|
Libya Situation (pg. 52)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Good news today out of Libya! Just kidding. French journalist Julien Fouchet describes seeing imams driving in a pick up truck and reciting prayers over a loudspeaker to the rebels. And Iman Bugaighis, the spokesman for the National Transition Council, admitted, "We have twenty-five fighters on the front that were linked to al-Qaeda." And this:
http://www.lejdd.fr/International/A...?from=headlines
And to make matters worse, a senior security official in Algeria claims that Al Qaeda is taking advantage of the turmoil in Libya to purchase weapons. From Reuters----> http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1303...ia-al-qaeda.htm |
So Qaddafi was right about the rebels and Al-Qaeda. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Absolutely we are. . |
Funny that - change of tune from your initial stance, ever since you realised I can back up my position, you seem far more agreeable.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
He thinks the US went to war at the behest of bush & cheney because they wanted to pad their bank account. I think that the US went to war due to the neo-conservatives dominating the republican party, who had long held desires to remove saddam from power, reduce the US’ dependence on hostile oil and create a democratic nation more suitable for US interests in the region.
|
Oh so you're pulling the "neocons" vs "real republicans" card. I've heard this from a couple of republicans now using it to distance themselves away from to administration that they were happy to vote for twice.
You say potato I say invasion for money. You can look for nuances all you want, it was about greed and making a small number of people even more wealthy, and it worked. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Funny that - change of tune from your initial stance, ever since you realised I can back up my position, you seem far more agreeable. |
you haven't backed up a single claim i asked of you. hint: we all know about the defence contractors. i was asking about oil.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Oh so you're pulling the "neocons" vs "real republicans" card. |
im not playing any "cards" at all. i am pointing out the fact that the PNAC guys were rewarded with prominent positions within the administration and this is a central reason for the iraq invasion. this is backed up by, well, everything that's ever come out of PNAC.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I've heard this from a couple of republicans now using it to distance themselves away from to administration that they were happy to vote for twice. |
cool story bro.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
You say potato I say invasion for money. You can look for nuances all you want, it was about greed and making a small number of people even more wealthy, and it worked. |
like i said, extremely childish opinions you seem to hold. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you haven't backed up a single claim i asked of you. hint: we all know about the defence contractors. i was asking about oil.
|
I'm not going to spoon feed you with the c0r version. Read the link I posted before in there with all the other links, it has detailed information on the entire Bush family's interests, including oil.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not playing any "cards" at all. i am pointing out the fact that the PNAC guys were rewarded with prominent positions within the administration and this is a central reason for the iraq invasion. this is backed up by, well, everything that's ever come out of PNAC.
|
WTF? Don't try that . What next, the Chewbaca defense?
Just about the only thing I respect about Bush is he that stood by his convictions, however misguided or destructive they were, and didn't back down or blame someone else. So don't out and say, well that's not true republican values, it's neocons or PNAC.
So ing what the PNAC guys got rewarded? So did every republican lobbyist, intelligence official, contractor and advisor, Neocon or not - it was a purebred republican administration and no matter how you try to distance yourself from the labels of "neocons within the party" or the PNAC contingent it's what the party became and still very much is today, along with the new breed birthers and teabaggers (essentially more of the same). You may very well want to distance yourself from that but unfortunately that's the majority of that party now, so deal with it and take some responsibility.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
cool story bro.
|
erm...
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
extremely childish
|
Seriously? You should have stuck with "but it was necons, not republicans". At least that has an excuse in there.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
like i said, extremely childish opinions you seem to hold. |
Er, you've already conceded that the war was about profiteering,in your eyes for defense contractors, but just choose not to want to believe the oil part.
Please explain how that makes it right or not "about money" and profiteering". My simple explanation about the war being for oil and money is correct. You may want to window dress it but I prefer to to sugar coat the invasion of other countries or blame "minority factions" within the ruling party for it.
Oh, if the war was about removing "reliance on hostile oil" (lol :rolleyes: ) then surely it would have been cheaper and easier to simply downscale the reliance on foreign "hostile" oil? Like invest in alternative means of fuel, or import more from non hostile counties like Canada and Saudi Arabia (no they're not hostile to the USA).
Your arguments just make no sense. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Oh, if the war was about removing "reliance on hostile oil" (lol :rolleyes: ) then surely it would have been cheaper and easier to simply downscale the reliance on foreign "hostile" oil? Like invest in alternative means of fuel, or import more from non hostile counties like Canada and Saudi Arabia (no they're not hostile to the USA).
|
just an FYI, CANADA is the number 1 for imports to the US for crude.
canada exports 2,149 BBL per day to the US
iraq exports 470 BBL per day to the US.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| your crude dude |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
I know, posted for the third time in this thread.
They also still have excess capacity and it's easier to transport than on ships from the middle east, so the only reason to get it form the middle east is when you can get it cheaper ;) |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I know, posted for the third time in this thread.
