McCain Implies Iraq War is for Oil

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871




How do you suppose it got to $122 in the first place?

Like I said. There isn't enough of it for it to be less now.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

So are you changing your mind now? You now believe the war was for oil?

I think it was about several things. Oil was part of the puzzle. I've been saying that for some time.

You can't believe in those things and not apply them across the board. Either you believe in them, or you don't. You can't be a democracy and an empire.

Politics and international relations are arts of the possible. Inside the US, our principles fare better, because they're more... doable, for lack of a better word that springs to mind. In the arena of international relations, on the other hand, it's harder. Why? Because a good chunk of the world is undemocratic. So if you hold up democracy as principle #1, are you then obligated to refuse to deal with half the world? What, exactly, are the acceptable limitations of interaction with dictatorships? These questions are not easily answered. There are those who argue that the best way to change a repressive state is to engage it. Others believe the best method is to shun it and pass sanctions (South Africa, for example). Some favor a combo of carrot and stick.

And that's just ONE principle (albeit an important one). This isn't nearly as simple as you seem to believe it is.

What people argue and what they believe are two very different things in a country like the USA.

You need not limit that to the USA. What people believe and what they say are not necessarily the same thing, sure. I take it, then, that you think the neocons were lying about their motivations. That's possible. I think at least some were sincere, but others who didn't share their principles were happy to use them as cover (not just b/c of oil - again, this goes beyond oil).

Huh? How can you say that? I don't believe in fighting wars for oil at all.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that your individual principles do not match with those of the United States. I was talking about your communist beliefs. The USA is pro-capitalism, and would be even if it was 100% true to its principles. Thus, even if our foreign policy was perfectly principled, you wouldn't like it. Get it now?

Well, that's the difference, because I don't believe the US should be more powerfull than other nations.

Nobody stays on top forever, so eventually we'll fall back to the pack. Whether or not that will be a good thing for the world remains to be seen. It might be. It might not be. It rather depends on who takes up the slack.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Part of it is the weakness of the dollar.

[Arrian]

Regarding the pledge of allegiance, it is sketchy, no doubt about it. I stopped reciting it (but rather stood silently) sometime in middle school, IIRC. I thought it through and recognized it for what it is. I may have been helped a bit by my father mocking it (he's a Brit, and finds it silly).

It's actually rather clumsy.

-Arrian

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Like I said. There isn't enough of it for it to be less now.

Originally posted by Kidicious
We did, however, control the situation to insure that the oil keeps flowing in the largest supply that is possible. We do that with our military and with diplomacy.

[Arrian]

Obviously the Iraqi oil fields aren't producing as much as they could right now because of the insurgency/AQiM. It's hard to pump oil when people are blowing up the pipelines.

Did the Iraqi government sort out the oil sharing deal? That deal would probably contain the details one would need to determine the extent of US corporate control (if any) over Iraqi oil.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think it was about several things. Oil was part of the puzzle. I've been saying that for some time.

I don't see how oil being part of the puzzle would make it any more acceptable.

Politics and international relations are arts of the possible. Inside the US, our principles fare better, because they're more... doable, for lack of a better word that springs to mind. In the arena of international relations, on the other hand, it's harder. Why? Because a good chunk of the world is undemocratic. So if you hold up democracy as principle #1, are you then obligated to refuse to deal with half the world? What, exactly, are the acceptable limitations of interaction with dictatorships? These questions are not easily answered. There are those who argue that the best way to change a repressive state is to engage it. Others believe the best method is to shun it and pass sanctions (South Africa, for example). Some favor a combo of carrot and stick.

I don't think you understand the entirety of what I'm saying. It's that we don't have a democracy in the US because we don't believe in democracy in the world. We lie to ourselves. Our politicians lie to us and we lie to our children. We pay taxes and our children go fight wars because we all tell and believe lies. If that's democracy, then democracy isn't anything but a pile of crap.

You need not limit that to the USA. What people believe and what they say are not necessarily the same thing, sure. I take it, then, that you think the neocons were lying about their motivations. That's possible. I think at least some were sincere, but others who didn't share their principles were happy to use them as cover (not just b/c of oil - again, this goes beyond oil).

I'm not just talking about the neo-coms. I don't view the US like that, just the evil neo-cons and the rest of us good people. The whole society is ****ed up. I don't even believe most americans are good people anymore, like most communists do. I think americans are corrupted, at least most of them. I don't really know what percentage, but it's enough to make this one hell of a ****ed up country.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that your individual principles do not match with those of the United States. I was talking about your communist beliefs. The USA is pro-capitalism, and would be even if it was 100% true to its principles. Thus, even if our foreign policy was perfectly principled, you wouldn't like it. Get it now?

Let's see do any of these principle sound familiar to you...

Justice for all

All men are created equal

The principle of truth

... I believe all of those. What about you?

Nobody stays on top forever, so eventually we'll fall back to the pack. Whether or not that will be a good thing for the world remains to be seen. It might be. It might not be. It rather depends on who takes up the slack.

-Arrian

I don't know what that has to do with anything. I want to join with others who will fight for my principles.

[Patroklos]

[qoute]Nobody stays on top forever, so eventually we'll fall back to the pack.[/quote]

More likely others will rise to our level.

Haughty Kid babbling

and

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oil is $122 a barrel. Who the hell is stupid enough not to pump as much of it as they can out of the ****ing ground?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AD5DB145-498D-46CC-BD9D-010AA4DA6917.htm

Supply concerns from Opec members Nigeria and Iran as well as a weaker dollar pushed US crude prices up by $4 to $120.36 before closing at $119.97 on Monday.

Threats to pipelines in Iraq are also thought to have raised the commodity's value.

"People are piling back up on crude oil due to the weakness of the dollar and production issues in Nigeria," Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago, told Reuters.

Skirmishes between Kurdish and Turkish fighters in northern Iraq on Friday and Saturday also added to speculation of reduced oil supply.

[Kidlicious]

I guess you don't know that that article doesn't say less oil is being pumped out of the ground.

World Oil Production

[Kidlicious]

Oh, and I imagine you are getting these ideas from Clinton, since I heard her say she was going to go after OPEC. That's a pitifull lie.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Obviously the Iraqi oil fields aren't producing as much as they could right now because of the insurgency/AQiM. It's hard to pump oil when people are blowing up the pipelines.

Did the Iraqi government sort out the oil sharing deal? That deal would probably contain the details one would need to determine the extent of US corporate control (if any) over Iraqi oil.

-Arrian

The amazing thing is, look at Canada. That's where all the new oil is suppose to come from, but nothing significant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3285580.ece

Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the US-led invasion of 2003, reaching 2.4 million barrels a day, thanks largely to improved security measures in the north.

Production is expected to pass the prewar level of 2.6 million barrels by the end of the year, and Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi Oil Minister, told The Times that he expected production to reach six million barrels a day within four years.

So apparently they AREN'T pumping as much of it as they can... seeing as how the pre-war supply was higher and they are expected to almost triple their current supply in only FOUR YEARS (which would probably have been what Iraq was producing if it hadn't been under sanction).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3285580.ece

Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the US-led invasion of 2003, reaching 2.4 million barrels a day, thanks largely to improved security measures in the north.

Production is expected to pass the prewar level of 2.6 million barrels by the end of the year, and Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi Oil Minister, told The Times that he expected production to reach six million barrels a day within four years.

So apparently they AREN'T pumping as much of it as they can... seeing as how the pre-war supply was higher and they are expected to almost triple their current supply in only FOUR YEARS (which would probably have been what Iraq was producing if it hadn't been under sanction).

Are you actually saying that the US doesn't have control of that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Are you actually saying that the US doesn't have control of that?

Are you saying that if Saddam hadn't been sanctioned for 10 years he wouldn't have done the same?