"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
Bah. Do not let auto makers produce friggin tanks. Do not let people drive Hummers, Navigators, 12 cylinder pick-up trucks for pleasure. Now that would cut down on oil wouldn't it?
Damn, the US has alot of f$%king money... Anyone know of a job for a SAP consultant or IT team leader in the US???
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Yeah, but now you killed all the evil terrorists
ƒ³
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
Ok, so we ARE paying for oil like you said we could have been doing, so your arguement fails.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
You're not there to get free oil, you're there to guarantee it keeps flowing. Your economy is based on oil, and consequently so is the US hegemony over the world.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ok, so we ARE paying for oil like you said we could have been doing, so your arguement fails.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
Shell, Exxon, Haliburton and other contractors are the ones there for the money. The US presence is strategic, not financial.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Right, so we are paying for the oil like he said we should, so his arguement fails is all I am saying.EVieira wrote:
You're not there to get free oil, you're there to guarantee it keeps flowing. Your economy is based on oil, and consequently so is the US hegemony over the world.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ok, so we ARE paying for oil like you said we could have been doing, so your arguement fails.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.
Shell, Exxon, Haliburton and other contractors are the ones there for the money. The US presence is strategic, not financial.
I'm fairly sure most of the money ended up firmly back in the US economy as opposed to the Iraqi one, hence you didn't pay for it.usmarine2007 wrote:
Right, so we are paying for the oil like he said we should, so his arguement fails is all I am saying.EVieira wrote:
You're not there to get free oil, you're there to guarantee it keeps flowing. Your economy is based on oil, and consequently so is the US hegemony over the world.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ok, so we ARE paying for oil like you said we could have been doing, so your arguement fails.
Shell, Exxon, Haliburton and other contractors are the ones there for the money. The US presence is strategic, not financial.
No, we are stealing it. But it is like we are paying for it anyway is my point..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
I'm fairly sure most of the money ended up firmly back in the US economy as opposed to the Iraqi one, hence you didn't pay for it.usmarine2007 wrote:
Right, so we are paying for the oil like he said we should, so his arguement fails is all I am saying.EVieira wrote:
You're not there to get free oil, you're there to guarantee it keeps flowing. Your economy is based on oil, and consequently so is the US hegemony over the world.
Shell, Exxon, Haliburton and other contractors are the ones there for the money. The US presence is strategic, not financial.
Well it looks like qwe just might have too on our own, seems the rest of the world doesnt care. Germany ordered there UN troops in afganistan to NOT engage the Taliban at all. Alot of other countries will follow suit. What kind of shit is that? WTF is it going to take for the rest of the world to figure out that terrorists will bomb ANY country. London subways, and all the rest of the stuff didnt wake anyone up.oug wrote:
Yeah, but now you killed all the evil terrorists
As to the OP, Our energy grid has been outdated for MANY years. Why didnt Ole Bill take care of it or start rebuilding it when we had socalled TONS of extra money according to everyone who said under clinton, things were so rosie.
As for paying for the oil, I agree on the HUGE useless SUV's and such that the soccer moms useing it to pick up the kids, and People driving these things as a sign of status in there Neighborhoods when they use there Govt checks to buy a huge blinged out ride instead if actually paying the bills and feeding the kids!
We wouldnt have to pay as much for oil if the treehuggers would let us drill for our own in places where we know its at.
the value of enforcing surrender treaties can't be so easily quantified
Who says that it's either war or cars running on bottled farts? We like oil either way.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
A better way would have been to compare it to curing a disease, schools, or buying Cuba or something.
As long as oil's cheap we're going to buy it, war or no war.
USA gets most of it's oil from canada. More efficient, just run pipelines down the border instead of having to deliver the oil by tankers from half way around the world...
What argument? Im stating facts bud. None of this is my opinion. Sorry for failing. LMFAO!usmarine2007 wrote:
Ok, so we ARE paying for oil like you said we could have been doing, so your arguement fails.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
Iraq wasn't about oil, it was about reconstruction and a base in the middle east for the US. Think about it, US aids it in schooling, and what do they teach at school? American propaganda. It is a great way to get young kids to think America is great and all and that they should be allies with the Americans. If the US wanted to invade a country for oil, it would be Canada since Canada has a shitload of oil and it's near the border. US could say that Canada is a communist state. But they won't, why? Because Canada and US have good economic ties.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
What argument? Im stating facts bud. None of this is my opinion. Sorry for failing. LMFAO!usmarine2007 wrote:
Ok, so we ARE paying for oil like you said we could have been doing, so your arguement fails.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.
What the rest of the world has figured out is that about 80% of the social problems with radicals and weapons in the world have been painstakingly engineered through 60 years of imperialistic American foreign policy. Sometimes them damned foreigners get really tired of cleaning up our messes, and somehow we just keep creating them despite Eisenhower's warnings. Most other countries in the world have also figured out that our "War on Terra" is just a neo-fascist propoganda stunt that happens to be costing quite a few good men's lives in addition to the aforementioned half a trillion beaver pelts.Well it looks like qwe just might have too on our own, seems the rest of the world doesnt care. Germany ordered there UN troops in afganistan to NOT engage the Taliban at all. Alot of other countries will follow suit. What kind of shit is that? WTF is it going to take for the rest of the world to figure out that terrorists will bomb ANY country. London subways, and all the rest of the stuff didnt wake anyone up.
As a P.S., the other 20% you can divide evenly by French and British colonial cock-ups.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2006-12-06 15:45:46)
People who say we went to Iraq for oil are idiots. That's all there is to it, if we went for the oil then why the fuck did we screw around with terrorist organizations at all, or go to Afghanistan. Mason, usmarine > you.
So, since we went there for oil, and the Brits joined us, they went there for oil also yes?
The brits went because blair is a pussy. The US went because our status in the world would be greatly impaired if oil-supplying nations accepted the euro as payment.
QFT.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
People who say we went to Iraq for oil are idiots. That's all there is to it, if we went for the oil then why the fuck did we screw around with terrorist organizations at all, or go to Afghanistan. Mason, usmarine > you.
I drink oil from Iraq every night before bed. It is yummy.
We did before.usmarine2007 wrote:
So, since we went there for oil, and the Brits joined us, they went there for oil also yes?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Do … raqoil.htm
True...the Brits had their oil, it is our turn.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-06 16:05:15)