Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

STOP the nonsence about a War for oil


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 04:27 PM

U.S. oil imports set record in 2003, trend seen up

Reuters, 12.31.03, 12:37 PM ET

By Bernard Woodall

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States imported a record 63 percent of its oil from foreign sources in 2003, government figures showed Wednesday, and oil analysts said that dependence is likely to rise in the new year.

Crude imports accounted for 62.9 percent of oil run through U.S. refineries, up from the previous record of 61.7 percent in 2001 and from last year's 61.2 percent, the Department of Energy said.

Twenty years ago, foreign crude accounted for only 28 percent of oil used by the United States, the world's biggest consumer -- then and now.

"Our domestic production has been going down in recent years or has stayed relatively flat, but we're running more and more through the refineries every year," said Doug MacIntyre, analyst with the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA is the statistical arm of the energy department.

"So, where is that crude going to come from? We have to get that from imports," MacIntyre said.

Crude imports also set a new high in 2003 in number of barrels at 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd). The amount of crude refined in the United States was also a record at 15.3 million barrels daily, the EIA said.

"Crude imports are going to continue to rise," said George Beranek, oil analyst with the Petroleum Finance Co. based in Washington. "It's just the inevitable result of increasing U.S. oil demand with flat to decreasing domestic supplies."

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

http://www.forbes.co...rtr1194997.html

Saudi Arabia number one.

Iraq number five with a bullet!

http://www.eia.doe.g...ent/import.html
  • 0

#22 robertromano

robertromano

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 05:27 PM

...Has as of yet had no profound or even important effect on the oil market or the US access to that market. if anything it is another step in the US realizing that we shouldn't rely on that region for our oil needs and it has enhanced the US desire for alternate energy.

It is "common knowledge" that this war is about oil for one reason. Those who oppose the war will experience cognitive dissonance if they recognize that the war is about the strategic importance of a US foothold in Iraq and not mostly about oil. Simply repeating the tired line about oil makes things much easier for them.

For some reason the basic fact that the US is spending millions, probably billions, on alternative energy plans doesn't deter them from this thought process.

The fact that this war costs more than simply buying the oil does not deter them. Or the fact that the US has billions of barrels of untapped oil in our own country. Or that we could just buy some from Canada.

One single pipeline, just because the US wanted to have the pipeline and now they have it, that must be the reasoning behind the war. (And that is if you don't even think about how Iraq isn't really a factor in the pipeline: it goes through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. And the purpose of the pipeline is to make the US and Europe less dependent on Persian oil, which directly contradicts the oil arguments put forth my many Pravda posters.

********IE - why attack Iraq to control their oil if we supposedly also attacked Iraq to build a pipeline to sideline Iraqi oil?)

The 37% of Russians who believe this war is about oil are overshadowed by 63% who don't, I am led to assume. Also, in Russia it should be expected that a large percentage of people find oil to be the catalyst for the war because Russia shares the US' interest in oil and Iraq. it is only natural they draw such conclusions, especially when you factor in the historic distrust of the US in Russia. As for the controversial pipeline, oil from Azerbaijan is currently shipped mainly through Russia, which has been pushing for pipelines through its territory. Moscow doesn't like the idea that it has to share oil transportation money with its neighbors in Trans-Caucasus. It opposes the pipeline and is quick to cast oil as a reason for the war because the new pipeline also sidelines Russia.

And to top it all off, this pipeline will let the US/West sideline some of our "strange bedfellows", like the Saudis, whom we have been supporting with oil payments for decades. Now we can spend the money on Caspian nations and divert our funds from inadvertently heading to terrorists or rogue states or fundamental regimes.

Actually finding some sort of proof or tangible evidence of the oil factor in the Iraq war is not quite as easy as simply repeating the line over and over.

Considering that the people of Iraq got practically ZERO NOTHING NADA from oil proceeds under Saddam's thumb.

And considering that soon they will be the recipients of hefty annual checks from oil profits, one should be able to draw the conlusion that, if nothing else, the Iraqi people will benefit from this new deal.
  • 0

#23 Slosh

Slosh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2387 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 05:32 PM

Wow, great post, rr !

