In the late 1930's America was limiting Japan's access to oil and mineral resources from SE Asia. The Japanese having invaded China, and speading like wildfire throughout Asia, were desperate to keep America from throwing sand in the Japanese war machine - in a desperate attempt to get America to "butt out" they attacked America at Pearl harbour taking out the US' Pacific fleet and thus bringing America into the war.

In Iraq, the US' diminishing access to cheap oil precipitated the attack on an Arab nationalist's nation who felt that the Arabs should control their own natural resources and their destinies and let the west eat cake!

Thus, America attacked Iraq and Saddam Hussein, an Arab hero cut from the same cloth as Arab hero "Saladin" in the eyes of the Arab world, to continue to be the most devastating bully and the most gluttonous country in the world - and, of-course, the world's greatest polluter! :p

George W. Bush's introduction of preemptive war, as a way of settling differences of opinion and waging SELF DEFENSE in the new millennium, will ( I believe ) be the basis for the nuking of America and Israel :) in the near future sorry to say.

Abdulla....

I hold no animosity towards them. They legitamately attacked a military target with conventional forces. Some of the stuff later on peeve me off but not heinously.

I dont like their allies but the alliance was only made due to a common enemy. It would have been broken just like the Nazi-Soviet treaty was broken. Personally I think they should have tried to ally themselves with us instead of Nazi Germany. We were so worried about the European front we may very well have said yes after a little haggeling.

Yes the Japenese were trying to forge an empire but there is nothing inherently wrong with that in my eyes. They just weren't doing it gently enough.

"Personally I think they should have tried to ally themselves with us instead of Nazi Germany. "

And thus you would have connived with an imperium. Face it, your an imperialist at heart, and therefore anti-american.

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
In the late 1930's America was limiting Japan's access to oil and mineral resources from SE Asia. The Japanese having invaded China, and speading like wildfire throughout Asia, were desperate to keep America from throwing sand in the Japanese war machine - in a desperate attempt to get America to "butt out" they attacked America at Pearl harbour taking out the US' Pacific fleet and thus bringing America into the war.

--- hardly. Japan was in alliance with Nazi Germany, and at the time of the war, Japan was an imperial(ist) nation. Agressive expansion was their goal.

"Preemptive" doesnt come into the picture.

>In Iraq, the US' diminishing access to cheap oil precipitated the attack on an Arab nationalist's nation who felt that the Arabs should control their own natural resources and their destinies and let the west eat cake!

--- Ah come on. Yes, the US oil supply is slowly reducing, but the USA still has a substantial domestic oil production (which, 10 years back, was amongst one of the worlds biggest!), second, there's hardly a lack of oil in the market.

>Thus, America attacked Iraq and Saddam Hussein, an Arab hero cut from the same cloth as Arab hero "Saladin" in the eyes of the Arab world, to continue to be the most devastating bully and the most gluttonous country in the world - and, of-course, the world's greatest polluter! :p

--- This is hardly what I would call an objective argument.

Yes, the USA has a substantial use of energy. Yes, the USA has a high waste output/household. But compared to most, say European nations, their Co2 emisions pr Kilowatt of electrical energi is smaller.

>George W. Bush's introduction of preemptive war, as a way of settling differences of opinion and waging SELF DEFENSE in the new millennium, will ( I believe ) be the basis for the nuking of America and Israel :) in the near future sorry to say.

--- Only a true madmad would use nukes. The USA did it against Nippon in '45, and they learned their lesson. The horror was just too great.

Saying that a given terrorist or state is justified in nuking the USA due to some squabbles over oil is preposterous.

Originally posted by guthrie
"Personally I think they should have tried to ally themselves with us instead of Nazi Germany. "

And thus you would have connived with an imperium. Face it, your an imperialist at heart, and therefore anti-american.

Imperialist - anti American?

You muddy up the water.... :confused:

You mean "Imperialist America," da? :)

Abdulla....

DJ,

hardly. Japan was in alliance with Nazi Germany, and at the time of the war, Japan was an imperial(ist) nation. Agressive expansion was their goal.
At that point in history, they were hardly alone. And recall that several nations signed treaties with Hitler during that period of history.

Ah come on. Yes, the US oil supply is slowly reducing, but the USA still has a substantial domestic oil production (which, 10 years back, was amongst one of the worlds biggest!), second, there's hardly a lack of oil in the market.
Why is it that everytime someone mentions oil, the first argument is "but we could just buy it!"
The fact is that the currency being used is more important than even the oil to the US. The fact that dollars are used to buy oil from opec and no other currency acts as an artifical shelter for the US economy. Take that away - and it's 1929 on Wall St. all over again.
Now there's a motive.

This is hardly what I would call an objective argument.
Yes, the USA has a substantial use of energy. Yes, the USA has a high waste output/household. But compared to most, say European nations, their Co2 emisions pr Kilowatt of electrical energi is smaller.
Could we see a few figures to back that one up?

Only a true madmad would use nukes. The USA did it against Nippon in '45, and they learned their lesson. The horror was just too great.
According to Nixon's memoirs, he was quite prepared to use tactical nukes in vietnam. The student protests were what swung the decision.

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
Imperialist - anti American?

You muddy up the water.... :confused:

You mean "Imperialist America," da? :)

Abdulla....

No no, i believe everything i hear about america, and it wouldt do any such thing, no not at all, surely it violates its founding principles!!!
;)

DJSupreme23;
would you mind just cutting and pasting the [b] etc commandsplease, so its easier to work out what your saying in reply to the other.
thanks.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
DJ,

>>Why is it that everytime someone mentions oil, the first argument is "but we could just buy it!"
The fact is that the currency being used is more important than even the oil to the US. The fact that dollars are used to buy oil from opec and no other currency acts as an artifical shelter for the US economy. Take that away - and it's 1929 on Wall St. all over again.
Now there's a motive.

--- Sorry, you're not making sense. Even if the invasion of Iraq should be based on "oil motivation", the only thing it does is release some more oil into the market, with a marginal fall in market prices as a result. The USA would benefit economically from that, yes. But compare the hypothetical price reductions with the expense of the Iraq action. Tens of billions of US$.

>Could we see a few figures to back that one up?

--- Certainly: http://www.ecoworld.com/People/Tables/co2_Per_BTU_Rank_1995.cfm

--- USA is at place 119. OK, they're a few years old these sats, but go ahead and see if you can find some newer. Personally, I doubt that the US CO2 emissions should have risen, with all the hubbub about renewable energy in teh states (California especially).

>According to Nixon's memoirs, he was quite prepared to use tactical nukes in vietnam. The student protests were what swung the decision.

--- The difference is that a tactical nuke (say NBU-67, as F/A-18 Hornet are capable of carrying, ignore that F-18 did not exist at the time of the vietnam war) is limited to kilotons of explosive effect. Most nukes today - leftover from the cold war - are in the megaton range.

--- Also note that our dear Abdullah actually tried to justify a nuclear attack on the USA, LIKELY against civilian population, LIKELY in PEACE time.

The Vietnam War, was, as they say, a war.

And sorry about the quote problems. i havent quite worked this system out yet.

Well, as for iraqi oil, the severe lowering of the price and likely destruction of OPEC would be a very useful fillip for the US economy, certainly worth a hundred billion or more for a war, remember they are in this for the long run. The marginal fall is likely to be to what, i think 15 dollars a barrel, something like that.


Then as for CO2 figures, as a fairly well advanced technological nation, the USA does have some decent abatement technology, although teh plant grandfatehring helps waste that, but the point is that they use so much energy that they produce the most. I just hope we can help china leapfrog it all to better, lower emmission as rapidly as possible.

And the war cost a whole heck of a lot more than 10 billion.

Sorry... made a calculation error in my post - it's been deleted.

