:38 PM

There ya go Tiretool, I believe you hit that nail on the head!

avx

04-07-2003, 08:17 PM

No krinkle...Not tyring to be cute...but what else would you have us call people who dont support war?...it aint like hippie is a horrible word, its just a slang term used to describe someone who is against war/goverment.

Sorry but I didnt quite understand the Iraq=Saddam paragraph, but as for the no proof thing, you need to double check that...it was proved a while back that while Al Quida and Hussien dont really like each other, he has aided them, that is a cold hard FACT CNN themselves has reported on...

Fact(n) - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy(thats being cute:D)

Cant call the pope and the rest hippies, cause they already have a name...CLERGY!:D(being even cuter)

There really is no point in arguing between a(Ill be nice this time) Peace activist like yourself, and a...Lets call me a anti-terrorism activist, like myself, because I feel our root beliefs are very similar...take away our opinions of the people contolling this war, and the motives we fell are behind it, and we both agree that we want America to remain a safe peacful place, and we want as many of our troops as possible to get home safe and sound to their families, and for that I respect your opinions!:D(Thats a FACT)

Paul Victorey

04-07-2003, 08:22 PM

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 for two main reasons:

1) Iraq has always been upset, since the British drew their borders after WW1, that Kuwait was taken from them. Kuwait is a prime piece of land, with rich oil fields and Persian Gulf access. Without Kuwait, Iraq was landlocked and their best land was not theirs any longer. Iraq has always felt that it should still hold Kuwait.

2) Iraq suffered from tremendous foreign debts, mostly to Kuwait. After Saddam conquered Kuwait, he declared those debts null and void. (The debts were reinstated by the UN and Iraq paid them off eventually).

As to the Alaska thing, no matter how much oil is undiscovered, it won't stop our dependance on foreign oil, and it won't really delay the eventual shortage of oil for more than a few years. It's only a temporary solution to our problems, and why destroy one of the last truly pristine areas of our nation for something that really doesn't benefit anyone except the oil companies?

Nuclear Krusader

04-07-2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Kubie
What happened to ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator, or did you miss that?

Power? Bush risks a short political career (8 years maybe) by doing this honorable thing and you say he wants power?
Carl
Who put America as the world's police?

And I never said power for Bush, but for America. America is the most powerful country in the world and Bush is making sure it remains in that status, no matter what.

This war has more things involved in it that just overthrowing an evil goverment. Think in a larger scope. Question everything.

mr krinkle

04-07-2003, 08:55 PM

Oh Boy,Well avx487 since you have no idea what a hippie is even by your definition lets just burry the hatchet here ok?.. So You are a anti-terrorism activist? Dont you lose that sense of humor!:)

Kubie

04-07-2003, 08:58 PM

9/11 made America the world police since nobody else has the moxie or the equipment to do the job.

The problem I see is that 3rd world nations are as envious as heck even though they've been around for a few hundred years and still live in the past.

You have a problem with your neighbor being very powerful?

Believe me, if something or someone was to attack your country, we would be the very first to help you.

mr krinkle

04-07-2003, 09:12 PM

Tiretool so you agree that indirectly is was about oil? Paul Victorey sees to me that Iraq claimed that Kuwait was stealing there oil also. but I agree about Alaska,From everything I have read its going to be expensive oil if there is any there to begin with
.Chalk it up to shortsighted Conservative think tanks I guess.

Strider

04-07-2003, 09:26 PM

If you look at from an American point of view, then the war is seen as a fight of freedom (But the nitty gritty of it is about OIL). If you look at from the otherside, then the war is seen as an attack on their religion (But once again the nitty gritty of it is about OIL). Every War that was ever fought could be broken down to one thing : MONEY.

WWII - Hitler wanted to rule the world, thus controling and owning everything -> $$$$
Civil War - Yeap it was a fight about slavery, but you could also near it down to to $$$$

Breaking News - A Stealth fighter drop a few bombs on a residency that was believe to have Saddam Hussein and His Son in it at the time.

Nuclear Krusader

04-07-2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Kubie
The problem I see is that 3rd world nations are as envious as heck even though they've been around for a few hundred years and still live in the past.

I agree.

You have a problem with your neighbor being very powerful?

Believe me, if something or someone was to attack your country, we would be the very first to help you.
My neighbor has invaded me three times already. And has been intervening in my country's politics ever since. Ever heard of the McLane-Ocampo treaties? Remember the invasion of Veracruz during our revolution? USA was police of the world way before 9/11.

padawan

04-07-2003, 11:42 PM

I seem to recall being the police of the world in the US Military for some time. I think unless you have been there, on the foreign soil, under fire no less, you really have no idea what goes on. Do a quick tour in the military (and not as some desk clerk), then come back here and talk about blood for oil. Ever seen what nerve gas does to someone? How about a nice blood agent? Wanna drown in your own blood as it fills your lungs? Saddam doesn't seem to mind using such weapons, and he has the monetary means to provide them to people that would use them here. If the thought of your children coughing up blood and dying is OK with you, then go ahead be against the war. Until then, I think you should stop watching so much TV.

Also, I disagree with the War for Money statement. I do recall that Religion was the cause of more war and death than any other single thing. Of course, that is a whole different topic and for another forum.

Nuclear Krusader

04-08-2003, 12:05 AM

I am not against this war. In fact, I was angry when my stupid president didn't support it. What bothers me is being lied to. What bothers me is being told that this is for freedom when it's for something else.

Take Cuba for example. It's ruled by a dictator who also happens to be a sworn enemy of the USA yet it's not invaded. Castro still rules. He is not being overthrown anytime soon.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is not a de facto dictator nor has WOMDs and his government has been being desestabilized by the CIA for some months now. Venezuela has oil, btw. Cuba doesn't.

A pity I can't serve in the military. No point in that. Not in this country of cravens (oh, pardon me, the word is "pacifists") that never fight a war.

I am not a Saddam supporter also. I agree he is evil and I'd like to see him choking on his own sarin gas.

And I hate TV and never watch it.

I still hold my ground on my statement however: wars are fought for power.

Religion? Nope. They are hardly fought over that. The only ones who believe they are dying for their god are the poor fellows in the field. They die as their leaders grow fat and rich. Take the Crusades for example: lots of ppl died believing the war was for the recovery of the Sacred Places. Fools! They swallowed that lie just because it was the Pope who said it. The real reason of the Crusades was to recover the route to the Far East and to stop the muslims from conquering Europe. Yet how many knights died thinking they were doing it for christianity's sake?

Religion, freedom, democracy... they are just ideals used by the powerful ones to make the ppl march to doom easily. A soldier fights better if he thinks he's a hero than if he feels he's just a hired hand.

avx

04-08-2003, 12:34 AM

Castro has not made himself a necessity since the Cuban Missile Crisis Incident. The most he has ever been was a major @$$. He has never established himself as a major threat. I have a friend who went to Cuba, he said it is a beautiful place, and most of the people live in reasonably good conditions, unlike in Iraq where there is no doubt these people live in absolute poverty, not to mention absolute fear of their psycho ruler. Argue if you want, but Castro has been relativly stable. But you are right...The main reason we havnt dethroned Castro is because there is absolutly no benefit to doing so, it would be like taking millions of dollars and just lighting it on fire... not to mention that we would also have to take care of them until a stable goverment can be established.

I respect your opinions Nuke, you make multiple good points, but I have to take Padawans side on the religion part, religion has been the reason behind almost all wars since religion was even invented...You can argue that it was power, but they were doing it in the name of religion, so...

Also, I dont think you should go far as to think you know what a soldier is thinking out on that battlefield, you label them as mindless pawns that can be fed any inspiration BS and fight to their deaths, they are on the frontlines...they know what this was is about better than anyone. I happen to know many vets, and they are good men, and I have asked them what it was like to fight, and what even made them get up in the morning, and they always tell me they would fight to protect the furtue of their families, to protect their kids, grand kids, their kids kids, their wives...They know what they are fighting for, and they know what they have to do. I just think you went to far as to think you know what a soldier fighting on the frontlines is thinking...

and one more thing...any soldier will tell you, there are no heroes on a battlefied.

Nuclear Krusader

04-08-2003, 12:48 AM

Yup, I now admit I went too far about the soldiers. I forgot the stories my grandpa used to tell me about him who was a civilian during the Christian wars and about his dad who fought in the revolution. My dad was also a soldier sometime but he never fought. I was the one who broke the family tradition because of my darn bad health.

It's just that enrages me to see soldiers die as the leaders sit safely in their desks and play at war. That is why I admire Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, because they shared their men's danger by leading the hosts into battle themselves.

It may be late, but I apologize to the soldiers for my previous words. I have always admired soldiers, and in a way I am envious of them; I wish I was one of them, fighting there instead of just being here sitting in front of this darn computer.

But I still think wars are a power struggle. ;)

**Edited typos**

TimPoet

04-08-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by avx487
I knew I was thinking of the wrong person when I said Alexander the great...I just couldnt think of the right name, you win, bad example:D I need to brush up on my hostory, cause I know there was another one I am thinking of who you would have no problem trying to compar to Hussien... Actually, Dante had Alexander the Alcoholic (drank himself to death at age of 32 because he had no more wars to fight) burning in hell, he along with the world's other murderer's were writhing in pain from either the hot water of a river or the sand next to the river. I think Dante had the Church's viewpoint of Alexander in mind.

Nuclear Krusader

04-08-2003, 01:16 AM

Dante put a lot of ppl in Hell. Especially ppl he didn't like or who caused him grief, like the Pope Bonifacio and the ones that forced him into exile.

As beautiful as the Divine Comedy is, it's not to be taken as a complete truth. It's an alegory, just that.

TimPoet

04-08-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader
I agree.

My neighbor has invaded me three times already. And has been intervening in my country's politics ever since. Ever heard of the McLane-Ocampo treaties? Remember the invasion of Veracruz during our revolution? USA was police of the world way before 9/11. We may have done that in the past, Henry, but if Cuba or some other nation attacked you we would shed our blood to defend your nation's borders. I'm sure you realize that.
We actually aren't the world's police. We act with military intervention properly when it's over our nation's vital interests. Not just our national interests, they have to be vital ones, ones that concern American lives. And Saddam in power about to obtain WMDs would expose our people to nuclear death via terrorist networks, since he is a proven state sponsor of terrorism.

Hot Rod

04-08-2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by TimPoet
We may have done that in the past, Henry, but if Cuba or some other nation attacked you we would shed our blood to defend your nation's borders. I'm sure you realize that.
We actually aren't the world's police. We act with military intervention properly when it's over our nation's vital interests. Not just our national interests, they have to be vital ones, ones that concern American lives. And Saddam in power about to obtain WMDs would expose our people to nuclear death via terrorist networks, since he is a proven state sponsor of terrorism.

I hope I am mistaken here so I want you to clarify. The way I understood your statements is that we only care about other people if they help the American interests in some way. So the poor people of Africa or any other 3rd worrld nation can be slaughtered for all we care because they don't have money or oil and the men doing the slaughtering are of no threat to invade or wreak havoc on the US. That really seems to cheapen human life overall to me. Are you saying that either you are American or you are nothing???

avx

04-08-2003, 11:42 AM

Yeah, I think you have totally minunderstood hot rod...We send billions in dollars of aid all over the world every year...Including Africa, we have been spending lots of money to contain the AIDS epidemic in Africa. But we very well cant make every country like the US, we can help where we can, but we cant do it all...we have to take care of ourselves too...

And its not "if you arnt American, then you are nothing". Its more like if you are not American you are not a priority. Do you think parents wake up and think of other peoples kids? Its kind of like the same thing with our goverment and americans. Got to take of your own first and formost, and worry about the rest later.

IMHO;)

shazam

04-08-2003, 06:05 PM

Hey krusader they say that power is the greatest aphrodisiac.

TimPoet

04-09-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Hot Rod
I hope I am mistaken here so I want you to clarify. The way I understood your statements is that we only care about other people if they help the American interests in some way. So the poor people of Africa or any other 3rd worrld nation can be slaughtered for all we care because they don't have money or oil and the men doing the slaughtering are of no threat to invade or wreak havoc on the US. That really seems to cheapen human life overall to me. Are you saying that either you are American or you are nothing??? Clarify I shall. I am not saying either you are American or you are nothing. That's arrogant and evil. My statements pertain mainly to military use of deadly force. We cannot afford to start a war with nations on issues that don't involve a direct threat to interests of America that could mean the loss of or harm to American lives.
We did not and should not have gone to war against the Rwanda government to stop that 1 million casualty slaughter (of the Hutus, I think). First of all, we didn't have enough time or information to predict it and get our forces over there and secondly, if we did things that were outside of the boundaries I stated we would be made poor by military overusage.
To paraphrase from the business leadership book, Secrets of Attila the Hun: Choose your enemies carefully, for you do not want to waste all of your resources to completely immobilize an unworthy opponent.
The idea being if you do that you won't have enough resources available when a true threat to you shows up.

AlwaysUp

04-09-2003, 02:21 AM

Paul, I respectfully submit you or I will never lay eyes upon that region. So don't pretend that you really give a rat's behind about it really. Next, I bet a couple of other things. First when and I enphasize "when" we begin production in that region, it will be with environmental regulation not even seen in California! Contrary to your incorrect opinion, we won't ruin the area and upon depletion of the field, reclaimation will render it to where even you would have difficulty discerning production had ever disturbed an area that even Eskimo's think is too remote! LOL