Prisoners Of War executed

[T4 Primera]

Lets get some facts in here then shall we : source is World Oil Fact Sheet prepared by the American Petroleum Institute.

U.S. CRUDE OIL NEEDS:
U.S. 2002 consumption of crude and products: 19.7 million B/D
Between 1991 and 2001, U.S. demand for refined products increased by 17 percent, compared to 7 percent worldwide (7 percent for Europe).
U.S. gasoline demand grew by 19 percent during same time period.
U.S. distillate demand grew by 23 percent

Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels):
U.S. 22.0 billion in 2002

So after your 5 year (your figure) stockpiled reserves run out you have enough oil for:

Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels): U.S. 22.0 billion in 2002
divided by
U.S. 2002 consumption of crude and products: 19.7 million B/D
which = 1117 days or just over 3 years providing oil consumption doesn't grow as it has done over the last decade.

Notice also that the figures for proved oil reserves from the US are being revised downwards over time while the oil reserves in the Middle East, Russia and Eastern Europe are being revised upwards.

[Prelewd]

Those oil reserves include Alaska?

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by GTStang
If you think we need foriegn oil you are clueless. We buy foriegn oil so we don't have to tap our domestic oil.

Look at T4's post. U.S. oil reserves are going down, so yeah, you guys need Iraq badly. And occupying it would give your oil people all the mullah and oil they can get.

To make your statement of Bush becoming America's Hitler shows that you have a total lack of understanding of Germany the years before Hitler came into power and how he actually came into the power he had.

Well, yes there were differences. Hitler came to power at a time when Germany was down economically. Hitler's blaming Jews for their misfortunes gave Germans a rallying cry. But those are just the differences. The tone, the speeches, are very much eerily like Hitler's. In fact, Norwegian students who studied one of Bush's speech, taking away references about America and Iraq, concluded Hitler made the speech. If that shouldn't frighten you, then I don't know what will.

Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked?

Attacked by what? Al-Queda attacked you, not Iraq.

Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country?

No, but neither would I just attack another country just to root out all possible terrorists. It took Hitler the same logic in attacking nations around him, and rounding up Jews in the process.

Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation.

I fail to see what that has got to do with this issue, but that incident made by Japan was an act of war by another country. The terrorist attacks were not made in the name of any country, if you noticed.

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by Prelewd
Those oil reserves include Alaska?

Well, as far as I know, Alaska is part of the United States isn't it?:silly2: Anyway, it's in there:

2002 Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels), Top 5 States:
Texas 5.3 billion
Alaska 4.9 billion
California 3.8 billion
New Mexico 0.7 billion
Oklahoma 0.6 billion

So there you have the REAL reason why the US imports oil instead of using it's own domestic supplies.

[T4 Primera]

And from the same fact sheet by the American Petroleum Institute:
World Oil Fact Sheet

Because U.S. petroleum companies want to remain competitive, it is reasonable to expect them to join companies from other countries in exploring opportunities in a free Iraq - as they would in any other country with vast oil reserves.

Hmmmnnnnn...............

Before nationalization in the mid-70s, U.S. and British oil companies played a major role in developing Iraqi oil.

Hmmmmnnnnn............guess who hasn't been making money in Iraq since Saddam Hussein took over.

More recently, China, France, Japan and Russia have negotiated contracts to develop oilfields.

This gets more and more interesting doesn't it. Look who is missing out - that's right.....The U.S. and Britain..........double Hmmmmnnnnn.............

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by Milliardo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Attacked by what? Al-Queda attacked you, not Iraq.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, but neither would I just attack another country just to root out all possible terrorists. It took Hitler the same logic in attacking nations around him, and rounding up Jews in the process.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I fail to see what that has got to do with this issue, but that incident made by Japan was an act of war by another country. The terrorist attacks were not made in the name of any country, if you noticed.

Alright, maybe you should read the post again, or just read the post period.. All of those things you are referencing were my rebuttle to the "first war" that bush waged. Our reasons for being in Afganistan.

The attack on pearl harbor was made by the Japanese and we waged war on the Japanese. The attack on the trade center was made by terrorists and we waged war on terror. There's your correlation.

[Milliardo]

Hhhmm....I'll join in on that, T4. Looks like the smoking gun--only it's pointed on the U.S. and Britain. So it's all about oil? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by Prelewd
Our reasons for being in Afganistan.

What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.

The attack on pearl harbor was made by the Japanese and we waged war on the Japanese. The attack on the trade center was made by terrorists and we waged war on terror. There's your correlation.

As Bush himself said earlier, the war on terror has no boundaries. Looks like he backtracked on that, and now is saying that the war on terror must involve other countries as well.

