IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hapaboy, Jan 30, 2003.

  1. you said:
    what I implied (pretty straightforwardly) was that he wants to make Iraq's new regime friendly to US refiners...those refiners are run by his friends, and dick's friends, and those friends would stand to make alot of money if Iraq's oil supply were to be made more liquid...


    Here's a question: Who are the 10 largest oil companies in thw world? and from what Cournties are they from? The answers may surprsie you...
     
    #11     Jan 30, 2003
  2. What makes more sense? Wasting your time arguing about something that has already been set in motion? This isn't an election year and I *DID* vote. I just don't see how anyone is going to prevent history from repeating itself ... again, and again, and again ...

    However, what we CAN control is our reaction to the events that we're about to go through.

    In my opinion, I think that is very responsible way to deal with a situation that NONE OF US can control.
     
    #12     Jan 30, 2003
  3. msfe

    msfe

    it does not matter where they have their corporate hq but who owns those oil giants.
     
    #13     Jan 30, 2003
  4. I was going to post a clipping of the largest oil producers but i figured , enough is enough wiht the paste and click...

    basically, Saudi Arabia and kuwait have the two largest...followed by Venezuela, SHell ( dutch) bp amoco (britain) exxon mobil (us) and a couple other well known companies....In fact, must of BUSHE"S connections are with energy and exploration companies that might actually suffer if oil was abundant..
     
    #14     Jan 30, 2003
  5. Iraq was never a NBC(nuke-bio-chem) threat to the Western world, only Israel had to be concerned with Saddam. But now that Iraq is going to be attacked, they will be ready to do anything to harm the US including what Americans fear the most i.e giving fissile material to terrorists and using chemicals against US troops.

    Mandela got it right: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030130/wl_nm/iraq_mandela_dc
     
    #15     Jan 30, 2003
  6. Its not about OIL,

    it never was,

    and it would be pretty transparent once the war is over,

    if the United States tried to take the slightest advantage from being on the ground in Iraq, to steal resources,

    OTHER THAN KICKING any GERMAN and FRENCH Nuclear Physicists, Bio Engineers, or Chem Engineers, or Rocket Scientists, out of the country.
     
    #16     Jan 30, 2003
  7. If I were an oil producer, were the US dictator and wanted to become obscenely rich off my oil production, all I would have to do is to prohibit oil imports from the middle east. the resulting oil scarcity would push oil prices to the skies.
    only if I were really dumb would I go to war to make sure there is abundant world oil supply.

    guys, i really don't understand how the oil conspiracy theory can convince so many suckers... i don't understand either why so many people lose money trading the e-minis...
    :p :p :eek: :eek:
     
    #17     Jan 30, 2003
  8. Kicking sez; But now that Iraq is going to be attacked, they will be ready to do anything to harm the US including what Americans fear the most i.e giving fissile material to terrorists and using chemicals against US troops. [b/]

    Chemicals against troops - it certainly possible, and the troops are protected from that, all M-1, and Bradley's are sealed against chem attacks.

    Fission Material - there is enough of that floating around, but that is always a risk, launching a strike, removes that risk in Iraq

    An Iraqi General launching such an MWD attack would have to do it by mortar or artillery shells, and our ground radars will find them.

    We will find the Generals responsible for a MWD and hang them.

    The Iragi Commanders know this:

    1. They have no hope of stopping the Allies or surviving the war if they resist.

    2. Saddam - if he is not smart enough to leave, will be shot by his own troops or arrested, by some smart Iraqi Republican Guard Tank Battalion Commander.
     
    #18     Jan 30, 2003
  9. Mandela got it right? You mean it's all about racism- whitey just wants to keep the black man down? And our human rights record is questioned becaused we saved lives by ending world war II five or ten years early after someone else started it, and then rebuilt the country we bombed?
     
    #19     Jan 30, 2003
  10. United We Stand

    By Jose Maria Aznar, Jose-Manuel Durao Barroso, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Peter Medgyessy, Leszek Miller And Anders Fogh Rasmussen

    The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

    The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists -- the enemies of our common values -- are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

    We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

    In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

    The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

    In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

    The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

    Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

    The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

    Messrs. Aznar, Durao Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.
     
    #20     Jan 30, 2003