|
I'm curious. If the war in Iraq was for oil, where does most Iraqi oil go? Who pays for the oil? Is it sold at market price? Who are the largest shareholders of Iraqi oil fields?
The answers to those questions smack down that petty internet warrior mentality that the Iraq war was for oil pretty hard.
I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Think of how oil is traded globally. Just...think about it.
|
On October 07 2012 06:28 Elegy wrote:
I'm curious. If the war in Iraq was for oil, where does most Iraqi oil go? Who pays for the oil? Is it sold at market price? Who are the largest shareholders of Iraqi oil fields?
The answers to those questions smack down that petty internet warrior mentality that the Iraq war was for oil pretty hard.
I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Think of how oil is traded globally. Just...think about it.
When Iran stopped selling oil to UK and France America took a blow on the market (as well as everyone globally, including Canada). But wait, internet warrior NeMeSiS3 you ask, why did this happen when America barely delves into Iran's oil bucket!? Because for the exact point you brought up, Oil is traded globally and everyone takes a hit if the market rises and Saddam literally was raising the price of oil a sufficient amount to make his prices comparable to the rest of the countries selling around him and soon after Iraq was invaded and the prices have sense dropped sufficiently with his removal and the entire nation is selling oil for a dirt cheap amount. Goes for other places of
Using the global economy argument makes no sense, perhaps you should understand what you speak of, think of it as a pool of water. If one side of the pool starts to fill the rest of the pool feels the rise and balances it out, if one side raises prices then they all do. Bad for business.
|
On October 07 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 06:28 Elegy wrote:
I'm curious. If the war in Iraq was for oil, where does most Iraqi oil go? Who pays for the oil? Is it sold at market price? Who are the largest shareholders of Iraqi oil fields?
The answers to those questions smack down that petty internet warrior mentality that the Iraq war was for oil pretty hard.
I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Think of how oil is traded globally. Just...think about it. When Iran stopped selling oil to UK and France America took a blow on the market (as well as everyone globally, including Canada). But wait, internet warrior NeMeSiS3 you ask, why did this happen when America barely delves into Iran's oil bucket!? Because for the exact point you brought up, Oil is traded globally and everyone takes a hit if the market rises and Saddam literally was raising the price of oil a sufficient amount to make his prices comparable to the rest of the countries selling around him and soon after Iraq was invaded and the prices have sense dropped sufficiently with his removal and the entire nation is selling oil for a dirt cheap amount. Goes for other places of Using the global economy argument makes no sense, perhaps you should understand what you speak of, think of it as a pool of water. If one side of the pool starts to fill the rest of the pool feels the rise and balances it out, if one side raises prices then they all do. Bad for business.
But wait, internet misinformation master Nemesis3, you might ask what is this nonsense about "prices" dropping and Iraq selling oil at "dirt cheap" prices? Iraq sells its oil at market value, not below it. Saddam was not raising the price of oil he was selling either, again, it sold at market value...
Peddling the same old conspiracy nonsense as the "Iranian oil bourse" that never went anywhere...
|
On October 09 2012 02:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 06:28 Elegy wrote:
I'm curious. If the war in Iraq was for oil, where does most Iraqi oil go? Who pays for the oil? Is it sold at market price? Who are the largest shareholders of Iraqi oil fields?
The answers to those questions smack down that petty internet warrior mentality that the Iraq war was for oil pretty hard.
I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Think of how oil is traded globally. Just...think about it. When Iran stopped selling oil to UK and France America took a blow on the market (as well as everyone globally, including Canada). But wait, internet warrior NeMeSiS3 you ask, why did this happen when America barely delves into Iran's oil bucket!? Because for the exact point you brought up, Oil is traded globally and everyone takes a hit if the market rises and Saddam literally was raising the price of oil a sufficient amount to make his prices comparable to the rest of the countries selling around him and soon after Iraq was invaded and the prices have sense dropped sufficiently with his removal and the entire nation is selling oil for a dirt cheap amount. Goes for other places of Using the global economy argument makes no sense, perhaps you should understand what you speak of, think of it as a pool of water. If one side of the pool starts to fill the rest of the pool feels the rise and balances it out, if one side raises prices then they all do. Bad for business. But wait, internet misinformation master Nemesis3, you might ask what is this nonsense about "prices" dropping and Iraq selling oil at "dirt cheap" prices? Iraq sells its oil at market value, not below it. Saddam was not raising the price of oil he was selling either, again, it sold at market value... Peddling the same old conspiracy nonsense as the "Iranian oil bourse" that never went anywhere...
Yes, the invasion was obviously only to bring peace and democracy. The US would never go to war out of self interest. Jesus lives!
-_-'
|
On October 09 2012 03:21 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 02:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 07 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 06:28 Elegy wrote:
I'm curious. If the war in Iraq was for oil, where does most Iraqi oil go? Who pays for the oil? Is it sold at market price? Who are the largest shareholders of Iraqi oil fields?
The answers to those questions smack down that petty internet warrior mentality that the Iraq war was for oil pretty hard.
I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Think of how oil is traded globally. Just...think about it. When Iran stopped selling oil to UK and France America took a blow on the market (as well as everyone globally, including Canada). But wait, internet warrior NeMeSiS3 you ask, why did this happen when America barely delves into Iran's oil bucket!? Because for the exact point you brought up, Oil is traded globally and everyone takes a hit if the market rises and Saddam literally was raising the price of oil a sufficient amount to make his prices comparable to the rest of the countries selling around him and soon after Iraq was invaded and the prices have sense dropped sufficiently with his removal and the entire nation is selling oil for a dirt cheap amount. Goes for other places of Using the global economy argument makes no sense, perhaps you should understand what you speak of, think of it as a pool of water. If one side of the pool starts to fill the rest of the pool feels the rise and balances it out, if one side raises prices then they all do. Bad for business. But wait, internet misinformation master Nemesis3, you might ask what is this nonsense about "prices" dropping and Iraq selling oil at "dirt cheap" prices? Iraq sells its oil at market value, not below it. Saddam was not raising the price of oil he was selling either, again, it sold at market value... Peddling the same old conspiracy nonsense as the "Iranian oil bourse" that never went anywhere... Yes, the invasion was obviously only to bring peace and democracy. The US would never go to war out of self interest. Jesus lives! -_-'
Yes, that's exactly what I said! You are so accurate and insightful in representing my remarks!
-_-
I am also feeling a little bit down from the silliness of your post. But don't worry, some moment a few seconds from now both of us will be happy again!
|
On October 09 2012 03:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:21 Euronyme wrote:On October 09 2012 02:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 07 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 06:28 Elegy wrote:
I'm curious. If the war in Iraq was for oil, where does most Iraqi oil go? Who pays for the oil? Is it sold at market price? Who are the largest shareholders of Iraqi oil fields?
The answers to those questions smack down that petty internet warrior mentality that the Iraq war was for oil pretty hard.
I mean, it doesn't even make sense. Think of how oil is traded globally. Just...think about it. When Iran stopped selling oil to UK and France America took a blow on the market (as well as everyone globally, including Canada). But wait, internet warrior NeMeSiS3 you ask, why did this happen when America barely delves into Iran's oil bucket!? Because for the exact point you brought up, Oil is traded globally and everyone takes a hit if the market rises and Saddam literally was raising the price of oil a sufficient amount to make his prices comparable to the rest of the countries selling around him and soon after Iraq was invaded and the prices have sense dropped sufficiently with his removal and the entire nation is selling oil for a dirt cheap amount. Goes for other places of Using the global economy argument makes no sense, perhaps you should understand what you speak of, think of it as a pool of water. If one side of the pool starts to fill the rest of the pool feels the rise and balances it out, if one side raises prices then they all do. Bad for business. But wait, internet misinformation master Nemesis3, you might ask what is this nonsense about "prices" dropping and Iraq selling oil at "dirt cheap" prices? Iraq sells its oil at market value, not below it. Saddam was not raising the price of oil he was selling either, again, it sold at market value... Peddling the same old conspiracy nonsense as the "Iranian oil bourse" that never went anywhere... Yes, the invasion was obviously only to bring peace and democracy. The US would never go to war out of self interest. Jesus lives! -_-' Yes, that's exactly what I said! You are so accurate and insightful in representing my remarks! I am also feeling a little bit down from the silliness of your post. But don't worry, some moment a few seconds from now both of us will be happy again!
Would you mind enlightening me of the reasons of said condemned and illegal invasion, if not for the benefit of controlling middle eastern oil? I'm scratching my head here. This is most confusing.
Don't worry. As I consider your posts the best joke of today, I'm sure we're both very happy indeed.
I'm eagerly waiting for something accurate and insightful.
|
It's the fucking US, every time they don't like someone they pull shit out of nowhere and accuse them of rape. It's the same shit they did to Roman Polanski.
IMHO, US should just stay the fuck out of other people's business.
|
On October 05 2012 12:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 10:36 D10 wrote:On October 05 2012 08:41 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:
[quote]
Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud.
Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
*Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that. This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it. disagree, I thought his comment was much better than the previous discussion around said quote So you deny that 9/11 was one of the biggest contributing factors to what led to the war on terror?
The concept of America at war with terrorism may have begun on September 11, 2001 when Tom Brokaw, having just witnessed the collapse of one the towers of the World Trade Center, declared "Terrorists have declared war on [America]."[2] Subsequently, the phrase 'War on Terror' was popularized by US President George W. Bush and other high-ranking US officials to denote a global military, political, legal and ideological struggle against organizations designated as terrorist and regimes that were accused of having a connection to them or providing them with support or were perceived, or presented as posing a threat to the US and its allies in general. It was typically used with a particular focus on militant Islamists and al-Qaeda.
Taken from wiki, and it went from invading afghanistan to invading Iraq to not knowing wtf is it at all.
911 was the single biggest excuse to invade whatever you wanted with no evidence of merit, thats what it was, war on terror is just the name the govt gave to their party
|
On October 09 2012 07:35 shizaep wrote:
It's the fucking US, every time they don't like someone they pull shit out of nowhere and accuse them of rape. It's the same shit they did to Roman Polanski.
IMHO, US should just stay the fuck out of other people's business.
I don't think the US has anything really to do with the rape charges. It's about a police officer trying to do her job which lead to the case being tried in court, and a prosecutor trying to make career is keeping the charges up.
If he'd actually went to Sweden and gone to court I bet he'd be out of there in a giffy. The conviction rates of rape perpetrators are at 10% in Sweden, and considering they've got shit for evidence (that we know), he'd be free to go fairly quickly, but they still have to have the hearing.
What I really don't understand is why he went to England, as they've got much much closer ties to the US in terms of extradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