I didn't know about the Azerbajdschan pipeline ...
  • 0

#24 robertromano

robertromano

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 05:55 PM

thanks! this tired oil excuse has been bugging me for a while now.

anyone who has actually thought about the wars results, the actual pipeline's path and purpose, or the effects that the war will have on Iraqis oil industry can easily discard the "blood for oil" argument as just another piece of easy-to-swallow bullshit peddled by the politically maladroit masses as some sort of definitive proof of US corruption and greed.

no good reason to believe it, yet it is still believed ardently by the stinking underbelly of society, even with mounds of evidence to dispute the claim.
  • 0

#25 CHORNYVOLK

CHORNYVOLK

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22452 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 06:15 PM

Wolfowitz: Iraq War Was About Oil
By George Wright
Guardian UK

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbors - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harboring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University

  • 0

#26 Slosh

Slosh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2387 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 06:20 PM

"""""""""""no good reason to believe it, yet it is still believed ardently by the stinking underbelly of society,""""""""""

Goddamn capitalism: internet access for the masses surely isn't the greatest of its achievements ... :P
  • 0

#27 robertromano

robertromano

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:34 PM

THAT ARTICLE HAS BEEN LAUGHED AT FOR A WHILE NOW.

You are quoting him OUT OF CONTEXT. Very dishonest, chorny. tsk tsk.

So, your "proof" is just another example of you crackheads believing a bunch of crap being fed to you. You are like sheep being led around by the liberal machine, being force-fed lies and propaganda....very sad.

i dont doubt wolfowitz said it is "swimming in oil" which is a common fact, but did he draw the direct correlation saying that US attacked and occupied Iraq just for oil!! Youre WAY WAY WAY OFF.

C'mon, did you really need me to debunk this for you? Did you really believe this news? Gimme something to work with, guys! Real proof, please, not these jokes!

Here is what he ACTUALLY said:

*************
Wolfowitz was answering a query regarding why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq:

"The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore."

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil he said. Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that "they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on."

*************

Chorny, you are looking to find one thing, and you are closing your eyes to all opposing views. That is why when you looked for the article you posted you IGNORED all the links to articles explaining and debunking your trashy tabloid style article.

In addition, the reporting of that is a prime example of liberal media warping what someone says to fit their needs. You can find many sites showing the real interview in the actual context.

You can check out this link in which someone already went through the trouble of explaining this simple matter to someone like you:
http://www.lies.com/...ves/000952.html

Liberal Media Misquotes Wolfowitz on Iraq War:
http://www.chronwatc...ay.asp?aid=2971
  • 0

#28 CHORNYVOLK

CHORNYVOLK

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22452 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:53 PM

I have a million other articles supportig the oil claim
  • 0

#29 B.U.S.H.T.A.P.O

B.U.S.H.T.A.P.O

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 760 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:57 PM

Chornyvolk why are you even waisting your time on this morons?
They got their agenda can't you see that man?
SCREW EM man don't even bother with them they are all bunch PIGS!
  • 0

#30 CHORNYVOLK

CHORNYVOLK

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22452 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:29 PM

!!
  • 0

#31 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:39 PM

Pilot..Now just try thinking here , just a little bit. Shouldnt be that hard should it.

War!!!! You taxpayers pay for war, not oil companies. He77, oil companies and rich people got tax breaks.

You pay for the war. You pay for protecting the oil fields during that war.

You pay huge American companies to help out during that war.

You, rather Washington, made new rules in Iraq that allows foreign ownership. And guess what is at the top of the list.

Money is scarce in Iraq, but good old America will find enough to steal, errr, buy at robbery prices, errrrr, at a fair market price, the oil rights of Iraq.

You see pilot, American oil companies will get bargain basement buys, with absolutely no expence attatched because you paid and will continue to pay their expenses through the guise of a fake war.

Ahhhhh, the greatest country in the world. Where morons get robbed daily and thank the crooks, errr, Government for doing it.


Owl
  • 0

#32 Cowboy

Cowboy

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3171 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:44 PM

Whether it was for oil or not; none of us know for certain. I would think that there would be a lot more substantial evidence from International observers if the Coalition was jockeying to take oil.

With theories and opinions aside, I'd like to see an International body act as a "watch dog" on the issue of oil and as soon as possible: US forces come home. I'm personally sick of the war and all the bullshyt in the world where adversarial stances are the norm and not the exception. I feel the Iraq war was a mixed bag - some good and some bad to come out of it.

What's done is done and now let's [Americans] embark on a new era focused on domestic policy, medicine, and science.
  • 0

#33 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:50 PM

What's done is done and now let's [Americans] embark on a new era focused on domestic policy, medicine, and science.

__________________

So easily said when it is your country who illegally invaded and is guilty of so many war crimes.

America sure doesnt see it that way about other countries or leaders.

He77, you still help Israel hunt down Germans from a war over sixty years ago.

What's done is done my azz. Not till everyone connected to this crime gets tried and punished, like your bullshit Governments insists for everyone else.

Owl
  • 0

#34 Cowboy

Cowboy

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3171 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:58 PM

Owl:

I've posted my opinion and it's one that advocates less meddling in foreign affairs and more focus on domestic issues.

You seem to be preaching to the choir by criticizing my post, rather than saying "good," I hope your government takes note and stays the fuq out of places they don't belong.
  • 0

#35 CHORNYVOLK

CHORNYVOLK

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22452 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 08:11 PM

JEWOLFWITZ SAID IT WAS FOR OIL

Wolfowitz: Iraq War Was About Oil
By George Wright
Guardian UK

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbors - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harboring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University
  • 0

#36 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 08:15 PM

"STOP the nonsence about a War for oil"

I agree!

.....Call it what it is; a war for the antiChrist communist ''jews''...
  • 0

#37 Varangian

Varangian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 788 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 08:41 PM

<<It is "common knowledge" that this war is about oil for one reason. Those who oppose the war will experience cognitive dissonance if they recognize that the war is about the strategic importance of a US foothold in Iraq and not mostly about oil.>>

RR,
1) The 'strategic importance of a US foothold in Iraq' is because of OIL.
2) You forget that the original 'cakewalk' premise was a dream that has increased the cost of the adventure dramatically.
3) Those who profit from an 'oil war' , and those who pay the price are not the same. Those who profit: Halliburton, Bechtel, defence contractors, and oil companies (for a variety of reasons), ie. those closest to this administration.
Those who pay: US taxpayers, soldiers, and Iraqi civilians, ie. the expendable, & manipulated.
Otherwise your cost/benefit analysis is correct.
  • 0

#38 Source

Source

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9046 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 08:49 PM

Interesting order there.

I'd have it innocents, soldiers, then taxpayers.
  • 0

#39 tjt517

tjt517

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7885 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 08:56 PM

Oil might not be the only reason but it is certainly a very important reason.
  • 0

#40 Shilka

Shilka

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20852 posts

Posted 31 January 2005 - 09:23 PM

Originally posted by pilot
The USA has no need or desire to control the oil in Iraq, because
controlling the oil is far more difficult and expensive to do than simply
buying it, as needed. There is plenty of oil available for sale in the
world, now and in the future. There is no upcoming shortage of oil such
that any country somehow needs to seize a big supply for itself. The USA
is a Capitalistic country, and it believes that free-market supply and
demand is the best way to assure the supply of anything. Why would the USA
want to go to all the trouble and danger of invading and governing Iraq
simply to obtain something that is readily available elsewhere, with no
trouble? It would cost far more money to invade and control Irag to get
the oil than simply to buy oil as needed in a free and open market. So it
makes no sense at all to claim that the USA intends to invade Iraq to get
the oil.





That's right!!! Santa exists, Elvis is still alive and everything on the FOXNEWS Channel is Gospel Truth! LOL :D
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru