It was never about oil for the USA. If I hear that again I'm gonna slug someone.
If I tell you where my neighbor lives, can you slug her? I just heard that STUPID comment come out of her mouth earlier today.
Posted by: Erin at June 09, 2004 05:16 PM (0AR3P)
It's all about the oil Sarah. Go ahead and slug me sweetheart.
Posted by: filchyboy at June 13, 2004 12:44 PM (3soAl)
Your comments are just wrong. Iraq has some of the largest untapped oil reserves in the world. This war wasn't about getting cheap gas now, silly, it was about ensuring that American companies have control over future oil reserves by setting up a trade friendly puppet government.
Do you question anything that the GOP tells you?
Posted by: ubu at June 13, 2004 01:45 PM (nGkTI)
Ridht, and not finding any WMDs proves that we didn't go to war to find WMDs. Same logic!
Posted by: Russ at June 13, 2004 01:59 PM (MU8Zb)
Goddamn, Sarah...you should have to have a license to be that stupid!
Posted by: Arnold Ziffel at June 13, 2004 05:10 PM (71IZj)
When Sarah sees a chess board and player 1 takes player 2's queen, she must think that the objective of the game was to take the queen.
How can she teach with such a poor awareness of reality?
Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. We have been sucking on the oil pipe for a long time and we spend a proportionately miniscule amount of money attempting to find less contentious sources of energy. There is also a finite amount of oil in the world - and we are now at peak production. The proces for oil will just keep getting higher - no matter what we do.
Our leaders had a choice. They could have moved us into a more efficient, less oil dependent economy after the oil crisis of the 70s - or they could follow the Reaganomic view that lead to our current Catch-22. The conquering of Iraq is simply another move in the chess board to keep us positioned to take control of the oil when China starts to fiend for it as badly as we do.
Thinking that oil was not the central drive for the war is like thinking that the purpose of a car engine is to turn the flywheel. It ignores everything else that is going on.
Posted by: Scott Fanetti at June 13, 2004 09:41 PM (5Cu8X)
Um.... nobody said the war was about gasoline. Just oil. You're obviously intelligent enought to realize the difference.
You do know, though, that we don't import gasoline here in the US? We import oil which we then refine into gasoline. Here. In the US. In large refineries typically located on the coast. There are bunches of them around Houston.
You understand, don't you, that the availibility of gasoline in Iraq has absolutely ZERO relation to whether or not we fought this war for oil? I'm not saying we did, mind you, just that you're terribly simpleminded if you believe that the lack of refining capacity in Iraq offers conclusive proof to the contrary...
Posted by: john at June 14, 2004 02:26 AM (bA3ne)
Try being a tad more 'biased' towards the truth, clown. And if you're not too busy jerking whatever you perceive to be the truth around - read this.
"The U.S. should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments."
Its from the James A Baker Institute for Public Policy. From this paper published in *APRIL 2001*...(yeh - several months before 9/11)
Funny how the first option is a "military" assessment huh? Almost like saying 'nail the bastards'. But I'm sure you can bullshit your students somehow. Why not let them read this paper? In fact I *dare* you to so, and then present ANY other alternative for Americas invasion as an excuse. I suspect they'll laugh in your face. Do it. I DARE you. No guts, no glory hon. At least you'll be able to tell the smart students from the stupid ones. The smart ones will be laughing at you.
and P.S.: if I have to tell you why James Baker is relevant, you truly are clueless. Read the paper. Learn. Try and understand. And for heavens sake stop trying to pawn yourself off as a teacher. You spew endless garbage. Give it a rest. Or perhaps simply try giving 'the truth' a go. I doubt you will - it's too tough to understand.
It was about oil for the USA.
Now "Bring it on", you useless lump of ignorance.
Posted by: Chuck at June 14, 2004 03:23 AM (bEJDP)
So, since we have to refine the oil and ship it back (due to the destruction of the refineries due to certain *unfortunate events* of the past several years), all of a sudden there's no oil motivator in toppling Saddam.
That's a serious shortfall of logic there, lady.
Posted by: the big kahuna at June 14, 2004 10:02 AM (stMiV)
Come on, Sarah. Think!! The war was not about getting refined gasoline... holy smokes, lady. It ALL has to be refined somewhere... but the war was not about capturing refineries. The war is about securing huge reserves of oil in the ground.
So slap me already, it won't change the reality on the ground.
Posted by: Gpilot at June 14, 2004 11:23 AM (lKUxU)
Always with the violence. Sad.
So anyhoo, yes it *was* about the oil. It's just that your Rethuglican so-called 'oilmen' heros are so incompetent, they couldnt even produce oil when its already done for them. Thats why theyre so frigging obsessed with the Arctic NWR. They figure even fuckups like them can get oil out of the ground there.
Wanna bet they cant?
Posted by: GW at June 14, 2004 11:36 AM (0K5pN)
The war was about oil, at least for the French. $70 billion dollars worth of contracts for the government owned French oil companies. As to the alternative fuel claims, den Beste has pretty much shed light on that situation.
By the way folks these hybrid cars get worse gas milage than the old Yugo, and electric cars are pretty worthless for many if not most Americans. I don't see any that will let me drive the 20 hours home it takes, or the sixty minutes each way just to go shopping and still give me enough leeway to run around town. Not to mention their incredibly high cost for a working stiff such as myself.
Posted by: Kalroy at June 14, 2004 02:07 PM (l10gw)
| Add Comment