Zooropa
Acrobat
...the top four counties the U.S. imports oil from????
no cheating, i'll give you the answer later.....
no cheating, i'll give you the answer later.....
deep said:suadi
mexico
vensuala
uk
meegannie said:what do I win?? They didn't have to be in order, right?
-overall, 4.19% of oil consumed in the US, comes from Iraq.
So, why do I keep hearing that the only reason we are going to war if for oil? 4.19%!!! With this logic, we should be going after our neighbors up north!
bonoman said:Ha i knew canada was number 1. I got into an arguement with the old man over that. I knew it!
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Yes, Iraq's oil is a small percentage compared to these others. But there are a lot of other factors you are leaving out.
Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. Plus it's one of the cheapest to produce. The US companies have been heavily excluded from these reserves, but it doen't mean they don't want there hands on it. And this administration is causing much noise about a shortage with their wanting to drill Alaska and rising prices(and no matter what Bush says, he will do nothing to increase the access to alternative fuels. His history and present day actions prove that.) So it's not so far fetched to think Bush wants some of this oil. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but do you really thinks it's soley based on weapons?
Scarletwine said:Not because we need the oil for our use, but to control the oil. It becomes a bargaining tool in our dealings with France and most especially China.
That is why they are against the war, they don't want us controlling the oil they use. The war would also guarantee our presence in the mideast for a long time to come.
deep said:and eberybudy knows Canadian oil is just Alaskan oil that has been slant drilled.
Zooropa said:
Too many people insult our President in uneducated, simpleminded rhetoric. If you disagree with Bush, fine, you have that right. But when you say it's because he's a moron, or stupid, or NO WAR FOR OIL.... it's you that looks stupid. (Not you in particular BonoVoxSuperstar). People, in general don;t think for themselves, and are too easily swayed by liberal rhetoric. Why liberal rhetoric? Well, the majority of people I meet are under 25. They are in their college years or sometimes highschool, and this age is a natural age to want to express yourself as an individual. (As you get older, you learn that the world isn't quite as ideal as you thought it was when you were younger.) Liberalism embodies this spirit, and through that, in a way, conservatism is viewd as confining or constrictive. In the US, the democrats emody the liberal spirit (at least the modern conotation of it) and there for most younger people (25 and under) tend to be Democrats. In the present political situation, the Democrats are looking for something to run against Bush, and have seized the anti-war rhetoric, and are now feeding it the young masses, who, for the most part, eating it up. errr, I think I went off topic here. Well, anyway, I'm not saying that EVERYONE UNDER 25 IS THIS WAY, NOR AM I SAYING ANYWAY OPPOSED TO THE WAR IS EITHER. I'm all for intelligent debate over it, it needs to be just that though, intelligent. There..... rant done.....
Too many people insult our President in uneducated, simpleminded rhetoric. If you disagree with Bush, fine, you have that right. But when you say it's because he's a moron, or stupid, or NO WAR FOR OIL.... it's you that looks stupid. (Not you in particular BonoVoxSuperstar).
kobayashi said:
welcome to north western north america as presented via map technology.
alaska_____________________________________________
________________________________________________
__yukon______NWT_______nunavut__________________
____yukon______NWT_______nunavut________________
_____yukon___________NWT_____nunavut____________
______BC______________alberta________saskatchewan
_______BC_______________alberta______saskatchewan
________BC_______________alberta_____saskatchewan
_________BC________________alberta___saskatchewan
__________BC________________alberta__saskatchewan
kobayashi said:
alaska_____________________________________________
________________________________________________
__yukon______NWT_______nunavut__________________
____yukon______NWT_______nunavut________________
_____yukon___________NWT_____nunavut____________
______BC______________alberta________saskatchewan
_______BC_______________alberta______saskatchewan
________BC_______________alberta_____saskatchewan
_________BC________________alberta___saskatchewan
__________BC________________alberta__saskatchewan
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I appreciate you not attacking me. Thank you, not all on this board are that respectful.
But with that being said, I still don't think it's fair what you said. Many of us, especially on this forum, don't have time or the energy to argue and counter argue every point. So yeah sometimes it comes down to a simple quote of "No war for oil". But I don't think everyone who's anti-war really believes that is the only reason. Just like I really don't think that every Bush supporter believes his "if you aren't with me, you're against me" quote. These are extremes. Extremes are dangerous.
This is a multi-facceted problem. I don't think anyone is actually pro-Saddam on this thing, but it doesn't mean we're ready to nuke him. This is a complex issue. One that I really don't think dropping a few bombs can solve. In fact it can produce a lot more problems. I think the biggest concern of people who are anti-war is that we haven't seen this administration really put an effort towards other options. We do not have weapons pointed at us right now, we haven't even proven the weapons exist. Why are we rushing to war? Why are we willing to kill innocent people? There are other motives here.
brillant nb.nbcrusader said:So, if Bush were truly an evil warmonger and push us into a war for oil, we would invade Canada.