[T4 Primera]

Here's something I've always wondered - the difference in definition between The US and the rest of the world of the term "Surgical Strike":

Worldwide meaning = send in a crack military unit (SAS etc.) to secure the target.

US meaning = launch a missile from 1000 or more miles away at a building suspected of containing the target. Then follow it up with a full scale invasion to confirm whether or not the target was hit.

[jon@af]

Originally posted by Milliardo


What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.

The fact that YOU dont think there is a reason to be there doesnt mean the government doesnt have their reasons. Granted there are some things many would view as stupid, such as this war, but there are also reasons behind them. Some of these reasons me be unbeknownst to you and the public for a reason, and other reasons may be left open to the public for a reason.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by T4 Primera
US meaning = launch a missile from 1000 or mor miles away at a building suspected of containing the target.

Of course, the U.S. method is more effective--you take out an entire building, along with "potential" terrorists (civilians, in other words). Hey, at least that's a hundred less "potential" terrorists. Makes the world safer, or at least makes the U.S. safer.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
The fact that YOU dont think there is a reason to be there doesnt mean the government doesnt have their reasons. Granted there are some things many would view as stupid, such as this war, but there are also reasons behind them. Some of these reasons me be unbeknownst to you and the public for a reason, and other reasons may be left open to the public for a reason.

Then what happened to the public's right to know? The lives of an entire nation is on the line, and the U.S. can care any less, just as long as the U.S. is safe? And we're supposed to simply accept each and every drivel that comes out of the U.S. government, even if that drivel doesn't even have a reason, or have hidden reasons? If there are hidden reasons, I would think U.S. citizens should be protesting on the streets, since there is apparently no transparency, and that those reasons kept from the public might be even more sinister than whatever Saddam, or Bin Laden, can come up with. So much then for "world security". Has the U.S. become such a police state that people there accept such nonsense such as "reasons unbeknownst to the public"? It becomes silly when you accept such things.

[jon@af]

Originally posted by Milliardo


Then what happened to the public's right to know? The lives of an entire nation is on the line, and the U.S. can care any less, just as long as the U.S. is safe? And we're supposed to simply accept each and every drivel that comes out of the U.S. government, even if that drivel doesn't even have a reason, or have hidden reasons? If there are hidden reasons, I would think U.S. citizens should be protesting on the streets, since there is apparently no transparency, and that those reasons kept from the public might be even more sinister than whatever Saddam, or Bin Laden, can come up with. So much then for "world security". Has the U.S. become such a police state that people there accept such nonsense such as "reasons unbeknownst to the public"? It becomes silly when you accept such things.

There are many things known only to the government that could cause frenzy among the people of the US should it be known. The public knows as much as it needs to know to be(for the most part anyways) satisfied. Besides, what are you going to do, sue the government for the top secret information they have? I believe you said above in the quote, it doesnt really matter what they people dont know, as long as the US is safe. People live in ignorance everyday, not just in the US either. guess what? the people really arent worried about the things they dont know about, if their life is ok then they dont care. I dont care about what secrets the government has, Im not going to spend my time worrying about something that I dont even know about. Sometimes those things that are unknown to the public are best left unknown to the public.

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by Milliardo


Of course, the U.S. method is more effective--you take out an entire building, along with "potential" terrorists (civilians, in other words). Hey, at least that's a hundred less "potential" terrorists. Makes the world safer, or at least makes the U.S. safer.

Have you even been following this war, or just watching Iraqi state run TV? We are bombing military and government installments. There is a VERY low number of civilian casualties. How do you suppose we go about this anyway, since Saddam is hiding his forces in Mosques, and hospitals. If this war was fought on our front, and Bush was hiding troops and weapons amongst our hospitals, schools, and religious buildings, it wouldn't bother me anymore if Saddam bombed them and they weren't there. We are trying to be humanitarian about this war, if such a thing is possible, but Saddam is making that awful hard.

Civilian casualties are a fact of war. Do you really think nobody is going to die in a war? Grow up and out of your Sanc Kingdom anime fantasy world.

[jon@af]

Milliardo, I find it interesting how you attack the tactics of the US army, and the US government and this entire war. I can understand how you might be against the war, but why the people who are fighting it? They are doing what they feel they should. It hurts every soldier over there when they see someone who thinks that what they are doing is worthless and stupid, especially when they are risking their lives for what they believe is right, otherwise, they wouldnt be there would they? And for the record, I believe there have been only a few instances of civilian casualties, which cannot be avoided all together in a war situation. It's war, people die, this is not a cartoon where BANG he's shot and get's back up. Not everything goes to plan, including where bombs or bullets may strike. By the way, what about civilians who trick the marines into thinking they are surrendring and then blow the hell out of them? is that justifiable? Hmm, they couldve just taken out these "Potential terrorists" but they dont, do they?