Guest Vyce Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Actually, Bush came out during his speech and told the Iraqs not to burn their oil fields, rather blatantly. Surprised the hell out of me. If you can possibly, for one instance, think OUTSIDE the whole "war for oil" concept for ONE minute, think about another reason he said that: Yeah, yeah, the ecology, BUT..... Iraq needs the oil money for reconstruction. Right now, oil is pretty much their cash cow. Any government that exist post Saddam will need those profits. Burning the oil fields destroys their future economy. But, of course, I doubt anyone in the "war for oil" camp will EVER really buy into that argument, no matter how valid it may be. And it IS valid. It just may not be the interpretation you come up with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vyce Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Forgot to add this: I obviously don't want chemical weapons used upon our troops, but I would like for us to find a shitload of them. Just so we can parade them out to the world, and give them the middle fucking finger, saying "I told you so." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Burning oil wells is bad for the environment. Worse than SUV's even, I think. Maybe. That is all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Yes, it is bad for the environment but how much of a stance for pro-environment has Bush taken? And the other thing is I can understand that argument, but the flip side to this is that American oil companies that have friends in high places are going to seize contracts for extraction, exploration, refining, and distribution. And who's going to be receiving most of the oil since their main supplier is on strike and gas prices are rising? Like I said, I can understand the argument but there's another side to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Actually, Bush came out during his speech and told the Iraqs not to burn their oil fields, rather blatantly. Surprised the hell out of me. That action would cause an ecological catastrophe --- as we saw in 1991. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 19, 2003 "supports terrorism" is a very vague statement though. It is perfectly acceptable to assume he has little to nothing to do with any attack on or against America. Israeli intelligence --- which, it should be noted, tends to be dead-on accurate --- has long said that he provided A LOT of intel for the 9/11 attacks. And he funnels money to terrorists, so he is an immediate threat. Bush warned people in his speech post-9/11 that if you support terrorism, you are an enemy. He wasn't kidding. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted March 20, 2003 And the other thing is I can understand that argument, but the flip side to this is that American oil companies that have friends in high places are going to seize contracts for extraction, exploration, refining, and distribution. We can't refine their oil with our existing refineries; it's too thick. I'm sure modifications can be made, but considering we haven't built an oil refinery in this country in quite some time, I'm sure the parts to do so just aren't lying around in some Texan's shed. Considering that we receive oil from Iraq now, there's no reason not to expect that arrangement to continue in the future. Even with the Venezuela situation, the price of crude oil has fallen significtantly in the past two months. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
