Its Black and Burns!

Ok this thread is about oil, and moreso about a program I saw on TV last week. I don't know if the show was anti or pro war as it seemed to swing half way through, but I just wanted to share the opinions of the programs creators with you guys and girls.

The program began by examining oil production around the world. It said in all areas of the world, except the middle east, oil production was failing, and within 20 years or so many of the current oil producing areas would have run out. Examples were North Sea, some of the bigger wells in Texas and some south American countries. It then went on to make a case how the western world would crumble without oil, and explained that countries which are either exports or break even countries (like the UK*) would become net importers, and by 2020, the USA would have to import 60% of its oil.

Now here is where the war connection swings in:

The program said that unless the west could control the oil supply it would be at the mercy of the middle east, which would be particularly bad if the main oil producers #1 Saudi Arabia and #2 refused to trade with the West. This may seem odd now but if a Fundalmetalist government were to be established in Riyadh then it could be very real. Given that much of the funding for terrorist activities comes from Saudi, and indeed the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and indeed Bin Laden is by birth, it isn't so incredible. (Also from other news stories the Jordanian King is holding off an election and has dissolved parliament because of the strength of the Fundalmentalist party in Jordan http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...902.html)Hence it explained why the USA/UK etc wished to have a favourable government in Iraq, to safegaurd future oil supplies. It also went on to explain that in particular several companies already have agreements with Iraq to export oil once the UN sanctions were lifted, but who would lose out if the current regime changed. These were Total of France, Lukoil of Russia and an Irish firm (I forget the name of this one).

The program also claimed that Mr Rummsfeld had advised Mr Bush to attack Iraq after 9/11 whether they were responsible or not, in order to safeguard oil supplies.

*The UK does import and export oil, but the production figures roughly equal the usage numbers

[Masklinn]

No matter what you come up with, some will always say that US just want to free Iraqis.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: No matter what you come up with, some will always say that US just want to free Iraqis.

And some will continue to ignore the fact that Iraq has not disarmed in accordance with the '91 ceasefire. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

Freeing the Iraqi people is a side effect of disarming Saddam. A pretty good one, too. What was the positive side effect of leaving Saddam in power again?

[Skunk]

And some will continue to ignore the fact that Iraq has not disarmed in accordance with the '91 ceasefire

You may be right - although its become a standing joke in Gen. Franks daily press briefings, as each day he has to answer the same question in the negative:

"Have you found evidence of WMD's?"
"It's normally the lady over there that asks this question. Did she put you up to it"?

[Masklinn]

And some will continue to ignore the fact that Iraq has not disarmed in accordance with the '91 ceasefire.

Buuuuuuuuuh Ronn, not again please.
- There are so many countries that have not disarmed when told to. Though US will never bother with them, never.
- There are so many countries lead by dictators way worse than Saddam. US will never give a damn about them.
- Is Iraq a direct threat to US ? No way.

Stop lying to yourself Ronn and re read the first post of this thread.

[ 03-31-2003, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Stop lying to yourself Ronn and re read the first post of this thread.

I'm educated and I'm informed, but I've drawn different conclusions than you. I've tried to respect yours, so I'll ask you to respect mine.

Your comment is rude, and I would have expected better from you.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: You may be right - although its become a standing joke in Gen. Franks daily press briefings, as each day he has to answer the same question in the negative: "Have you found evidence of WMD's?" "It's normally the lady over there that asks this question. Did she put you up to it"?

True, but it certainly blows a hole in the theory that the US will be planting WoMD all over Iraq to justify the war doesn't it?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Quote: And some will continue to ignore the fact that Iraq has not disarmed in accordance with the '91 ceasefire.

Buuuuuuuuuh Ronn, not again please.
- There are so many countries that have not disarmed when told to. Though US will never bother with them, never.
- There are so many countries lead by dictators way worse than Saddam. US will never give a damn about them.
- Is Iraq a direct threat to US ? No way.[/QUOTE]Onto your other points...

No other nation has been so soundly defeated, and allowed to rebuild in spite of their agreement to disarm.

There are leaders who are worse than Saddam, and the UN doesn't give a damn about them either. So what's your point? No one should care about anything anyone else does?

Yes Iraq is a direct threat. Not in the conventional way, of course, but they can export WoMD if they are allowed to have them.

[Skunk]

I wish that was true - but I rather think that the charge will be levied even if the US do find a genuine chemical/biological weapon's cache.

There have been too many public revelations of 'falsified information' (esp.from the UK) for any claim in the future to be taken seriously. (Most notable was the 'Fake Nuclear document' See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html and Britains 'thesis plagiarism' scandal.)

The only way that the outside world will believe that SH does indeed have WMD's is if they are actually used on the battlefield. And that is definately *NOT* the way that I'd like the US to prove their case.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: The only way that the outside world will believe that SH does indeed have WMD's is if they are actually used on the battlefield. And that is definately *NOT* the way that I'd like the US to prove their case.

You are so right.