They also still have excess capacity and it's easier to transport than on ships from the middle east, so the only reason to get it form the middle east is when you can get it cheaper ;) |
Cushing oklahoma is pretty much at capacity, With WTI (US standard) trading on Brent's (North sea) fundamentals (currently brent is trading at 122$/bbl). So the issue of cheap oil is moot. No one wants expensive oil and no one wants cheap oil. A happy balance is the most profitable and sustainable for everyone. Iraq's primary customer for exports is asia with the western hemisphere making up only 30% of exports.
| quote: |
Exports
Iraq exported 1.8 million bbl/d of crude oil in 2009. About 1.5 million bbl/d of this came from Iraq’s Persian Gulf ports, with the rest exported via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline in the north. The majority of Iraqi oil exports go to refineries in Asia, especially China, India, and South Korea.
|
also
| quote: |
Iraq was the world’s 12th largest oil producer in 2009, and has the world’s fourth largest proven petroleum reserves after Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran. Just a fraction of Iraq’s known fields are in development, and Iraq may be one of the few places left where vast reserves, proven and unknown, have barely been exploited. Iraq’s energy sector is heavily based upon oil, with approximately 94 percent of its energy needs met with petroleum. In addition, crude oil export revenues accounted for over two-thirds of GDP in 2009 .
|
this is referenced from here:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IZ
also:
lets look at 2009 they took in 38.9 billion in exports of oil & gas per anum. that corresponds with a production number of 2.4 MILLION bbl per day at an average 2009 price of 56.5$ per barrel (remember we started 2009 with 30 $ per bbl)
so it looks to me like they are keeping their oil revenues. You can cross reference production #s with revenues. I have yet to see you post any facts with regards to bush raking in all that "export" money.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1034.htm |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
WTF? Don't try that . What next, the Chewbaca defense?
|
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'm not going to spoon feed you with the c0r version. Read the link I posted before in there with all the other links, it has detailed information on the entire Bush family's interests, including oil. |
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Just about the only thing I respect about Bush is he that stood by his convictions, however misguided or destructive they were, and didn't back down or blame someone else. So don't out and say, well that's not true republican values, it's neocons or PNAC. |
Are you ing retarded? I don’t give two ing s about republicans or neocons. They’re certainly tarred with the same brush as far as I am concerned. Im not trying to shift responsibility from one group of idiots to another. Im telling you what the principle cause of the retarded “nation building” ideology was.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
So ing what the PNAC guys got rewarded? So did every republican lobbyist, intelligence official, contractor and advisor, Neocon or not - it was a purebred republican administration and no matter how you try to distance yourself from the labels of "neocons within the party" or the PNAC contingent it's what the party became and still very much is today, along with the new breed birthers and teabaggers (essentially more of the same). You may very well want to distance yourself from that but unfortunately that's the majority of that party now, so deal with it and take some responsibility. |
You’re about as thick as they come. Yeah man, I should take some responsibility for a party I despise from a country I don’t live in. good argument!
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Seriously? You should have stuck with "but it was necons, not republicans". At least that has an excuse in there. |
nope, you’re ing childish. Ignoring reality and substituting it with simplistic and immature depictions of global politics.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Er, you've already conceded that the war was about profiteering,in your eyes for defense contractors, but just choose not to want to believe the oil part. |
I accepted that there the defence contractors made out like bandits, and this is well documented. What I was asking from you is to support the claim that bush’s family made money from the oil that was actually contracted to Russia and china.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Please explain how that makes it right or not "about money" and profiteering". My simple explanation about the war being for oil and money is correct. You may want to window dress it but I prefer to to sugar coat the invasion of other countries or blame "minority factions" within the ruling party for it. |
See, here’s what you obviously don’t understand. Even if you could prove to me that bush’s personal oil interests benefitted from the war, you still can’t show that this is what the war was about. the 911 conspiracy ‘tards say that this “evidence” proves 911 was an inside job. You’re both using the same evidence to “prove” retarded ideas. You’re making a (stupid) inference and then just asserting that it’s true.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Oh, if the war was about removing "reliance on hostile oil" (lol :rolleyes: ) then surely it would have been cheaper and easier to simply downscale the reliance on foreign "hostile" oil? Like invest in alternative means of fuel, or import more from non hostile counties like Canada and Saudi Arabia (no they're not hostile to the USA). |
Well, ill ignore the fact that I didn’t say this was the primary motive for war (reading comprehension fail) and just point out that the GOP are hardly the greenest of parties going around, but I do agree that would’ve been a much better solution.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Your arguments just make no sense. |
It does to the adults in the room. You just have a child’s appreciation of political realities. |
|
|
| Lews |
| DJ RANN, I'm having a hard time telling if you're trolling or just really this ignorant when it comes to politics, international relations, and economics. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
Just thought it was interesting that this showed up when I opened the thread, just now.
At least it didn't yell at me. |
|
|
|
|
