Can anyone guess...

[Zooropa]

...the top four counties the U.S. imports oil from????

no cheating, i'll give you the answer later.....

 

[deep]

suadi
mexico
vensuala
uk

 

[deep]

o k

now i looked and i am not 100% correct.

or 100 % wrong.

 

[Popmartijn]

I don't know the top 4 or whatever. I only know that about 46% of Iraqi oil exports are to the USA. But where the rest of the oil is coming from... no idea.

C ya!

Marty

 

[kobayashi]

suadi
mexico
vensuala
uk

i would think canada is a lot bigger than the UK...i thought canada was the biggest to the US

 

[Dreadsox]

Canada, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuala

My guess anyhow!

 

[deep]

Isn't Canada part of the British empire.

The Queen is on the currency, right?

 

[bonoman]

Canada, Venezula, Saudi, Iran

 

[meegannie]

Canada
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Venezuala

 

[Zooropa]

OK, I'm impatient. so....
Here's how it goes....

Country Barrels*, %ofImport , TOT%ofconsumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Canada 1717 , 15.75 , 9.06
2.Saudi Arabia 1662 , 15.25 , 8.77
3.Venezuela 1540 , 14.13 , 8.12
4.Mexico 1166 , 10.70 , 6.15

*in thousands of barrels

-overall, 25.3% of our imported oil is from the persian gulf.
-overall, 14.5% of oil counsumed in the US, comes from the Persian Gulf.
-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!

-note-these statistics are taken from the energy efficiency administrations website @ http://www.eia.doe.gov/

 

[bonoman]

Ha i knew canada was number 1. I got into an arguement with the old man over that. I knew it!

 

[meegannie]

what do I win?? They didn't have to be in order, right?

 

[Zooropa]

errr, what do you want?
how about a $5 gift certificate to Exxon???

 

[Scarletwine]

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]

what do I win?? They didn't have to be in order, right?

showoff


But, then you are a U. S. Congressioanal aid, right?

 

[BVS]

-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!

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?

 

[deep]

Ha i knew canada was number 1. I got into an arguement with the old man over that. I knew it!

We didn't have an "argument".

and eberybudy knows Canadian oil is just Alaskan oil that has been slant drilled.

 

[pax]

deep, you're bonoman's dad?

You should talk to him about his grammar.

 

[Zooropa]

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?

US involvement in the middle east (as well as European) obviously has economic factors involved (meaning oil). The point I'm trying to make here is that this war is not solely about oil, as the extreme left would have you believe. Stabilizing the region, protecting ourselves and our interests is the predominant reason. No one in the right mind can argue that Saddam Hussein is good for his people. His weapons pose a threat to all nations, and once again, he has been given every opportunity to comply with the UN, yet he continues to thumb his nose.
Should we get involved? Well, that can be debated, but rarely do I ever here an anti-warmonger come up with many concrete reasons why we shouldn't. Mostly I here that Bush is defending his Daddy, No War For Oil, Bush is a moron, Bush is stupid... yada yada. I'm tired of it. I hated Clinton, yet I never disrespected him. 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.....

 

[Zooropa]

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.

France is heavily reliant on middle East Oil. This is a major reason for them not wanting to go to war with Iraq. Kinda off a No war for Oil bastardization. Plus, they don't want us going in there and cleaning up, only to find that they've been less than honest about their weapons sales to Iraq.

China produces approx 70% of it's own oil. As of now, that number is declining, and while they do have an interest in the persian gulf, primarily they are looking to Russia and Kazakhstan as ways to narrow that gap.

 

[kobayashi]

that is a huge slant

and eberybudy knows Canadian oil is just Alaskan oil that has been slant drilled.

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

 

[nbcrusader]

So, if Bush were truly an evil warmonger and push us into a war for oil, we would invade Canada.

 

[Zooropa]

I say we do it!!!!!!


jk....

 

[Scarletwine]

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.....

I believe I'm perfectly within my rights to call Bush a dumbass. And I truly believe he is. He spouts his mouth off without examining the real consequences of his rhetoric (ex. Axis of Evil)
I think Cheney and Rumsfeld have way to much influence on GW. He doesn't seem to make an effort to hear a balanced presentation of data.

I'm also quite a ways past 25 and I agree that I've learned the world is definitely not as ideal. In fact I think it is ran by money and profits above people and nations.
There actually were almost as many people over 30 than under at the rallies that have taken place all over the world. I just don't believe bombing innocent civilians is worth it. Especially without UN support for our military intervention.
A gentleman from Chile was on the Today show today and I thought he had a great slant towards SH. He said Pinochet was a brutal horrible dictator, but they wouldn't have wanted to be freed by the US by coming into their nation militarily. He was their problem. Containment & inspections can work.

 

[BVS]

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).

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.

 

[deep]

Re: that is a huge slant

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

clever

 

[Screaming Flower]

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

 

[Zooropa]

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.

I understand the time/energy arguement. I visit this board several times a day, but rarely post, because I don;t have the time/energy to. But, that's kinda my point, no one forces anyone to respond here, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to articulate your opinion in a clear way, otherwise, you'll be dismissed as uninformed. That's the whole "Bush is Dumb" or "No Oil For War" objection I made earlier.

As for the complexity of the situation, no doubt that it is, and I think most people here that follow the events closely, understand that there is no clear right/wrong answer. This is the essence of intelligent debate. It should be an exchange of opinion and information between conflicting sides and many people on this forum are generally interested in this debate. But again, it is very hard for me to listen to an arguement that contradicts or conflicts my own, when it is prefaced with Bush is so stupid.. know what I mean??

 

[diamond]

So, if Bush were truly an evil warmonger and push us into a war for oil, we would invade Canada.

brillant nb.

 

[melon]

Why would he invade Canada? He's already getting all the oil he wants from Canada.

Melon