When is the world going to realize that it is all about OIL?

Question

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/asia/26thailand.html?ex=1173157200&en=a8e163b370170f87&ei=5070&emc=eta1

When?

Is anyone going to actually go to the link?

Answer 1

I think it's sad (and telling) that no one bothered to read your subsequent article and realize that you were be facetious.

Answer 2

It is about oil? I am not sure that I would agree with you. If you are up to date, then you already know that we really don't need any oil from any other place but right here. In the Gulf of Mexico they have found enough oil to last another 75 to 100 yrs. at to days usage, further more in the gulf of Maine they have found another 150 years on top of that. I am assuming that we are talking about oil and not Iraq. The real problem with oil is not availability but of processing the crude oil. With the hurricanes in the Gulf and the destruction of refineries, that the oil companies have no intention of rebuilding or repairing. Our ability to produce a finished product is some what limited. We have tankers that sit in the Gulf for as much as 6 to 8 weeks to be off loaded. It should also be pointed out that there has not been a new refinery built since 1977 and that was in Three rivers Texas. LISTEN TO ME IT GAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL, BUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MONEY and how much more they can rape the American public out of.

Note;
If you are really talking about Iraq, we didn't go there because of 9/11 and we didn't go there for the oil. We were forced to go there because of the violation of the piece accord of 1992, there were 17 violations and the UN didn have the guts to(to send troops, mostly American) follow up and and take an action that was already mandated. I will tell you that I have very little use for G. W. but the Iraq insurrection isn't one of the reason that I don't have any use of him, further more I am not a republican, but I have investagated this for my column.

Answer 3

This is why the entire debate about the Iraq “surge” is as much a sideshow as Britney’s scalp. More troops in Baghdad are irrelevant to what’s going down in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The surge supporters who accuse the Iraq war’s critics of emboldening the enemy are trying to deflect attention from their own complicity in losing a bigger battle: the one against the enemy that actually did attack us on 9/11. Who lost Iraq? is but a distraction from the more damning question, Who is losing the war on terrorism?

The record so far suggests that this White House has done so twice. The first defeat, of course, began in early December 2001, when we lost Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. The public would not learn about that failure until April 2002 (when it was uncovered by The Washington Post), but it’s revealing that the administration started its bait-and-switch trick to relocate the enemy in Iraq just as bin Laden slipped away. It was on Dec. 9, 2001, that Dick Cheney first floated the idea on “Meet the Press” that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It was “pretty well confirmed,” he said (though it was not), that bin Laden’s operative Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague months before Atta flew a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.

In the Scooter Libby trial, Mr. Cheney’s former communications aide, Catherine Martin, said that delivering a message on “Meet the Press” was “a tactic we often used.” No kidding. That mention of the nonexistent Prague meeting was the first of five times that the vice president would imply an Iraq-Qaeda collaboration on that NBC show before the war began in March 2003. This bogus innuendo was an essential tool for selling the war precisely because we had lost bin Laden in Afghanistan. If we could fight Al Qaeda by going to war in Iraq instead, the administration could claim it didn’t matter where bin Laden was. (Mr. Bush pointedly stopped mentioning him altogether in public.)

Answer 4

I'm not sure how Thailand fits into the whole "quest for oil scheme" but here's my cents on similar ideas:

People that think anyone goes to war for oil forgets a number of things:

1. Sanctions. It is much easier to lift sanctions than to go to war. We had sanctions against Iraq. If we wanted their oil, we had to do was ask.

2. We have more oil (oil shale) in Utah than in the entire middle east. We don't really need oil supplies. We need ways of refining it cheaper.

3. There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the U.S. in over 30 years because of super rigid environmental safeguards. These safeguards are very costly. As a result of these costs, no one can afford to "start out" in the business and compete with those already there. As a result, we get an oligopoly because of environmentalists.

4. It's much cheaper to buy oil from others because they don't have the same economic and humanitarian rules and costs that we have. It's actually much cheaper to lift sanctions against a dictator and buy his pollutant causing child labor created crude product than take over and do it ourselves.

For these reasons, oil can never be the motivation for the west to invade a country. Common sense is fun, no?

Answer 5

9/11 has NOTHING to do with the invasion of Iraq.
The alleged hijackers were mostly saudi's,(our allies), based in afganistan.
There was NO connection between the events of 9/11 and saddam/iraq. This has been proven over and over. Not even jr. claims iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Answer 6

When will you realize the problems inside a sovereign state aren't our problems? When will the cons realize they become part of the problem when they get hysterical about it? When will the paranoid hysteria end? When will people stop pulling obscure situations in places that aren't our business as examples? When will the hate towards muslims stop just because they are muslims?

Answer 7

It won't happen because the denial is a conscious choice to allow soilders to die in the name of SUVs and selfish consumption. Americans feel intitled to their lifestyle no matter who it hurts. The only thing that will turn their heads is if the wars come here and their children have to die for their lifestyle.

This may just happen as we build enemies through out the world by exploiting their work forces and sacrificing their children.

if we want to change the US we have to change the curriculum in the schools to reflect a responsibility to community, including the world community.

Answer 8

I disagree, it is not about oil, it is about the price of oil and protecting the huge profits of the oil company's

Answer 9

The longest journey starts with the first steep. Stop driving your car, heating your house with oil, turn off your electric and live in a tent in the woods.

Answer 10

if you were open minded i would give you links about the oil,your link has nothing to do with your post though.