Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWould US attack Iran?!!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 17>
Author
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Would US attack Iran?!!
    Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 12:25
Since some of the main contributors themselves have indicated this thread has run out of steam, it is closed.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 11:02

You more or less agreed with everything I said, right?  I can't find anything to argue about or disagree with - although I surely wouldn't mind if this goes on forever, you know.
Oh I believe that! Most girls like to keep arguements going on forever! 

I think it was a good discussion, I learned alot, I hope you took away something too. Never thought I'd see a discussion really end on these forums. Look forward to future arguements with you.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 10:18

 

zagros wrote

Sorry, I have to get this out: I find threads nauseating after they reach a certain size.

Bye.    

"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 09:22
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You'd be so naiive to think that "news" isn't linked to the government.  Haven't you heard of PSYOPS and CNN?  Directly from the other side or not, to be "open minded" means to be open to all views and not avoid something because it's from the extreme other.  I don't think you'd lose anything by watching that video; it just speaks for most of us in the Middle East, not just the Iraqis - that's if you even care about how we feel.
Like I said, I don't believe entirely into something unless there are a few sources. The news in the US is definitly not in support of the government. They find things that will scare people and make the government look like it's not capable of doing anything. I'm mean the big story on the news is a new scandal of Bush knowing about all of the things Katrina was going to do, yet he didn't do anything about it and said he never knew about any of the catastrophies. The government and especially the brand new agency Bush has been pushing as great are not looking good at all at the moment.

I find on these message boards everything that has to do with news agencies are considered propaganda. While I like to look up more information before I fully believe in something, I really don't believe CNN is a propaganda machine for the government due to all the negitives it gives. Unless you consider CNN showing the negitives of the Iraq war, talking about the people being killed, and how they say insurgent numbers are just growing and make it seem as though the war will never end gives a good image of our government, then I guess I could agree with you that it is a propaganda machine.

Lol.  I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.
I give up!

If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not after it.
I don't know if your right or not. If it did end it wasn't because of the Palistinian government at that point, they were really pushing for peace.

I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of course.  Who doesn't want peace?  But we can't apply the Christian philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other cheek.  If you hit me, I'll hit you back.  I have the choice of forgiving you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to.  I don't support violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate, just like you believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.
Palistine and Israel are neighbors, both aren't going anywhere anytime soon. They have been fighting for what, 4-5 decades. Thousands dying, no end in sight. Really, both sides aren't good guys. The Palistinians and Isralies willing to talk are the way to go.

I didn't hear them talk about supporting the Palestinians.  I heard them talk specifically about pushing forward the peace process to solve the Middle East conflict, and "support Israel."
I honestly don't remember. And this really wouldn't work in winning the American vote except Evangelicals.

Calm down, lol.  Why do you take everything I say so personally?
I wasn't really upset, just typed it out clear as I could because I feel I had to mention more then once.

Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you basing your opinion on?  How do you know all chances of bringing peace have disappeared?  Give them a chance!  The US pushed for the elections and was giving big talks about democracy:  Here's what you got.  Deal with it!  In any case, I'm sure Hamas doesn't expect much from the US.  It has always relied on Arab/Muslim support.
Well like I said in the past, I didn't support them due to taking away freedom from the minorities. You know how you have strong faith in Islam, mine is with Freedom.

Here you go:

Hamas statements boost peace hopes

March 03, 2006 MOSCOW: Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to advance the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian ambassador to Russia announced last night.

Hamas "ties the question of recognising Israel as a state with the necessity to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories", ambassador Bakir Abdel Munem said, raising hopes of a major breakthrough in its standoff with Israel since its landmark election win.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

What else do you have against Hamas?

Give them a chance.  They just made a progress with the statement about "reconsidering" their position.  Doesn't that look promising to you?

Sure does now, but the first statement they said on the issue was "Israel will always be our enemy", that sure as hell didn't to me.

Also that comes from the future! It's march 2nd over here. You must be a fortune teller.

But I do see this as progress. The feeling they gave off when they first came in wasn't that of progress. So this is back to the talks I've been talking about above.

Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)[/qupte] Hey now, I wouldn't lie to you. It really would work!

 

 

Well thanks for posting it.

[quote]Technology also won't stand still on the consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110 miles to the gallon," he says.

That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of the question.

Well I do see this happening which will help out alot, I tend to see more car companies pushing for alternate fuels more and more every year. GM right now has the "Live Green go Yellow" campaign going and California's highways right now are being built with hydrogen fuel stations. The oil maybe a problem in a decade, but the industry has teken on a whole new approach to fuel. It's not even about the needs, it's becoming apart of pop culture to have alternate fuels and the car companies see a new market for it.

Also it seems the oil companies here are raising prices just for the hell of it. A inbestigation was launched to see if they had any reason to be raising prices and there really isn't any. Exxon made the highest profits ever by a company in the United States in the last quater. They definitly jacked up the prices using the war as an excuse. It seems everytime a suicide bomber blows up, or the US army is struggling the prices suddenly shoot up. And for what reason, we aren't getting oil from Iraq yet.

If anything, this article almost seems aimed to help bring up the idea of supporting the war for Bush supporters. The news is always talking about how the world is heating up from global warming, yet snow fall has been increasing for the past four years. Like I said, the news here likes to scare people.

It might be because of oil, but so far I think it's just because Bush is an idiot and wanting to finish something is father didn't finish. I think I'd rather believe it was for oil so I could stop guessing, but recent trends, oil being found in other parts of the world, and so on just don't point to it. I'm just going to go and further my research into it.



You more or less agreed with everything I said, right?  I can't find anything to argue about or disagree with - although I surely wouldn't mind if this goes on forever, you know.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for keeping the "discussion" respectful.
Back to Top
docyabut View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 07:59

Would US attack Iran?!!

In light of Iran`s theat to wipe Israel off the map and the palestines idealogy of not caring if they all commit sucide to do it , effecting the world with possiable mass destuction. How does the world stop it?

 

 

 

  

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 05:40

Well, what is certain is that not unless Iran attacked the US.

Sorry, I have to get this out: I find threads nauseating after they reach a certain size.

Bye.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 21:23
Would US attack Iran?!!

no
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 15:42

You'd be so naiive to think that "news" isn't linked to the government.  Haven't you heard of PSYOPS and CNN?  Directly from the other side or not, to be "open minded" means to be open to all views and not avoid something because it's from the extreme other.  I don't think you'd lose anything by watching that video; it just speaks for most of us in the Middle East, not just the Iraqis - that's if you even care about how we feel.
Like I said, I don't believe entirely into something unless there are a few sources. The news in the US is definitly not in support of the government. They find things that will scare people and make the government look like it's not capable of doing anything. I'm mean the big story on the news is a new scandal of Bush knowing about all of the things Katrina was going to do, yet he didn't do anything about it and said he never knew about any of the catastrophies. The government and especially the brand new agency Bush has been pushing as great are not looking good at all at the moment.

I find on these message boards everything that has to do with news agencies are considered propaganda. While I like to look up more information before I fully believe in something, I really don't believe CNN is a propaganda machine for the government due to all the negitives it gives. Unless you consider CNN showing the negitives of the Iraq war, talking about the people being killed, and how they say insurgent numbers are just growing and make it seem as though the war will never end gives a good image of our government, then I guess I could agree with you that it is a propaganda machine.

Lol.  I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.
I give up!

If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not after it.
I don't know if your right or not. If it did end it wasn't because of the Palistinian government at that point, they were really pushing for peace.

I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of course.  Who doesn't want peace?  But we can't apply the Christian philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other cheek.  If you hit me, I'll hit you back.  I have the choice of forgiving you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to.  I don't support violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate, just like you believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.
Palistine and Israel are neighbors, both aren't going anywhere anytime soon. They have been fighting for what, 4-5 decades. Thousands dying, no end in sight. Really, both sides aren't good guys. The Palistinians and Isralies willing to talk are the way to go.

I didn't hear them talk about supporting the Palestinians.  I heard them talk specifically about pushing forward the peace process to solve the Middle East conflict, and "support Israel."
I honestly don't remember. And this really wouldn't work in winning the American vote except Evangelicals.

Calm down, lol.  Why do you take everything I say so personally?
I wasn't really upset, just typed it out clear as I could because I feel I had to mention more then once.

Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you basing your opinion on?  How do you know all chances of bringing peace have disappeared?  Give them a chance!  The US pushed for the elections and was giving big talks about democracy:  Here's what you got.  Deal with it!  In any case, I'm sure Hamas doesn't expect much from the US.  It has always relied on Arab/Muslim support.
Well like I said in the past, I didn't support them due to taking away freedom from the minorities. You know how you have strong faith in Islam, mine is with Freedom.

Here you go:

Hamas statements boost peace hopes

March 03, 2006 MOSCOW: Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to advance the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian ambassador to Russia announced last night.

Hamas "ties the question of recognising Israel as a state with the necessity to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories", ambassador Bakir Abdel Munem said, raising hopes of a major breakthrough in its standoff with Israel since its landmark election win.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

What else do you have against Hamas?

Give them a chance.  They just made a progress with the statement about "reconsidering" their position.  Doesn't that look promising to you?

Sure does now, but the first statement they said on the issue was "Israel will always be our enemy", that sure as hell didn't to me.

Also that comes from the future! It's march 2nd over here. You must be a fortune teller.

But I do see this as progress. The feeling they gave off when they first came in wasn't that of progress. So this is back to the talks I've been talking about above.

Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)[/qupte] Hey now, I wouldn't lie to you. It really would work!

 

 

Well thanks for posting it.

[quote]Technology also won't stand still on the consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110 miles to the gallon," he says.

That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of the question.

Well I do see this happening which will help out alot, I tend to see more car companies pushing for alternate fuels more and more every year. GM right now has the "Live Green go Yellow" campaign going and California's highways right now are being built with hydrogen fuel stations. The oil maybe a problem in a decade, but the industry has teken on a whole new approach to fuel. It's not even about the needs, it's becoming apart of pop culture to have alternate fuels and the car companies see a new market for it.

Also it seems the oil companies here are raising prices just for the hell of it. A inbestigation was launched to see if they had any reason to be raising prices and there really isn't any. Exxon made the highest profits ever by a company in the United States in the last quater. They definitly jacked up the prices using the war as an excuse. It seems everytime a suicide bomber blows up, or the US army is struggling the prices suddenly shoot up. And for what reason, we aren't getting oil from Iraq yet.

If anything, this article almost seems aimed to help bring up the idea of supporting the war for Bush supporters. The news is always talking about how the world is heating up from global warming, yet snow fall has been increasing for the past four years. Like I said, the news here likes to scare people.

It might be because of oil, but so far I think it's just because Bush is an idiot and wanting to finish something is father didn't finish. I think I'd rather believe it was for oil so I could stop guessing, but recent trends, oil being found in other parts of the world, and so on just don't point to it. I'm just going to go and further my research into it.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 14:39
Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?

By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY

Almost since the dawn of the oil age, people have worried about the taps running dry. So far, the worrywarts have been wrong. Oil men from John D. Rockefeller to T. Boone Pickens always manage to find new gushers.

But now, a vocal minority of experts says world oil production is at or near its peak. Existing wells are tiring. New discoveries have disappointed for a decade. And standard assessments of what remains in the biggest reservoirs in the Middle East, they argue, are little more than guesses.

"There isn't a middle argument. It's a finite resource. The only debate should be over when we peak," says Matthew Simmons, a Houston investment banker and author of a new book that questions Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

Today's gasoline prices are high because Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupted oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. But emergency supplies from strategic oil reserves in the United States and abroad can largely compensate for that temporary shortfall. If the "peak oil" advocates are correct, however, today's transient shortages and high prices will soon become a permanent way of life. Just as individual oil fields inevitably reach a point at which it gets harder and more expensive to extract the oil before output declines, global oil production is about to crest, they say. Since 2000, the cost of finding and developing new sources of oil has risen about 15% annually, according to the John S. Herold consulting firm.

As global demand rises, American consumers will find themselves in a bidding war with others around the world for scarce oil supplies. That will send prices of gasoline, heating oil and all petroleum-related products soaring.

"The least-bad scenario is a hard landing, global recession worse than the 1930s," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University professor emeritus of geosciences. "The worst-case borrows from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, famine, pestilence and death."

He's not kidding: Production of pesticides and fertilizers needed to sustain crop yields rely on large quantities of chemicals derived from petroleum. And Stanford University's Amos Nur says China and the United States could "slide into a military conflict" over oil.

Rising global demand for oil

There's no question that demand is rising. Last year, global oil consumption jumped 3.5%, or 2.8 million barrels a day. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects demand rising from the current 84 million barrels a day to 103 million barrels by 2015. If China and India where cars and factories are proliferating madly start consuming oil at just one-half of current U.S. per-capita levels, global demand would jump 96%, according to Nur.

Such forecasts put the doom in doomsday. Many in the industry reject the notion that global oil production can't keep up. "This is the fifth time we've run out of oil since the 1880s," scoffs Daniel Yergin, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1991 oil industry history The Prize.

In June, Yergin's consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in Cambridge, Mass., concluded oil supplies would exceed demand through 2010. Plenty of new oil is likely to be found in the Middle East and off the coasts of Brazil and Nigeria, Yergin says.

"There's a lot more oil out there still to find," says Peter Jackson, a veteran geologist who co-authored the CERA study.

Based on current technology, peak oil production won't occur before 2020, Yergin says. And even if it does, oil production volumes won't plummet immediately; they'll coast for years on an "undulating plateau," he says.

Debate growing sharper

Both sides in the peak oil controversy agree that oil is a finite resource and that every year, the world consumes more oil than it discovers. But those are about the only things they agree upon.

As the debate has persisted, it's grown personal. "Peak oil" believers disparage those who disagree as mere "economists" in thrall to the magic of the marketplace or simple-minded "optimists" who assume every new well will score.

Yergin emphasizes that the CERA study was developed by geologists and petroleum engineers, not social scientists. Of Simmons, Yergin says: "He's wonderful at stirring up an argument and slinging around rhetoric. ... For some of these people, it seems to be a theological issue. For us, it's an analytic issue."

When they're not trading insults, the two sides disagree fiercely over the likelihood of future technology breakthroughs, prospects for so-called unconventional fuel sources such as oil sands and even the state of Saudi Arabia's reserves.

The world's No. 1 oil exporter, in fact, is at the center of Simmons' new book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, which has reinvigorated the peak oil argument.

Simmons says it's impossible for global production to keep up with surging demand unless the Saudis can increase daily production beyond today's 9.5 million barrels and continue pumping comfortably for decades. And, indeed, Yergin is counting on the Saudis to reach 13 million barrels a day by 2015.

Yet while the oil reserves of U.S. firms are verified by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Saudis like other OPEC countries don't allow independent audits of their reservoirs. So when Riyadh says it has 263 billion barrels locked up beneath the desert, the world has to take it at its word.

Simmons didn't. Instead, two years ago, he pulled about 200 technical papers from the files of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and performed his own assessment. His conclusion: The Saudis are increasingly straining to drag oil out of aging fields and could suffer a "production collapse" at any time.

Yergin is more optimistic both about the Saudis and the industry's prospects in general. If the past is any guide, technological breakthroughs will reshape both demand and supply, he says. In the 1970s, for example, the deepest offshore wells were drilled in 600 feet of water. Today, a Chevron well in the Gulf of Mexico draws oil from 10,011 feet below the surface.

Widespread use of technologies such as remote sensing and automation in "digital oil fields" could boost global oil reserves by 125 billion barrels, CERA says. Already, advanced software and "down hole measurement" devices to track what's happening in the well have elevated recovery rates in some North Sea fields to 60% from the industry average of 35%, Jackson says.

Technology also won't stand still on the consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110 miles to the gallon," he says.

That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of the question.

Still, breakthroughs don't just happen, and in the late 1990s, after oil prices fell as low as $12 a barrel, major oil companies slashed research spending. Some who previously doubted the peak oil claims now wonder whether the industry is equipped to develop the necessary innovations.

"Before 1998, I was on the side that said, 'Technology solves all problems,' " says Roger Anderson of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. "The problem is, after $12 oil, oil companies responded by merging and firing large portions of their technical staff."

Now, the International Energy Agency in Paris estimates that $5 trillion in new spending is needed over the next 30 years to improve exploration and production.

The limits of technology

As oil prices now about $63 a barrel stay elevated, so-called unconventional supplies of oil become economically feasible. Exhibit one: enormous deposits of Canadian oil sands, which could eventually yield more than 170 billion barrels of oil. On the list of the world's biggest oil countries, that total puts the USA's northern neighbor behind only Saudi Arabia.

That's the good news. The bad news is that wringing oil from the sludge-like tar sands is difficult and costly, and requires enormous quantities of water and natural gas itself an ever-pricier fuel.

Deffeyes calls talk of substantial tar sands production "the fantasy of economists," adding: "They believe if you show up at the cashier's window with enough money, God will put more oil in the ground."

In recent months, the peak oil camp has received support from some fairly sober quarters, including the U.S. government. A 91-page study prepared in February for the Energy Department concluded: "The world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil production ... (a problem) unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society."

So far, almost no one in government is calling for immediate action because of the peak oil argument. But in a recent interview with USA TODAY, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sounded less than sanguine about the future.

"There's plenty of oil to deal with this over the near term, five years. But if you look out over the next 20, 25 years, we expect demand to grow 50% to 120 million barrels a day. I wouldn't want to opine that's available," says Bodman, a former professor of chemical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It could be, but I don't know."

Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 14:38
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

That's the situation in Sudan, but what's that other rival country that would have ignored the UN and invaded a sovereign state for oil?
is this a trick question?


Too simple, no?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I already told you before, I try not to believe information from one source. This source is directly from the other side. The news, while I will take it with a grain of salt, isn't linked to the government. If you ever watch the news here you'd see thatif there was propaganda it would be the kind making the government look bad. They show Bush ignoring people, lying about the war,showing he doesn't care about security, makes him out as a hypocrite, and shows that the US citizens don't support him and recently believe that Congress is doing a horrible job too.

You also use a US source below. Thats a news agency just like any other in the US. They are no different. But like I said, I tend not to believe things directly involved with one side that in a fight and I like to take multiple sources.

I try my best to avoid using "our sources" (such as Al Jazeera), and stick to your own to make it eaiser for you to believe the content of the information posted.  You seem to be inclined to believe your sources, but I may be wrong. 

You'd be so naiive to think that "news" isn't linked to the government.  Haven't you heard of PSYOPS and CNN?  Directly from the other side or not, to be "open minded" means to be open to all views and not avoid something because it's from the extreme other.  I don't think you'd lose anything by watching that video; it just speaks for most of us in the Middle East, not just the Iraqis - that's if you even care about how we feel.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

What I'm saying is I'm not a judge. I believe the the court system but I'm not in it. You were saying I was bragging about the US court system, I was just saying what it was about. Then you made it out as though I should follow the mechanics of it as though it should effect my opinion. Thats not the case and but I said if you want us to we could bring them on trial where in court they will be innocent until proven guilty. Thats in court though.

Lol.  I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Not always.  You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with.  In this case, the verse below applies
But there was a chance for peace! How can you deny it? It's almost as though your just arguing this case just to argue. It was some short lived actual progress.

If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not after it.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and Al Gore (in the first elections) compete with each other on who would support Israel more.  That was quire a competition.
I guess you remember more then me because all I remember was them saying they wanted to bring peace to the two countries. Which makes more sense to say as thats how you sell a product. Whether they ment it or not I don't know exactly, but thats called, "Talking like a Politician".

I didn't hear them talk about supporting the Palestinians.  I heard them talk specifically about pushing forward the peace process to solve the Middle East conflict, and "support Israel."

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land.  They're only giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67.  They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that matter. 
That was right when peace talks were really making progress. That was when the Palistinian Government and Israely government were actually talking. That was some "Progress" that is now lost due to Hamas. Your arguing for violence when you should want peace. I mean, how could you not want that small possibilty that there won't be bloodshed?

I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of course.  Who doesn't want peace?  But we can't apply the Christian philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other cheek.  If you hit me, I'll hit you back.  I have the choice of forgiving you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to.  I don't support violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate, just like you believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Of course they have to move out.  Who cares what the settlers think?  They're settlers after all, who live on stolen land that belongs to others.  Do you ask for the thief's permission before returning the stolen property to its rightful owner?  Use some common sense.
They don't have to do anything, they should move out though. But it's up to the Israelies as it's obvious no one else is going to force them out. It wasn't violence that made them give back those settlements, it was peace talks and Hamas refuses to take part in any now.

Here you go:

Hamas statements boost peace hopes

March 03, 2006 MOSCOW: Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to advance the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian ambassador to Russia announced last night.

Hamas "ties the question of recognising Israel as a state with the necessity to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories", ambassador Bakir Abdel Munem said, raising hopes of a major breakthrough in its standoff with Israel since its landmark election win.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

What else do you have against Hamas?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

They maybe theives, but they are theives that could do a hell of alot worse. Peace talks stopped violence and land was returned. How can you go against that? Who knows what could have happened if they continued.


I don't see why there's no chance for these peace talks to continue.  The Palestinians conceded to sitting at the same table with Ariel Sharon; the war criminal.


Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Like I said numerous times, I don't like Israel at all. I wish they weren't our ally at all. They do nothing for us. How many times do I have to say this, your acting like I do support them.

The only thing I've been arguing is a chance of some progress and maybe a future without bloodshed. I doubt Israel will ever leave, but if there is a possibilty to end blood shed and allow the two sides to talk, I'm all for it. But Hamas has said they won't do that at all and want to continue a fight that kills people and proves nothing, solves nothing, and continues to go no where.


Calm down, lol.  Why do you take everything I say so personally?

We're all for peace, as long as it helps the Palestinian cause.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And that's fine, but the US government said they won't support them. It seems pretty frustrating when you almost have a possibilty of making some good progress and then all of a sudden over a decade of work to bring some sort of peace just disappears.

Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you basing your opinion on?  How do you know all chances of bringing peace have disappeared?  Give them a chance!  The US pushed for the elections and was giving big talks about democracy:  Here's what you got.  Deal with it!  In any case, I'm sure Hamas doesn't expect much from the US.  It has always relied on Arab/Muslim support.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

People were dying as they were before, land was given back, to enemies were shaking hands, progress was made, and a new leader came in and said that's it, we don't want it. Does that honestly sound right to you?

Give them a chance.  They just made a progress with the statement about "reconsidering" their position.  Doesn't that look promising to you?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market.  Take a look
The link doesn't work. But if you get it to work or find couple of sources that show we are going to need oil badly within the next decade, then I'll believe you that this war is for oil. Though it won't really change my view on the war, it just gives me another reason not to agree with it and I'll probably send a letter to my representatives similar to this one: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/letter3.html 

I think both of us share the same views, and what we want, but not the reasoning behind it all.


Hmm .. Maybe!

Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)

Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 13:44

That's the situation in Sudan, but what's that other rival country that would have ignored the UN and invaded a sovereign state for oil?
is this a trick question?

So anything un-American is propaganda to you, even without seeing it?  Tells a lot about your open-mindedness, you know.  Sorry about your computer, I guess!
I already told you before, I try not to believe information from one source. This source is directly from the other side. The news, while I will take it with a grain of salt, isn't linked to the government. If you ever watch the news here you'd see thatif there was propaganda it would be the kind making the government look bad. They show Bush ignoring people, lying about the war,showing he doesn't care about security, makes him out as a hypocrite, and shows that the US citizens don't support him and recently believe that Congress is doing a horrible job too.

You also use a US source below. Thats a news agency just like any other in the US. They are no different. But like I said, I tend not to believe things directly involved with one side that in a fight and I like to take multiple sources.

Sorry, I didn't understand this.
What I'm saying is I'm not a judge. I believe the the court system but I'm not in it. You were saying I was bragging about the US court system, I was just saying what it was about. Then you made it out as though I should follow the mechanics of it as though it should effect my opinion. Thats not the case and but I said if you want us to we could bring them on trial where in court they will be innocent until proven guilty. Thats in court though.

Not always.  You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with.  In this case, the verse below applies
But there was a chance for peace! How can you deny it? It's almost as though your just arguing this case just to argue. It was some short lived actual progress.

I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and Al Gore (in the first elections) compete with each other on who would support Israel more.  That was quire a competition.
I guess you remember more then me because all I remember was them saying they wanted to bring peace to the two countries. Which makes more sense to say as thats how you sell a product. Whether they ment it or not I don't know exactly, but thats called, "Talking like a Politician".

And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land.  They're only giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67.  They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that matter. 
That was right when peace talks were really making progress. That was when the Palistinian Government and Israely government were actually talking. That was some "Progress" that is now lost due to Hamas. Your arguing for violence when you should want peace. I mean, how could you not want that small possibilty that there won't be bloodshed?

Of course they have to move out.  Who cares what the settlers think?  They're settlers after all, who live on stolen land that belongs to others.  Do you ask for the thief's permission before returning the stolen property to its rightful owner?  Use some common sense.
They don't have to do anything, they should move out though. But it's up to the Israelies as it's obvious no one else is going to force them out. It wasn't violence that made them give back those settlements, it was peace talks and Hamas refuses to take part in any now.