OK, look at this. It's the quickest source on curde oil prices I could find:

http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/crude.htm

in 2002, crude oil prices per barrel were ~25$.

guthrie, I find your claim that the market price for a barrel would fall by 15 $ is outrageous. That would be 60% off the price, and that is completely unrealistic. 5$, maybe.


Lets assume a 5$ price reduction.

With the US consuming ~20 million barrels per day, that means 100 million $ saved per day. Per year, thats 36.5 bln $.

Assume that the was has cost 100 bln so far. Payoff: 3 years.

But it might be twice that - 200 bln. $ - that would take 6 years, and Bush would not be in office by then.

DJ,
Sorry, you're not making sense.
On the contrary DJ, it makes perfect sense.
Currently, if you want oil, you must pay for it in dollars. Everyone needs oil - but only the US can print dollars, so if you want dollars, you must trade with the US. Countries keep large stocks of dollars explicitly for the purpose of buying oil. Hence, artifical shelter for the US market - people have to trade there.
Should opec decide to sell oil for euros, those countries would have to dump their dollar stocks and buy euros - the net effect would be to send the value of the dollar into freefall as everyone tried to sell, and to open US markets to a lot more competition, as noone now need trade with them for dollars.
Now add to that the overall fiscal deficet of the US (currently $44 trillion) and their trade imbalance ($40 billion or so per month on average) and the US economy would be nearly destroyed by such a move. Coincidentally, every OPEC member that sold oil for euros (Iraq and Argentina) has been attacked by the US. Overtly for Iraq, and covertly in the case of argentina, through sponsorship of a coup, as caught on camera by a documentary team that was in Argentina at the time.

But compare the hypothetical price reductions with the expense of the Iraq action. Tens of billions of US$.
The war was certainly expensive. But in case you've missed it, the US isn't paying for it - the Iraqis are through sales of their oil. At US-dictated rates. The US loses nothing, and gains everything.

Certainly: http://www.ecoworld.com/People/Tabl...U_Rank_1995.cfm
--- USA is at place 119. OK, they're a few years old these sats, but go ahead and see if you can find some newer. Personally, I doubt that the US CO2 emissions should have risen, with all the hubbub about renewable energy in teh states (California especially).
Actually, they're in place 6 on CO2 emmissions per capita, according to that site :
http://www.ecoworld.com/People/Tables/co2_Per_Cap_Rank_1995.cfm
And number one in CO2 emissions in total.
http://www.ecoworld.com/People/Tables/co2_Rank_1995.cfm
They're also listed there as number 6 in energy consumed per capita (1 through 5 are relatively small countries like luxembourg) and number 1 in total energy consumed.

The difference is that a tactical nuke (say NBU-67, as F/A-18 Hornet are capable of carrying, ignore that F-18 did not exist at the time of the vietnam war) is limited to kilotons of explosive effect. Most nukes today - leftover from the cold war - are in the megaton range.
That's rather short-sighted - or do you think the USSR and Red China would have just shrugged and said "Oh well, that's none of our beeswax"?

Also note that our dear Abdullah actually tried to justify a nuclear attack on the USA, LIKELY against civilian population, LIKELY in PEACE time.
That's Abdullah. You want to put him on your ignore list really, he has in the past actually argued with me that it would be an act of stupidity to attempt to put forward a rational argument or even to spell his words correctly or bother with grammar.

The Vietnam War, was, as they say, a war.
Which was started under false pretences. And which led to the bombing of Laos and Cambodia in secret. And which, frankly, was about the worst testimony against the US until Iraq.

Sorry, i meant fall to 15 dollars, although I admit tahts maybe a bit low. Certainly 18 to 20 might be possible. Iraq can with some redevelopment put out something like 5 or 6 million barrels a day, enough to glut the market, and its one of the cheapest to produce, no nasty north sea conditions to deal with.

-----------
"While it costs roughly $15 to produce a single barrel of crude in the U.S., Iraq and its neighbors can do it for $5 a barrel or less. So they can sell oil to the U.S. at $22 a barrel and still make a tidy profit.

