Another political thread

[Nicklz]

Regaurdless of your political leanings. GET THE FACTS right.

I had a meeting with a landowner today, was trying to get him to sign a oil & gas lease. And through conversation we end up talking politics and economy. And this guy says, "I'd never consider this if we didn't need more domestic power and not depend on the mid-east" I start explaining how recent prices for crude have made domestic exploration and drilling more cost effective. He says, "thats the only reason we are in Iraq...it's all for the oil, in my opinion no american life is worth a drop of oil" my face :eek: then I just wanted to (me-> [img]graemlins/slap.gif[/img] <-him)

I'm sure he saw the shock in my face. But oh well.

Any democrat on here who would like to explain, how we are in Iraq for oil. Please you have my attention, lol.

[98goldbird]

Hahaha.....wow. Yeah, what he said is funny. But your response is as funny, if not the same. You really think we're not in Iraq for oil? Hmmm...very interesting. I won't go into to much detail, but lets put it this way.

Bush came from Texas (biggest oil reserve) and was a CEO for a major oil company....thats just a brief background. Here's something you might enjoy.

Bush's Administration and their connections to the Oil Conspiracy

Background on Oil conspiracy (if you want to call it that :rolleyes: )

U.K Prime Minister Tony Blair's Adviser on the issue

If you're really going to tell me that we're only in it for the revenge on 9/11, then all I can say is that you need to find someway to get out of your patriotically-closed box.

I mean, seriously. Think about it. It IS possible.

[Nicklz]

We are not in Iraq for oil/money. We are not financially benfiting from oil production in Iraq. And as most democrats are quick to point out the war has costed alot of US money. As your own link said:
"Iraqi oil revenues to be held in a United Nations-run trust fund and spent on rebuilding Iraq."
The entire link is biased and based on theory!
As for the exact reason for going to war, that needs to be another thread. I'm just saying it isn't because of Oil or the currency OPEC uses.

To think that america can keep the euro from spreading, by invading OPEC countries is non-sense. The euro is the best thing that has happened to europe-asia. It has increased trade and buisness throughout europe and connected euro countries as basically one financial market.

The only reason the US dollar was world currency, is because the us dollar was worth more than any other countries dollar. Now many other currencies are worth more than US dollar.

In fact your link is in theory of US maintaing a strong US dollar. In fact just the opposite is true, the declining dollar has it's benefits. In bolstering the US domestic economy! If the US dollar continues to compete for "top dollar" it slows domestic growth and increases interest rates here in the US. Further more, a declining US dollar puts more pressure on the euro, spreading growth to other countries around the world, increasing the global economy growth.


As for Peak production forecast. Many different opinions from many different experts vary greatly. I am a landman, so I know a bit about this. The only reason we have depended upon mid-east oil, is it produced cheaper there. Hell it bubbles out of the sand in places. Here we have to drill much deeper, more costly, to hit anything substantial.

Although when Saddam took power he hired US oil experts, to conduct geological studies. They found that by 2020 Iraq could start to "dry up".

We (the US) have tremendous amounts of natural resources, between oil & gas. It's just we haven't drilled it all due to economics. With the $56 dollar per barrel cost of oil. We are now financially able to further explorer new fields here in the states (on shore and off shore). I know it's not favorable to environmentalists but the bill to drill in alaska passed. Most fields haven't even been looked at there due to it's been protective land for so long.

[ April 03, 2005, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Nicklz ]

[Nicklz]

As far as pump prices for gas goes. We have paid more in the past. Adjusted for inflation, gas was selling for $2.59 in 1980, while dipping below $1.50 for a period in the mid-1990s. For gasoline to rise again to its February 1981 peak, current oil prices would have to rise to about $80 a barrel. (currently we are at $56 dollars per barrel)

[FirebirdGT]

Originally posted by Nicklz:
Regaurdless of your political leanings. GET THE FACTS right.

But what are the RIGHT FACTS? YOUR view that we are NOT there for the oil? Or HIS view that we are?

[95fbirdkid]

politics and this board are like oil and water, these threads turn ugly way to fast.

this is locked at the FIRST sign of it going down hill

[3.4 slow to go]

How about "We are in Iraq for many resons, oil just happens to be one of them"

[Infernal]

It must be a pretty simple world we live in where everything is either right or wrong, black or white. The war was only about oil, or the war was not about oil at all. The war was only about national defense, or not at all. There is no point in even debating with someone who sees the world in such a simplistic way (in this case, your landowner).

This war, like all wars, has many sociological, political, and economical catalysts. Was oil one of them? Well, let's just say that I doubt very much that the notion the economic burden of OPEC oil on America's economy was seen an undesirable benefit of a positive outcome. And similarly, I highly doubt it was the overwhelming factor.

I refuse to even try to address the conspiracy theorists who claim that President Bush has a personal financial interest in Iraq, because no rational argument will convince them otherwise, so I'll leave that one to you Art Bell and George Nory acolytes.

[3.4 slow to go]

hrmmmmmm, mentioning Art Bell & George Norey w/that avatar pcture huh? [img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img]

[Camarorulz]

I find it interesting that Cheney's cronies in Halliburton are getting a lot of money from doing work in Iraq, and they didn't even have to bid for their contracts. Cheney may not have stock in the company anymore, but you can bet your *** his family holds stake in it. Bush was not CEO of a "major oil company." He started Arbusto, which was bought out by Spectrum 7, which was later bought by Harken energy. None of these companies. He sold his stock in Harken to invest in the Texas Rangers. Bush got out of the oil business a long time ago.

[95fbirdkid]

Originally posted by Camarorulz:
I find it interesting that Cheney's cronies in Halliburton are getting a lot of money from doing work in Iraq, and they didn't even have to bid for their contracts. Cheney may not have stock in the company anymore, but you can bet your *** his family holds stake in it.

Halliburton didnt have to bid, b/c there were no other companies that were capable/interested in doing the job. when theres only one company, its hard to have them make bids

[3.4 slow to go]

this is going down hill fast, just like no one *****ing about haliburton& clinton....

ibtl, fwiw

[shock_core]

i agree with infernal, you can't just be like omfg it is or it isn't otherwise your a COmmunist. I'm sure oil plays a part in it, but oil prolly isn't the ONLY reason were there

[Nicklz]

As far as the haliburton thing. Many blog sites have cleared the vice-president in that. He is in no way financially gaining anything in relation with halliburton.

Back before the contract was awarded my dad (who has been in this buisness (oil&gas) for almost 30 years. Told me to invest in halliburton, this was before you even heard of the first mention of halliburton. He said it would be the only company suited for the Iraq deal. I was skeptical and didn't buy. I wish I bought even half of what he did. We were just talking about this no too lang ago and he says, "No matter how old you get, you should still listen to your old dad" I wish I had.