They maybe theives, but they are theives that could do a hell of alot worse. Peace talks stopped violence and land was returned. How can you go against that? Who knows what could have happened if they continued.

No matter what, even when and if a peace is ever achieved, the Israelis will always remain the thieves, who had stolen the lands of other people, and established their state on the expense of another nation.  I don't know if you'd like to live in camps like Palestinian refugees, when you know you have a land but cannot return to it.  How can you give someone, who claims that their ancestors had lived in the land some 2000 years ago the "right of return," while those who have been expelled not even a century ago are still living in camps and do not have the right to return to their homelands?!
Like I said numerous times, I don't like Israel at all. I wish they weren't our ally at all. They do nothing for us. How many times do I have to say this, your acting like I do support them.

The only thing I've been arguing is a chance of some progress and maybe a future without bloodshed. I doubt Israel will ever leave, but if there is a possibilty to end blood shed and allow the two sides to talk, I'm all for it. But Hamas has said they won't do that at all and want to continue a fight that kills people and proves nothing, solves nothing, and continues to go no where.

This is democracy and the people's free will.  The people elect whom they believe will represent them better to the world.  Hamas does represent the Palestinian frustration and patience that's running out.
And that's fine, but the US government said they won't support them. It seems pretty frustrating when you almost have a possibilty of making some good progress and then all of a sudden over a decade of work to bring some sort of peace just disappears.

People weren't dying as they were before, land was given back, two enemies were shaking hands, progress was made, and a new leader came in and said that's it, we don't want it. Does that honestly sound right to you?

Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market.  Take a look
The link doesn't work. But if you get it to work or find couple of sources that show we are going to need oil badly within the next decade, then I'll believe you that this war is for oil. Though it won't really change my view on the war, it just gives me another reason not to agree with it and I'll probably send a letter to my representatives similar to this one: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/letter3.html 

I think both of us share the same views, and what we want, but not the reasoning behind it all.



 



Edited by SearchAndDestroy
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 12:33
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?
I said it kind of confirms the idea. I also said before I'll probably never know the reason to the war. I'm only trying to find a reason. And if the idea is true, it's not about getting oil but preventing another country from getting it.


That's the situation in Sudan, but what's that other rival country that would have ignored the UN and invaded a sovereign state for oil?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Which reminds me:  Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?
That propaganda with the guy wearing a mask? It froze my computer.

So anything un-American is propaganda to you, even without seeing it?  Tells a lot about your open-mindedness, you know.  Sorry about your computer, I guess!

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?
Yeah the courts do. Would you like us to put them on trial? I honestly wouldn't!

Sorry, I didn't understand this.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Besides it's not the Islamic nature at all, I thought in Islam your supposed to be trying to avoid conflict any way you can anyways? I'll go on further down.

Not always.  You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with.  In this case, the verse below applies:

"And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil)." [2:194]

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?
And the Clinton adminstration never showed any aggression towards them and pushed on trying to bring peace between the two nations. And Bush continued, though he probably never would have gone with it if he wasn't picking up before the previous adminstration.

But Bush did try and before Hamas came in they were actually agreeing on things. I mean, Israel was actually pulling out of areas which pissed off their own citizens. You can't say that wasn't a move in the right direction.


I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and Al Gore (in the first elections) compete with each other on who would support Israel more.  That was quire a competition.

And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land.  They're only giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67.  They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that matter. 

Look at the map after the 1948 partition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Pal estine_1947.png

And the map after the 1967 occupation:

http://www.countrysidebible.com/audio/2002-Israel/maps/1967- before-six-day-war.jpg

Of course they have to move out.  Who cares what the settlers think?  They're settlers after all, who live on stolen land that belongs to others.  Do you ask for the thief's permission before returning the stolen property to its rightful owner?  Use some common sense.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.
Continuing from above, I gave you the link the other day with the Hamas leader saying that Israel will always be it's enemy and they believe they are winning because they were elected. Does this honestly sound like they are progressing in the right direction?

No matter what, even when and if a peace is ever achieved, the Israelis will always remain the thieves, who had stolen the lands of other people, and established their state on the expense of another nation.  I don't know if you'd like to live in camps like Palestinian refugees, when you know you have a land but cannot return to it.  How can you give someone, who claims that their ancestors had lived in the land some 2000 years ago the "right of return," while those who have been expelled not even a century ago are still living in camps and do not have the right to return to their homelands?!

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.
Whats your point here, the next adminstration came in and were pushing for peace even further then Arafat. Unfortunatly they weren't in for the long term and Hamas got voted in.

This is democracy and the people's free will.  The people elect whom they believe will represent them better to the world.  Hamas does represent the Palestinian frustration and patience that's running out.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

On oil, I still can't see it the reason for attacking them unless we plan on stealing oil from Iraq, which will never happen and sell it for a higher price. I mean, they can't force us to buy more oil, we are far from a shortage, and the only reason oil prices are going up is because the companies are greedy over hear.

Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market.  Take a look:

 http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-1 0-16-oil-1a-cover-usat_x.htm


Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 00:25

I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?
I said it kind of confirms the idea. I also said before I'll probably never know the reason to the war. I'm only trying to find a reason. And if the idea is true, it's not about getting oil but preventing another country from getting it.

I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say:  Do some research.  And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's daughters, FYI, is not true.
Information gets pushed around the easily today with the internet, so it's not isolated to one area anymore unless you expierence something first hand. I did do research.

Which reminds me:  Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?
That propaganda with the guy wearing a mask? It froze my computer.

You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?
Yeah the courts do. Would you like us to put them on trial? I honestly wouldn't!

Besides it's not the Islamic nature at all, I thought in Islam your supposed to be trying to avoid conflict any way you can anyways? I'll go on further down.

Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?
And the Clinton adminstration never showed any aggression towards them and pushed on trying to bring peace between the two nations. And Bush continued, though he probably never would have gone with it if he wasn't picking up before the previous adminstration.

But Bush did try and before Hamas came in they were actually agreeing on things. I mean, Israel was actually pulling out of areas which pissed off their own citizens. You can't say that wasn't a move in the right direction.

Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.
Continuing from above, I gave you the link the other day with the Hamas leader saying that Israel will always be it's enemy and they believe they are winning because they were elected. Does this honestly sound like they are progressing in the right direction?

Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.
Whats your point here, the next adminstration came in and were pushing for peace even further then Arafat. Unfortunatly they weren't in for the long term and Hamas got voted in.

On oil, I still can't see it the reason for attacking them unless we plan on stealing oil from Iraq, which will never happen and sell it for a higher price. I mean, they can't force us to buy more oil, we are far from a shortage, and the only reason oil prices are going up is because the companies are greedy over hear.

I love talking to girls, but arguing with them can go on forever. But I'll never give up, because a man never loses!

Sorry I didn't answer you yesterday, I didn't see. So sorry I kept you waiting...

 


 

 

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 13:04
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

In this article it mentions China's interest in oil. In away this kid of confirms what I think the US went to Iraq for.


I thought you said you didn't believe the US went to Iraq for oil?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.
There definitly isn't any justification in it, but there also isn't any reason for wanting to hit civilian targets.

You don't drop down bombs randomly and not expect them to cause any civilian damage.  Did you, by any chance, see the invasion of Iraq live on TV?  It couldn't have been smart-targeting.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Well besides some of the Al Qaida miltants that were apart of the Taliban miltary or atleast supporting it and all the terrorist camps, from what I heard to should a great friendship between the two, one of Osama's sons married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. That shows some pretty good evidence. Even the clinton adminstration knew about Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan and fired cruise missiles at three of them in the late 90s.

I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say:  Do some research.  And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's daughters, FYI, is not true.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

  • Saudi Arabia (OPEC) - 10.37 MMbbl/d
  • Russia - 9.27 MMbbl/d
  • United States 1 - 8.69 MMbbl/d
  • Iran (OPEC) - 4.09 MMbbl/d
  • Mexico 1 - 3.83 MMbbl/d
  • China 1 - 3.62 MMbbl/d
  • Norway 1 - 3.18 MMbbl/d
  • Canada 1 - 3.14 MMbbl/d
  • Venezuela (OPEC) 1 - 2.86 MMbbl/d
  • United Arab Emirates (OPEC) - 2.76 MMbbl/d
  • Kuwait (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • Nigeria (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • United Kingdom 1 - 2.08 MMbbl/d
  • Iraq (OPEC) 2 - 2.03 MMbbl/d
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
  • This is how much is produced a day. I didn't do the math, but I'm willing to bet 110 billion barrels won't really last long at all. And obviously their production isn't as high as other allies of ours.


    You obviously did not even check the links I gave you.  Here are some excerpts from the article to explain the figures you gave:

    "They put the brakes on Iraq. Development stalled, exploration was restrained and Iraq Petroleum acquired all remaining concessions in order to shut out competition."

    "By 1960, Iraq Petroleum had developed only eight out of the 35 oilfields discovered in Iraq."

    "But the new era was snuffed out by the 1979 rise to power of Saddam Hussein, who diverted oil revenue from development toward imperial goals and left the vast majority of newly discovered fields untapped."

    "Some figures reveal just how untouched Iraq is: since oil production began at the dawn of the 20th century, only 2,300 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with about 1 million in Texas. A large part of the countrythe western desert areais still mainly unexplored."

    "Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been at least partially developed. And 70 percent of current capacity derives from just three old fields: Kirkuk, discovered in 1927, and North and South Rumailah, discovered in 1951 and 1962, respectively."

    Which reminds me:  Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Thats not the point, if a government supports the Sharia laws, does that not show that the government is in support of Muslims? Some muslim countries persecuted other sects of Muslims, the Taliban themselves persecuted Shia and killed about 15,000 them from what I read. You can't say Hamas doesn't have extreme ideas either. Though it's yet to be seen, there is still a high possiblity.

    You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    But like I said, just showing you support a certain group is enough to make a person uneasy. I get made everytime Bush brings up God because he's not supposed to. It just shows who the politicians are in more support of.

    Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    I already said numerous times my dislike of Israel. But on point, you can't deny just before the election there was alot of progress with both sides talking of peace with one another, Israel pulling out of settlements handing them over to Palistinians, and the last Palistinian leader actually making a huge move for peace. Now hamas has came in and said they were sworn enemies. Does that sound like progress to you?

    Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Would you rather the constant fighting over the possiblity of peace between the two that could have been made before Hamas came in?

    If there was a possibility of peace, it would have happened with or without Hamas.  You can't use Hamas as a scapegoat.  Hamas just recently won the elections, and the post-Arafat government has been doing its best for a year now.  Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.

    Who provoked this whole intifada anyway?

    Back to Top
    SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
    Caliph
    Caliph
    Avatar

    Joined: 15-Aug-2004
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 2728
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 12:33

    And why should you just go with what I say, or anybody says for that matter?  I suggest you do your homework and find out for yourself.
    I read alot of stories about other parts of Africa, with civil wars and all that. It's all depressing, the worst actions I ever heard. Some politicians want to go there but it's up to the current adminstration whether we do or not basicly. There are alot of charities and from what I understand Mercenary companies are hired hear to go into Africa for peace keeping. Obviously not enough is being done though.

    In this article it mentions China's interest in oil. In away this kid of confirms what I think the US went to Iraq for. China is going to be in dire need of oil in 2007 from what I heard, and this just shows it in how they are trying to protect their interests with military protection. I'm not making a arguement against you hear, but this might prove the reasoning in Iraq.

    Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.
    There definitly isn't any justification in it, but there also isn't any reason for wanting to hit civilian targets.

    This is arguable.  In principle, the US should have presented evidence, not marched into a sovereign state (whether we like the Taliban government or not, it was legitimate by International Law standards.)
    Well besides some of the Al Qaida miltants that were apart of the Taliban miltary or atleast supporting it and all the terrorist camps, from what I heard to should a great friendship between the two, one of Osama's sons married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. That shows some pretty good evidence. Even the clinton adminstration knew about Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan and fired cruise missiles at three of them in the late 90s.

    You really have no idea, S&D.  Iraq is competing with Saudi Arabia in the number of oil reserves it has.  In fact, it is argued that Iraq may actually have more oil reserves than that of Saudi Arabia.

    "Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrelssecond only to Saudi Arabia's.

    Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so farprobably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraqtogether with a few othersthe fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."

