Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 141
  1. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #41  
    DaThomas, this is your exact quote in which you say the US invaded for oil.

    So when the oil runs out at least westerners won't invade anymore.
    I asked you to back up that claim and you come up with this gem...

    In protecting its interests in the Persian Gulf, the United States has always hoped for a regional partner: first Iran, then Iraq, then the Saudis; in their turn, each of these has proven itself incapable of the job. Fortunately, the Saudis probably overestimate the threat they pose to the presidentís policy. Denying the U.S. access to Saudi bases will make the war against Iraq harder, but will not stop it. Further, removing Saddam Husseinís regime from power in Baghdad will reduce the Saudisí leverage even more -- returning Iraqi oil fully to market can only reduce the Saudisí ability to set oil prices, and make the U.S. bases there superfluous.

    So basically now your claiming the goal of the Iraqi invasion was to weaken the Saudi influence on global oil prices? Where do you come up with this stuff?
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    DaThomas, this is your exact quote in which you say the US invaded for oil.



    I asked you to back up that claim and you come up with this gem...




    So basically now your claiming the goal of the Iraqi invasion was to weaken the Saudi influence on global oil prices? Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Still don't get it huh Pumpkin? Ok, here's a little more:
    "Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddamís supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq. "
  3. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Still don't get it huh Pumpkin? Ok, here's a little more:
    "Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddamís supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq. "

    Now you have gone and done it...you make actually no sense. This quote implies France and Russia would stand to lose financially if Saddam Hussein was removed from power (ofcourse they would, they had illegal oil deals).

    Instead of pasted quotes that have nothing to do with answering my question to you, in your own words, state why you think the US invaded Iraq for oil. You keep claiming I will have to pay you to educate me....Is this what I would get for my money? Mystery quotes that dodge the question.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Now you have gone and done it...you make actually no sense. This quote implies France and Russia would stand to lose financially if Saddam Hussein was removed from power (ofcourse they would, they had illegal oil deals).

    Instead of pasted quotes that have nothing to do with answering my question to you, in your own words, state why you think the US invaded Iraq for oil. You keep claiming I will have to pay you to educate me....Is this what I would get for my money? Mystery quotes that dodge the question.
    Reword your statement to, the US invaded Iraq because of oil and things may appear more clear to you.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    So your arguement is that we went to war to STABALIZE prices? Now thats funny. How would launching a major offensive on an oil producing country (which would probably cause the destruction of much of the oil producing infrastructure) stabalize prices? Unless your meaning that we mean to take the oil in which there ofcourse is no proof.
    You are missing my point. My point is that there might be multiple reasons why we invaded Iraq. It would be difficult at best for you or I or anyone on TC to 'prove' CLEARLY (as you put it) the exact reason why we went.

    I am only saying that because Iraq produces 5% of our oil that it MIGHT be a reason (among many) why we went to war. As far as the stabilization issue, LONG TERM it would stabilize prices if we took control/and or put in place a more democratic government (you can see that right?) You seem to focus on only the short term costs of invading without giving full measure to the eventual benefit of our action.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    The US imported less than 5% of our oil from iraq before the war. So your arguement is we went to war to to protect 5% of our oil supply. If thats the case, you think we would of went to Venezuela first.
    Not necessarily. You are framing the issue as if we should have only ONE reason to go to war...that doesnt appear to be the case (i.e. first we are told that we have to take down Sadaam because he has WMD and then it becomes Sadaam is a bad person and we need to take down the regime.) While I agree that Venezuela may be a better choice, there are other factors to consider besides just focusing on the actual amount of oil we import from any given country.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    In your case its so easy to throw theories and accusations accusing the US of almost anything, but please try to base it on something with factual proof.
    Hmmm...let me see if you can answer just one question for me.

    Do you think the reason(s) for our invasion of Iraq had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with oil? (I would be willing to bet that many conservatives would agree that it played at least a small part in the decision.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #46  
    Reword your statement to, the US invaded Iraq because of oil and things may appear more clear to you.

    Wow...great explanation. Where do I send the check you requested for the education?
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    We get most of our imported oil from Canada.
    Not true. Only 16.5% (in november, at least).
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...im0_mbbl_m.htm
  8. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #48  
    t2gungho,

    I admire you for trying to explain your statements with reasonable dialog instead of mystery quote pasting..

    You are missing my point. My point is that there might be multiple reasons why we invaded Iraq. It would be difficult at best for you or I or anyone on TC to 'prove' CLEARLY (as you put it) the exact reason why we went.
    I agree. But when I see quotes like this, during war time......

    How about the US wants to keep oil prices stable and they do not want the oil to stop being shipped to the US?
    or this

    So when the oil runs out at least westerners won't invade anymore.
    I think its the responsibility of the person to show some type of evidence to back up the claim. Otherwise, its just opinion based on political agenda.


    As for your question...
    Do you think the reason(s) for our invasion of Iraq had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with oil? (I would be willing to bet that many conservatives would agree that it played at least a small part in the decision.)
    Maybe yes, maybe no. But without any proof I would not be posting accusations as factual without clearly stating that they are only my opinion with no facts to back it up.
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Wow...great explanation. Where do I send the check you requested for the education?
    I cannot teach the blind to see until they open their eyes.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I cannot teach the blind to see until they open their eyes.
    If someone is blind, they can't see. You're thinking of people who have simply closed their eyes.
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Not true. Only 16.5% (in november, at least).
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...im0_mbbl_m.htm

    I did not say 'majority' and don't mean to imply that. Canada provides the U.S. more imported oil than any other country. Going by the numbers you provided.
  12. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #52  
    I cannot teach the blind to see until they open their eyes.
    boring...I ask for facts and you give me nothing but insults. Keep searching for obscure and anonymous quotes to back up politically focused accusations. Nice quote about teaching the blind though...Its cute.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I did not say 'majority' and don't mean to imply that. Canada provides the U.S. more imported oil than any other country. Going by the numbers you provided.
    Most typically means majority, not plurality, at least in my experience. More oil comes from Canada than any other single country, correct, but not a majority of the U.S. imports.
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    boring...I ask for facts and you give me nothing but insults. Keep searching for obscure and anonymous quotes to back up politically focused accusations. Nice quote about teaching the blind though...Its cute.
    You feel the quotes I gave you are obscure and anonymous??? Really?

    That's fawking hillarious!
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Most typically means majority, not plurality, at least in my experience. More oil comes from Canada than any other single country, correct, but not a majority of the U.S. imports.
    Yes, that's what I clarified. "...don't mean to imply that...".
  16. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #56  
    You feel the quotes I gave you are obscure and anonymous??? Really?

    Did you actually read your quotes?

    The first one said invading Iraq will weaken the Saudi influence on global oil prices.

    The second one said france and russia will be impacted negatively if Saddam is removed from power.

    I ask you again, for the last time, what the heck does any of that have to do with backing up your statement that the US invaded for oil? Usually how it works, is that you post quotes to back up and prove your statement. The quotes you provided had nothing to do with it.
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Did you actually read your quotes?

    The first one said invading Iraq will weaken the Saudi influence on global oil prices.

    The second one said france and russia will be impacted negatively if Saddam is removed from power.

    I ask you again, for the last time, what the heck does any of that have to do with backing up your statement that the US invaded for oil? Usually how it works, is that you post quotes to back up and prove your statement. The quotes you provided had nothing to do with it.

    Gawd, do i have to draw you a frelling picture! Ok, let's take this quote;

    "And Saddamís supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq"

    America is in the business of global capitalism, correct. Don't answer. Yes, it is. Our major competition in this is the European Union. By nixing French and Russion oil contracts over the second largest oil source AND putting in a gov't friendly to the U.S., we have reassured dominance in the global marketplace.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    t2gungho,

    I admire you for trying to explain your statements with reasonable dialog instead of mystery quote pasting..
    I try to have an open mind and I am interested in how we say things and what we really mean by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    I agree. But when I see quotes like this, during war time......
    What does 'during wartime' do to the quote? Are you saying it shouldn't be said or that it means something else during wartime?

    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    I think its the responsibility of the person to show some type of evidence to back up the claim. Otherwise, its just opinion based on political agenda.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    As for your question...

    Maybe yes, maybe no.
    Now I am curious. What facts have you seen that leads you to believe 'maybe no'.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    But without any proof I would not be posting accusations as factual without clearly stating that they are only my opinion with no facts to back it up.
    I can understand that...maybe the assumption should be that they are opinion unless stated as factual. Otherwise, we would have to say (IMO) before a majority of the posts in the OT threads.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  19. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #59  
    America is in the business of global capitalism, correct. Don't answer. Yes, it is. Our major competition in this is the European Union. By nixing French and Russion oil contracts over the second largest oil source AND putting in a gov't friendly to the U.S., we have reassured dominance in the global marketplace.

    Ok, finally an explanation. A strange one, but still an explanation. You imply that we went to war with iraq over competition with the European Union over global capitalism.

    This ofcourse is your opinion, based on what? I think the flouride the goverment is putting in your water is starting to fry your brain.
  20.    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Ok, finally an explanation. A strange one, but still an explanation. You imply that we went to war with iraq over competition with the European Union over global capitalism.

    This ofcourse is your opinion, based on what? I think the flouride the goverment is putting in your water is starting to fry your brain.
    I provided you quotes from the horse's mouth. What more do you want. A one line sound-bite?

    And yes, oil is the main component for the U.S. action in Iraq. To think otherwise is extremely naive.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions