War and Majority

That's 3.5 million barrels per day, currently maybe $70,000,000 per day after lifting costs, with reserves in billions of barrels. And I haven't looked lately, but total world output is on the order of 60 to 70 million bbl/day, so Iraq is the source of maybe 5%.

quote:

---

So let's do some maths.

---

Yes.. lets do some math.. never heard of a plural to math...
edit.. well according to merriam webster there maths is a word, although its usage is mostly british. Then again the also call an eraser a rubber.One typo resulting from quickly responding(that the person I was responding to missed as well) + someone just getting into the conversion = complete waste of my time.Billions should have been Millions, in my haste to simply restate what was properly stated in the links that I am fairly sure no one has bothered reading I had billions on the brain. Sue me. The fact remains that PRE gulf war Iraqi oil output was 1.3% of the global output. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 03-28-2003]

So now is oil the main reason or not? That seemed to be your stance. And I never mentioned CURRENT output, I was talking about PRE Gulf War output. Thanks for putting words into my mouth.Lets see we could have supported a fundamentalist ruling power in Iran that had taken US hostages, or.. supported someone who appeared to be pro-US. Or maybe we should have closed our eyes and pretended the mid-east didn't exist. What would YOU have done differently?Weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands of people are weapons of mass destruction? And if he uses them what then? Do you honestly think he would only use them to thwart an attack? That he wouldn't give them to terrorists to use against the US?How much less safe can it be for Americans? They were attacking us BEFORE the war they will be attacking us after the war. Does that mean we should do nothing but wait for it to happen?

OK, I think this will be the fourth time I have asked.Do you think it is OK for the Bush regime to have intentionally misled the American people into thinking that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the Sept 11 attacks on the WTC?There is NO evidence that Hussein had anything to do with it, yet Bush's speeches regarding the war constsntly invoke Sept 11th. It is calculated, deliberate, and immoral to mislead the public this way.Do you think that we should support India if they attack Pakistan preemtively (or vice-versa)? Should we support South Korea if they attack North Korea preemptively?Do you deny that North Korea has a right to feel threatened after Bush's "axis of evil" comment and now this war in Iraq?If getting rid of dangerous dictators was the reason for us being in Iraq, why haven't we invaded several African countries, Pakistan, Several South American countries, etc.? Why didn't we do anything about Afghanistsan before?

quote:

---

So now is oil the main reason or not? That seemed to be your stance.

---

I think it is primarily about the oil/money. There are other probable reasons, though, as I have stated.

quote:

---

And I never mentioned CURRENT output, I was talking about PRE Gulf War output. Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

---

Well, since 90% of the Iraq is unexplored for oil, and they might have another 100 billion barrels, and Iraqi iol is very inexpensive to produce, I can't imagine WHY a US President, Vice President, and 40 or so presidential staffers, each of whom have significant ties to the iol industry ties to the oil industry, would be interested in gaining control of that country.

quote:

---

Lets see we could have supported a fundamentalist ruling power in Iran that had taken US hostages, or.. supported someone who appeared to be pro-US.

---

Or maybe we could have not gotten involved at all! Or, if we hated Iran so much, we should have been over there fighting ourselves.Instead, we continued supporting lunatic dictators. We still do this.

quote:

---

Or maybe we should have closed our eyes and pretended the mid-east didn't exist. What would YOU have done differently?

---

I would have put all of our best scientists and engineers on the long-term job of increasing all fuel-efficiency, and also on the task of finding alternate sources of fuel, so we didn't have to be so dependent upon middle-east oil. I would have made tough mandatory fuel efficency requirements for the auto industry, despite their protests and attempts at lobbying.The very best thing to do is make it so we don't need their oil, or at least not as much of it.

quote:

---

Weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands of people are weapons of mass destruction?

---

Sorry, I was wrong about some chemical weapons not being WMD.

quote:

---

And if he uses them what then?

---

Then people will die. The inspections were working, but we wanted war before it got to hot in the summer, so we weren't going to wait.

quote:

---

Do you honestly think he would only use them to thwart an attack? That he wouldn't give them to terrorists to use against the US?

---

So far, we don't know if he has them or not because we didn't let the inspectors have enough time. (I do agree that he should have been watched much more closely by the UN and was allowed to string the UN along.) We know he is willing to use them because he has, but I wasn't aware that any chemical weapons were found since Hussein was ordered to destroy them all after the first Gulf War. Have they been?

quote:

---

How much less safe can it be for Americans?

---

A lot.

quote:

---

They were attacking us BEFORE the war they will be attacking us after the war. Does that mean we should do nothing but wait for it to happen?

---

Wait for WHAT to happen? What kind of terrorist activity was Iraq planning against the US? What strong ties to muslim fundamentalists does Hussein have? bin Laden and other muslim fundamentalists HATE Hussein, because his government is secular and they believe all Arab countries should be religious and fundamentalist.Bin Laden is probably laughing his ass off right now, and is thanking the US for sowing the seeds of hatred and fear of the US in the Muslim world that will only help his cause. We also did a lot of work for him in getting rid of Hussein.

quote:

---

Yes.. lets do some math.. never heard of a plural to math...

---

I had never heard of the singular until I moved to the States.

quote:

---

well according to merriam webster there maths is a word, although its usage is mostly british. Then again the also call an eraser a rubber.

---

Indeed we do. I got some very strange looks at the DisneyWorld store when I asked for a rubber with Mickey Mouse on it. I got an even stranger look when I said it was not for me, but for my son.

quote:

---

One typo resulting from quickly responding(that the person I was responding to missed as well) + someone just getting into the conversion = complete waste of my time.

---

I didn't realise it was a conversion, I wouldn't have got involved, as I am not fond of proselytizing. Perhaps this was a mistake too? Do you have a problem with this sort of thing?Are you only sloppy in expressing your thoughts, or in formulating them also?[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-28-2003]

Ok first let me touch on this point :

quote:

---

I would have put all of our best scientists and engineers on the long-term job of increasing all fuel-efficiency, and also on the task of finding alternate sources of fuel, so we didn't have to be so dependent upon middle-east oil. I would have made tough mandatory fuel efficency requirements for the auto industry, despite their protests and attempts at lobbying.

​

The very best thing to do is make it so we don't need their oil, or at least not as much of it.

---

I agree 110% with you on this point, and am hoping the California initiative towards fuel cell powered vehicles helps the cause along. However we do use oil, and if we want to blame someone then lets be totally honest and place blame where it really belongs.. The millions of people who use gas guzzling SUVs who enable oil companies to price gouge and make this kind of war needed at all (if it is about oil). When soccer moms, and yuppies stop needing huge gas guzzling vehicles, or simply a huge truck to feel "better" then perhaps we can move out of the mid-east all together (which I agree would probably be the best thing we can do.. they were killing each other before we/isreal got there, let them kill each other after we leave)Do I think Bush has the right to mislead the public? Yes, its his job to bolster his support for his actions. If Clinton can make a big deal about the word "it" and convince the nation that oral doesn't count then Bush can make tenious connections between Saddam and Bin Laden.
edit: Perhaps being in NYC (Wall Street actually) on 9/11, my wife worked in the WTC, my step-brother did as well and died, makes me more willing to see the connection and why the war is justified. If that is the case and is irrational forgive me and my seeing things into non-existant threats. /end edit.You do know that there are Al Qeida forces fighting in Iraq now correct? While Al Qeida and Saddam might hate each other, they hate us more.. and as the saying goes.. "you're enemies enemy is your friend"North Korea has been building arms for long before Bush said anything.Why don't we do things about other dictators? Because our national interests don't lie there at the moment, we have other things to attend to, it wouldn't accomplish enough? Replacing Hussain with a more pro-US government WOULD accomplish something so he is a priority I would guess.While no chem weapons have been found to date(that I am aware of) there have been thousands of chem suits found which would definetly suggest the presance of chem weapons(2002 gear, not old stuff).How long would you have given Hussain to disarm? 12 years hasn't seemed to make a difference. He had thousands of gallons of stuff that he would not account for, he conviently finds stuff he fails to mention then gets rid of it to appease the world. To me that sounds like he was playing the UN and doing it well.Perhaps war wasn't the way to go, I don't know of a better way. I seriously doubt he would ever had complied with the UN, and would have envetually done what he did before(kick out US inspectors, then all) and what would that have shown the world? Would he have armed a terrorist? I believe so, would he have continued to smuggle oil to fund his own programs while starving his own people? I believe so.BTW, I have a friend who's father is a military contracter.. I am trying to convince him to send me footage he has gotten from his father of Iraqi Soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians, if I can and I get permission to show it I will post the link here first.One thing that mystifies me is how the anti-war people(not you shraf neccissary, but those I have spoken too in person at rallies here in NYC) never have an opinion about saddam terrorizing his own people(rape rooms, torture areas, treatment of kurds and Suni Muslims in southern Iraq) I am not sure how they can be so against us possible killing iraqi civilians yet have no problem with saddam doing it on a regular basis. If anyone can shed some light on this I would very appreciative.Shraf one last thing, in your opinion, knowing what was done in the past and that it can't be changed, how do you think we should have handled Saddam if he continued to string the UN along. Meaning, say we did give him more time, and in that time he failed to prove he had disarmed, what should the UN have done? Knowing full well that France/Germany would never autherize the use of force due to their oil contracts with saddam.And regardless of if you are pro-war or anti-war please support the troops(screw Bush he isn't putting anything on the line other than his political future) they are the ones fighting, they are the ones who have made it possible for us to even have this discussion in the first place.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 03-31-2003]

If dont have time to go over my work then yes it is sloppy.. I think to fast and type to slow to get it all out properly at times. And that day I was actually working while typing.You Brits are so cool btw.. Regardless of how anyone feels about Blair, he is prolly the best speaker in a long time.. As most British are, it must be something about the extra few hundred years of practice with the language before we American's butchered it and let people like Eminem become superstars.... =/Edit: This is totally off-topic but I figured I'd ask... I am thinking about going to Scotland to research my family roots and all that and was wondering what is the best time of the year to visit your side of the pond?[This message has been edited by RedVento, 03-31-2003]

Sure we can all be sloppy - I certainly can be. I just get riled when if i think people are claiming to be more careful, better informed, more expert than others, but not demonstrating more care, better information or more expertise.Blair is a pretty good speaker - but did you hear Robin Cook's resignation speech over Iraq? It was riveting stuff. One of the reasons the Uk politicians are so much better than this is question time and the broader cross-examination available in a parliament. Bush prepares endlessly for three or four election debates head-on with his opponent. Blair gets it - to a surprising extent ad hoc and unprepared - several times a week from his principle opponents. it keeps them sharp.Visiting Scotland? Cool. August is most reliable for good weather - the Edinburgh festival is on, which is marvellous fun, but very very busy. I like October - when it is clear weather, and it often is quite dry and crisp, the light and atmosphere, the autumn colours of woods and bens, are simply stunning; when it is raining the brooding history of the country seems to hang in the mist.If you are tracing roots, try this site: http://www.incallander.co.uk/genealogy.htm it has useful info and advice.As for Eminem - I like his stuff. I think he is articulate and often quite moving. His ability to handle complex dictions, speak from varying personas, and shift moods and viewpoints all within a relatively rigid formal framework are surely marks of a fine poet? Language is usage - he is a master of his genre.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-31-2003]

quote:

---

Do I think Bush has the right to mislead the public? Yes, its his job to bolster his support for his actions. If Clinton can make a big deal about the word "it" and convince the nation that oral doesn't count then Bush can make tenious connections between Saddam and Bin Laden.

---

There is simply no comparison between Clinton being coy about getting blown by an intern and the Bush regime conspiring to mislead the American public in order to bolster support for a war in which our citizens will die and be asked to kill others.There is no comparison. None at all.

quote:

---

edit: Perhaps being in NYC (Wall Street actually) on 9/11, my wife worked in the WTC, my step-brother did as well and died, makes me more willing to see the connection and why the war is justified. If that is the case and is irrational forgive me and my seeing things into non-existant threats. /end edit.

---

Understandable, to be sure, but now, more than ever, it is important to take action in the appropriate place and not to inappropriately push our weight around in the name of "preemptive strikes" just because we feel angry about Sept. 11.We are killing people over there, and Americans believe that it's because of Sept. 11th.

quote:

---

You do know that there are Al Qeida forces fighting in Iraq now correct? While Al Qeida and Saddam might hate each other, they hate us more.. and as the saying goes.. "you're enemies enemy is your friend"

---

Yes, and they are in the Kurdish-controlled north. It's no wonder Turkey is so jumpy about the Kurds being there. Oh, wait, we are fighting along side the Kurds in the north, too. Hmmm...

quote:

---

North Korea has been building arms for long before Bush said anything.

---

Yes, but they certainly didn't feel compelled to slow down or stop after his comments, either, did they? It was a stupid, stupid, thing for him to say. He also completely alienated the government of Iran, which has in recent years been becoming more moderate and less fundamentalist.Bush is a diplomatic nightmare and just might bring on WWIII.

quote:

---

Why don't we do things about other dictators? Because our national interests don't lie there at the moment, we have other things to attend to, it wouldn't accomplish enough? Replacing Hussain with a more pro-US government WOULD accomplish something so he is a priority I would guess.

---

We have tried that before, and it has ALWAYS come back to bite us in the ass. We helped oust the democratically-elected government of Iran and replaced him with the pro-US Shah, a murderous dictator, and the people overthrew him and we got the fundamentalist government of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

quote:

---

Shraf one last thing, in your opinion, knowing what was done in the past and that it can't be changed, how do you think we should have handled Saddam if he continued to string the UN along. Meaning, say we did give him more time, and in that time he failed to prove he had disarmed, what should the UN have done? Knowing full well that France/Germany would never autherize the use of force due to their oil contracts with saddam.

---

I think if we had given the inspectors more time and let Hussein kick them all out the UN might have gone along with a real coalition force.Bush pissed everyone off right from the start by telling the UN that he was going to invade Iraq no matter what they said. All the while, people kept asking him where the imminent threat was, and he kept saying that there was one but that he couldn't tell us any specifics.If we start invading countris that might sell arms or WMD to terrorists, then we need to attack at least half a dozen countries around the world, including Pakistan which we currently support.For that matter, WE have given money to Hussein, with which he may have used to buy weapons and fund WMD research.Preemptive strikes will lead to everyone hating and fearing us, and what does that lead to?Terrorism.

quote:

---

And regardless of if you are pro-war or anti-war please support the troops(screw Bush he isn't putting anything on the line other than his political future) they are the ones fighting, they are the ones who have made it possible for us to even have this discussion in the first place.

---

The thing is, the troops in Iraq are not protecting my freedom. The ones in Afghanistsn, maybe, but not the ones in Iraq.I do support them and wish with all my heart that they weren't there at all in the first place. It's a little too late for that though.

quote:

---

Bush prepares endlessly for three or four election debates head-on with his opponent. Blair gets it - to a surprising extent ad hoc and unprepared - several times a week from his principle opponents. it keeps them sharp.

---

...or, requires them to be sharp in the firat place.Despite all of the rehersals and prep for his presidential debates, Bush sucked anyway.

I know I'm not following off the discussion here, and I apologize. However I am finding this war issue so difficult, I mean what am I to believe?The american media, and gov't are known liars. The Iraqi media/gov't are definately liars. Being Canadian I also watch Canadian news, they are usually somewhat reliable as long as they are not reporting Canadian politics. In the case of this war they are not reporting much differently than the americans, so they must be liars.So out of all the liars who do I believe?------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Right here in Indonesia the local TV channels are relaying CNN, ABC, Al Jazeera, and Al Arabiya. Altogether it made an interesting combination, and the people here are getting informnation from all sides.Of course, we may sometimes have to endure Al Jazeera's vivid portrayal of war victims... but better than CNN's war-tech show.I heard that Peter Arnett was recruited by TV Al Arabiya, a competitor of Al Jazeera in the MidEast.

quote:

---

The american media, and gov't are known liars.

---

I think that the media used to be better at actually challenging authority instead of allowing itself to become a propaganda tool of the current regime.I mean, Kronkite actually disapproved of the Vietnam war and criticized it on national television. Can anyone imagine that happening today?Over the past several decades, we have let our government deregulate our news sources, so that now huge conglomerates like Time/Warner and a handful of others rule our airwaves. They are much more interested in profits than in their responsibility to critical analysis and investigative reporting.They are not about to bite the hand that feeds them, so they are not about to let any of their reporters hold any powerful politician's feet to the fire.

Schraf,Obviously you've formed an opinion on this war. I'm wondering how you have managed this considering your usual need for evidence to support any opinion. All your information comes from liars, or at least a biased opinion. Media in and of itself has to have a bias, there has to be some sort of opinion there in order to have any interest in reporting on something. I'm wondering how you have come to such strong conclusions and opinions on this war?Please note this is not an attack or trick question, I too have my skepticism about this "liberation of Iraq". However I have no solid evidence to say it is either right or wrong. I have the luxury of saying "well as rough as it looks it's not out of God's hands". How do you make such a strong judgement of proceedings when you have limited, faulty, and or biased facts?------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

quote:

---

Obviously you've formed an opinion on this war.

---

Yes, but it isn't a static one. I am always open to new information.

quote:

---

I'm wondering how you have managed this considering your usual need for evidence to support any opinion. All your information comes from liars, or at least a biased opinion. Media in and of itself has to have a bias, there has to be some sort of opinion there in order to have any interest in reporting on something. I'm wondering how you have come to such strong conclusions and opinions on this war?

---

My news information comes from many different sources, and I piece together that which seems the most reliable and credible.Fox news is not very credible because their reporters don't even try to act like they might think about any view other than the radical right wing Republican view. I do watch it occasionally just to keep myself up to date on spin, though.CNN and C-Span can be good, as is NPR and BBC. At least they tend to have analysis and details. I try to read and listen close to source material, such as bin Laden's taped message about our planned invasion of Iraq, etc.I know a bit about the Bush regime's connection to the oil industry.I do the best I can.Oh, and I hope that the media would have the same bias that scientists are trained to have; a bias towards evidence and the truth.

quote:

---

Please note this is not an attack or trick question, I too have my skepticism about this "liberation of Iraq". However I have no solid evidence to say it is either right or wrong. I have the luxury of saying "well as rough as it looks it's not out of God's hands". How do you make such a strong judgement of proceedings when you have limited, faulty, and or biased facts?

---

I don't think I have made any judgements rashly or without pretty strong support.Can you give me an example?