  • Saudi Arabia (OPEC) - 10.37 MMbbl/d
  • Russia - 9.27 MMbbl/d
  • United States 1 - 8.69 MMbbl/d
  • Iran (OPEC) - 4.09 MMbbl/d
  • Mexico 1 - 3.83 MMbbl/d
  • China 1 - 3.62 MMbbl/d
  • Norway 1 - 3.18 MMbbl/d
  • Canada 1 - 3.14 MMbbl/d
  • Venezuela (OPEC) 1 - 2.86 MMbbl/d
  • United Arab Emirates (OPEC) - 2.76 MMbbl/d
  • Kuwait (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • Nigeria (OPEC) - 2.51 MMbbl/d
  • United Kingdom 1 - 2.08 MMbbl/d
  • Iraq (OPEC) 2 - 2.03 MMbbl/d
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
  • This is how much is produced a day. I didn't do the math, but I'm willing to bet 110 billion barrels won't really last long at all. And obviously their production isn't as high as other allies of ours.

    You obviously don't know this fact, so I think I must tell you that only Muslims are subject to Shariah law.
    Thats not the point, if a government supports the Sharia laws, does that not show that the government is in support of Muslims? Some muslim countries persecuted other sects of Muslims, the Taliban themselves persecuted Shia and killed about 15,000 them from what I read. You can't say Hamas doesn't have extreme ideas either. Though it's yet to be seen, there is still a high possiblity.

    But like I said, just showing you support a certain group is enough to make a person uneasy. I get made everytime Bush brings up God because he's not supposed to. It just shows who the politicians are in more support of.

    I don't think these characteristics are restricted to the American justice system; it's universal.
    Never said they weren't, but we were talking about minorities and the majorities being supported in court. All I was pointing out is we won't put Sharia laws in because it already gives them equality and we can't support any religion in law.

    And you naiively think that the Israeli government wants peace?  They would have achieved that right after Oslo.
    I already said numerous times my dislike of Israel. But on point, you can't deny just before the election there was alot of progress with both sides talking of peace with one another, Israel pulling out of settlements handing them over to Palistinians, and the last Palistinian leader actually making a huge move for peace. Now hamas has came in and said they were sworn enemies. Does that sound like progress to you?

    Would you rather the constant fighting over the possiblity of peace between the two that could have been made before Hamas came in?

    Having prostitutes checked for STD doesn't make them or their jobs any respectable.  It is a form of corruption; if not in America, then in other parts of the world.  As said earlier, we all have different definitions of what's moral and what's not.
    According only to your morals are prostitutes not respectable. Sex seems to have been made out as evil when not in wed lock in religion. I see nothing wrong with it, though I'd never be in a act with a prostititute. I'm not going to look down on them for their choice in life. The protitutes in Nevada live good lives, it's not like those that are in illegal areas where they are killed and beaten all the time. Usually the prostitutes in Nevada work in secure Brothels from what I understand.

    So your right morals aren't different from all of us. It's definitly something the Evangelicals would love to outlaw here in the US if they get into government.

     

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
    Back to Top
    Zagros View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor

    Suspended

    Joined: 11-Aug-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8792
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 04:46
    a shadey UK business man was investigated by an ethical documentry programme for his direct connection to Dharfur and the areas that were being ethnically cleansed, he is an oil moghul of sorts.
    Back to Top
    Mira View Drop Down
    Colonel
    Colonel
    Avatar

    Joined: 03-Aug-2005
    Location: United Arab Emirates
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 697
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 03:32
    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle. The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that one strange coincidence?
    Didn't the Dafur crisis happen recently when the minorities were complaining of unfair treatment by the Government and favoring the Arabs over the minorities? The Government supported a group called Janjaweed which killed and raped the minorties and burned villages.

    Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go with what your saying.


    Well, good morning, I guess.  The Darfur crisis has been going on for decades now.  It's nothing new.  It only drew international attention (especially US attention) after the discovery of uranium.  It is worth mentioning that the Chinese are in control of the big businesses in Sudan, including Sudan's oil reserves.  China and Sudan have arm trade contracts signed between them, and almost all Chinese workers in Sudan come from a military background.  It's about competition:

    Excerpt from the Newsweek article, "Yet Another Great Game," by Stephen Glain:

    "In staking out Africa, however, Beijing is setting itself up for a seismic rivalry with the United States, which has identified the region as key to its efforts to diversify its oil sources away from the unstable Middle East. In the aftermath of 9/11, a U.S.-Israeli study group recommended that Washington prevent "rivals such as China" from horning in on Africa's natural resources, while the Pentagon study says, "Chinese companies are investing in East, West, and North Africa and [the Chinese Army] has sent troops to pro-tect its energy investments in Sudan" an assertion long rumored by human-rights groups and other Africa experts but never confirmed. In turn, Amer-ican oil companies have raised their profile in Africa amid rumors that the United States is planning to build a military base in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea. "In Africa," says Jamal Qureshi, an oil-markets expert at PFC Energy in Washington, "you've got new players, with China as a possible counterweight to the U.S. There could be elements of confrontation."

    Sudan is rich with oil, gold, the recently discovered uranium and other natural resources, and China is working hard on establishing itself in the oil/uranium-rich Sudan.

    And why should you just go with what I say, or anybody says for that matter?  I suggest you do your homework and find out for yourself.

    Here's another interesting read:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec 22.html

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.
    Well you honestly can't believe the wedding was targetted on purpose. There is absolutly no point in that.

    Quoting an article that appeared in the Pakistan Newsline:

    "The Urozgan bombing was not the first such incident involving the US military in civilians deaths. Another wedding party had earlier been bombed in the southern Khost province in which more than a dozen people had been killed. On both occasions, the American pilots appear to have mistaken traditional celebratory aerial firing as hostile fire and retaliated in a knee-jerk fashion. The US warplanes have also bombed, mistakenly or deliberately, passenger buses, mosques, madrassas, shrines, Red Cross warehouses and villages, resulting in scores of civilians deaths. One reason behind the high number of blunders could be the nervousness of American pilots, who despite the complete US command over Afghan skies, believe that hostile forces still have access to anti-aircraft missiles. Since there are no legitimate military targets to speak of left in Afghanistan for the vastly superior US arsenal and troops, there is a greater risk of inflicting harm on non-combatants in rural Afghanistan."

    http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsAug2002/newsbeataug2.htm

    Whether the wedding or any civilians are targeted on purpose or not, that doesn't not justify the death of so many people.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence, but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous reasons.

    This is arguable.  In principle, the US should have presented evidence, not marched into a sovereign state (whether we like the Taliban government or not, it was legitimate by International Law standards.)

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    Like I said it's all politics. A Government is going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before, Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.


    You really have no idea, S&D.  Iraq is competing with Saudi Arabia in the number of oil reserves it has.  In fact, it is argued that Iraq may actually have more oil reserves than that of Saudi Arabia.

    "Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrelssecond only to Saudi Arabia's.

    Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so farprobably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraqtogether with a few othersthe fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305462/site/newsweek/

    You seriously need to do some research.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    You're wrong. It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.
    It may have secular laws also in it, but it's still considered Islamic law. Just that alone people that aren't muslim may not agree with it because in a way it shows favoritism.


    You obviously don't know this fact, so I think I must tell you that only Muslims are subject to Shariah law.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    And the American court takes in mind as everyone as equals. It's not a perfect system, but the idea is that everyone is the same and everyone is inocent until proven guilty. It's laws set by the nation, not by a certain culture, not by a religion, not by how one person believes it should be. If the jury is right and not biased which is the usual case, then in theory people get a fair and equal trial.

    I don't think these characteristics are restricted to the American justice system; it's universal.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    That they aren't looking for peace and want to keep fighting. And like you said, the "majority" voted them in. I'm willing to bet Hamas is going to change things in favor of themselves which in the end screws over the minority will become helpless.

    And you naiively think that the Israeli government wants peace?  They would have achieved that right after Oslo.

    Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

    The prositute in these places aren't like those that are basicly nameless and have no protection except for a violent Pimp in other parts of the country. Every week if they are a registered prostitute they have to check into a hospital to be checked for STDs. If they aren't, obviously the authorities will come looking for them.

    Having prostitutes checked for STD doesn't make them or their jobs any respectable.  It is a form of corruption; if not in America, then in other parts of the world.  As said earlier, we all have different definitions of what's moral and what's not.

    Back to Top
    SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
    Caliph
    Caliph
    Avatar

    Joined: 15-Aug-2004
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 2728
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:24

    The US doesn't want to use its own reserves. It's clear as the sun. If you wanted to use your reserves, and you say you have plenty, then you wouldn't have reduced yourself to supporting repressive governments like the Saudi regime just for the sake of keeping the oil prices stable.

    Well we do have reserves, but we also produce alot of oil. I'll explain further down as some of these questions can be answered together.

    The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle. The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there. Now isn't that one strange coincidence?
    Didn't the Dafur crisis happen recently when the minorities were complaining of unfair treatment by the Government and favoring the Arabs over the minorities? The Government supported a group called Janjaweed which killed and raped the minorties and burned villages.

    Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go with what your saying.

    You certainly didn't go there for the unfound WMDs, and there's weren't any Al Qaeda links and all that BS with the ex-regime. Saddam Hussein was always evil, nothing new.

    So now the US wants to be the vanguard and the protector of the wealth of other countries. 5% of the world population is consuming half the world resources. Sigh.

    I agree with everything here, and I doubt the terrorist really had any interest in the oil feilds in Iraq. Just another excuse by the current adminstration trying to find some reasonable excuse.

    S&D, why am I misquoted here? Where in that paragraph did I say that MidEasterners "are only capable of morals"? First of all, I said "Easterners," not Middle Easterners. Secondly, I said, "more conservative."
    I concede here... I feel like a idiot, I thought you said, "You need be a conservative Muslim to have morals" Taking the "not" out, I over read it. Can you forgive me?

    You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL. (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over." The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans. Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process. I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban. It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.
    Well you honestly can't believe the wedding was targetted on purpose. There is absolutly no point in that.

    Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence, but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous reasons.

    But you support Saudi Arabia?

    Then why aren't you using what you already have and can get? Why is the US government interested in maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, and asking them to keep the oil prices as they are, when there are better alternatives, as you say?

    Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.

    Like I said it's all politics. A Government is going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before, Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.

    Staying on top to enforce human rights is good, but Bush I believe is abusing our Power right now.

    You're wrong. It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.
    It may have secular laws also in it, but it's still considered Islamic law. Just that alone people that aren't muslim may not agree with it because in a way it shows favoritism.

    This applies to minorities everywhere. One minority group can't be favored over other groups, whether the other groups were the majority or another minority group.
    And the American court takes in mind as everyone as equals. It's not a perfect system, but the idea is that everyone is the same and everyone is inocent until proven guilty. It's laws set by the nation, not by a certain culture, not by a religion, not by how one person believes it should be. If the jury is right and not biased which is the usual case, then in theory people get a fair and equal trial.

    The majority who voted for Hamas didn't think they were corrupt, or at least that corrupt. You can't tell unless you were a citizen of Palestine. In any case, Hamas was never part of the government before. On what grounds do you base your claims of their corruption?
    That they aren't looking for peace and want to keep fighting. And like you said, the "majority" voted them in. I'm willing to bet Hamas is going to change things in favor of themselves which in the end screws over the minority will become helpless.

    You call it flexibility, we call it laws of protection.
    The prositute in these places aren't like those that are basicly nameless and have no protection except for a violent Pimp in other parts of the country. Every week if they are a registered prostitute they have to check into a hospital to be checked for STDs. If they aren't, obviously the authorities will come looking for them.

    Has a lot to offer in terms of what? Oil? I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else. Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in? Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.
    Well I gave my reasons for supporting Saudi Arabia, which is true and does show double standards, but it's the only way for us to stay on top.

    But for Hamas, today the leader came out and said that they considered themselves the winners in the struggle against Israel for winning the election. He said that Israel would also always be considered a enemy. Basicly with that said, everything the US has been doing diplomaticly since the Clinton adminstration has just ended. We basicly have to start all over again if we want peace in that region. Which is why I wish we could just forget about Israel, maybe thats why we want Iraq and Afghanistan as a ally, so we could forget about Israel...

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
    Back to Top
    Zagros View Drop Down
    Emperor
    Emperor

    Suspended

    Joined: 11-Aug-2004
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 8792
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:13
    nope. I didnt fight, i was a kid and I remember the bombing and shelling as  well as people's suffering. a rocket/shell landed 50m from my grans. and when the sirens sounded we all had to come out of our homes and stand against the walls.  There was a military barracks about 100m that used to fire AA guns at the bombers, they would head for the centre of town and bombn busy bazaars, schools and hospitals.

    Edited by Zagros
    Back to Top
    Genghis View Drop Down
    Caliph
    Caliph
    Avatar

    Joined: 02-Aug-2004
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 2656
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:00

    Originally posted by Zagros

    And, btw,   I am used to it, probably unlike anyone here: I have experienced war, first hand.

    I never knew that, did you fight against Iraq in the 1980's?

     

    Member of IAEA
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 17>

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

    This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.