Once the war's over, Iraq could drive prices even lower. There is no love lost between Saddam and OPEC, and OPEC's leaders understand that the only way Iraq will get back on its feet is by opening the petroleum spigot. With Saddam gone and at least some semblance of normalcy restored, Iraq may expand production, making it hard for OPEC to keep prices from busting the bottom of that $22 to $28 band."
-----------
From: http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,433135,00.html



As for bush not being in office, I wouldnt put it past him to try and change the constitution ;)
And like i said, theyre in it for the long run, look at the tax cuts he's enacted. Plus of course, the cheap oil will benefit some parts of american society more than others, and theyre the ones who donate to the Republican party. Then theres the effects of cheaper oil, you do know just how much everything is dependent on oil, its quite frightening. Transport, plastics, agricultural chemicals, paints, etc. The higher oil prices impacted on all that, and lower ones will as well, perhaps helping the US economy, although given the amount of debt around, i wouldnt bet on it.

As for cost of the war, its what, 60- 70 billion so far? All coming ou the taxpayers pocket.

Originally posted by DJSupreme23
[B Also note that our dear Abdullah actually tried to justify a nuclear attack on the USA, LIKELY against civilian population, LIKELY in PEACE time.

The Vietnam War, was, as they say, a war.

And sorry about the quote problems. i havent quite worked this system out yet. [/B]

SIMPLETON! :p

What makes you think the US will always be the one to set the rules of engagement - especially in regards to nukes?

There was a time when the US was the darling of the world ( WW II+ ), but honey bunny those days are over - and how!

Today America uses EVERY DIRTY TRICK IN THE BOOK to subvert ANYONE that might be gaining on us or that could deflate our economy ( Arab oil & Chinese balance of trade ).

In Venezuela, the CIA spooks "almost" took out president Hugo Chavez fifteen months ago when he got too chummy with Saddam and started PLAYING with oil prices and oil production. But then the CIA spooks got their tit in the wringer - and the US had to back off rather than be exposed as trying to undo another democratically elected president in another "Allende" type coup in South America.

With our local Whitehouse terrorist in place - and especially if he gets reelected in 2004, we will run the guantlet of nuclear war because this fool sees a nuclear exchange as survivable despite the possibility of losing 12-15 million Americans to Chinese IRBM's with MIRVED ( multiple ) warheads. The Chinese coup of stealing America's deepest nuclear warhead technology ( miniturization ) some 4 years ago has put China on par with the US in the design and development of miniturized megaton+ warheads.

With the perfection of their newest booster rocket ( with which they are planning, sooner than we think, to put a man into low suborbital space within the next 48 months or less ) they will be able to hit the US mainland in a heartbeat. :eek:

As for Vietnam being "Just another war." Please be advised that America massacred over 3,000,000+ innocent civilians in that tiny backward country ( I'll skip the 19 million gallons of AGENT ORANGE and miscellaneous phenotol chemical attacks and the after effects ) and when the hens come home to roost there will be little reason to ask: "Why do they hate us?"

Today's terrorist Arab - be he Libyan or Iranian, no longer needs a dozen B-2 bombers and a jillion BTU's of nuclear force to kick ass.

All he needs is a few 55 gallon barrel's in which to brew his WITCHES BREW up wind from you and you're a GONE GOOSE!

He only needs to want a piece of your arse so bad that he can taste it and be willing to die getting it - and as you know the VOLUNTEERS have all taken a number and are JUST WAITING. :eek:

Amen!

Abdulla....

Well the Japanese were stupid for doing that when the carriers weren't in habour. Thus ensuring possbile defeat, like the Japanese endured during the battle of midway. Was it right? From a military stand point, well yes but the Japanese couldn't have picked a worse time. The Americans knew that the attack would happen sooner or later. But of course we've gotten off on the Iraq/islam tangent. :rolleyes: