GREASER Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 So at the veterans parade, there were people with signs that said no more blood for oil...ok cool, got that, but these same people were driving cars, and wearing tennis shoes with rubber soles? Why do they keep contributing to the demand for oil? I am sure they use plastic as well as complain about the cost of fuel when it rises..I agree that may be the real reason we are over there, but also see the big picture that we rely on oil, and not willing to give up my lifestyle, so see the reason we are over there...Please dont waste bandwith with stupid comments, just explain what these peoples complaint is, and why they still use oil products? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 So at the veterans parade, there were people with signs that said no more blood for oil...ok cool, got that, but these same people were driving cars, and wearing tennis shoes with rubber soles? Why do they keep contributing to the demand for oil? I am sure they use plastic as well as complain about the cost of fuel when it rises..I agree that may be the real reason we are over there, but also see the big picture that we rely on oil, and not willing to give up my lifestyle, so see the reason we are over there...Please dont waste bandwith with stupid comments, just explain what these peoples complaint is, and why they still use oil products?Just ignore them. They don't have a clue. If they did, their signs would read "More blood, less oil".The notion that America would in some way benefit from Iraq's natural resources is flawed in two critical ways. First, the war disrupted oil exports out of Iraq and resulted in damaged infrastructure. What we did not damage either directly or indirectly was then subject to terrorist attacks. And in the mean time, the instability led to a lot of price speculation in the NYMEX, driving energy prices above where the fundamentals suggested that they should've been. And even if the war had been about oil, it would've only been about oil insofar as it could help bolster the economy...but most business doesn't benefit from war because economic resources are diverted from butter to guns. So this war was clearly not fought on economic grounds.Besides, even IF the U.S. embarked on a program to start a high-volume exportation of Iraqi oil, it would've just been sold on the world market. The decline in oil prices would've benefited the rest of the world more than it would've benefited Americans. So once again, the "blood for oil" concept is unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 IMO it's disgraceful that the protest would happen on a day to honor our veterans. definitely a disservice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Interestingly, before the latest war the administration insisted that it wasn't a war for oil.It turns out, they were right. Oil prices are up.But then you get these people who chant "No war for oil."Well, duh. We know that. If it was a war for oil then gas prices would be going down. So... these protesters are just reinforcing what Donald Rumsfeld and friends said. They're on the same side and don't even realize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREASER Posted November 12, 2006 Author Share Posted November 12, 2006 these people were actually IN the parade...not sure how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 So at the veterans parade, there were people with signs that said no more blood for oil...ok cool, got that, but these same people were driving cars, and wearing tennis shoes with rubber soles? Why do they keep contributing to the demand for oil? I am sure they use plastic as well as complain about the cost of fuel when it rises..I agree that may be the real reason we are over there, but also see the big picture that we rely on oil, and not willing to give up my lifestyle, so see the reason we are over there...Please dont waste bandwith with stupid comments, just explain what these peoples complaint is, and why they still use oil products?You are insinuating that somehow them consuming oil and oil products conficts with them thinking we shouldn't trade blood for oil (their words not mine). This doesn't make any sense to me. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you not think it is a possiblility that if we hadn't gone to war he could continue to use his oil products??? Perhaps that's the chain of events he would have preferred. What is so hard to understand about that?I'm sure there could be a rational complaint about these people but you haven't verbalized it yet.Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 You are insinuating that somehow them consuming oil and oil products conficts with them thinking we shouldn't trade blood for oil (their words not mine). This doesn't make any sense to me. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you not think it is a possiblility that if we hadn't gone to war he could continue to use his oil products??? Perhaps that's the chain of events he would have preferred. What is so hard to understand about that?I'm sure there could be a rational complaint about these people but you haven't verbalized it yet.JasonWell try this analogy on, People walking down the street protesting killing animals for their fur, while wearing a Mink Coat!Get the picture yet!The bigger issue is doing this during the celebration of the very people that died for their right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREASER Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 You are insinuating that somehow them consuming oil and oil products conficts with them thinking we shouldn't trade blood for oil (their words not mine). This doesn't make any sense to me. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you not think it is a possiblility that if we hadn't gone to war he could continue to use his oil products??? Perhaps that's the chain of events he would have preferred. What is so hard to understand about that?I'm sure there could be a rational complaint about these people but you haven't verbalized it yet.JasonThey were the ones with the signs, so like me, they feel the war is about oil..so why continue to contibute to the problem as they see it..problem being oil consumption and our need to control supplies..maybe I dont make sense in text, but those idiots in the parade were asses, but it is their right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Well try this analogy on, People walking down the street protesting killing animals for their fur, while wearing a Mink Coat!Get the picture yet!The bigger issue is doing this during the celebration of the very people that died for their right to do so.I agree with you about your last point, that they chose a disrespectful and perhaps selfish (another debate altogether) time to protest.However, your analogy is wrong. It's like protesting against killing animals for their fur IF there were a way to get the fur without killing them, perhaps in a less cost effective way. This is because there WAS a way to not lose the soldiers blood and still have oil, and that is to not have gone to war in the first place.JasonThey were the ones with the signs, so like me, they feel the war is about oil..so why continue to contibute to the problem as they see it..problem being oil consumption and our need to control supplies..maybe I dont make sense in text, but those idiots in the parade were asses, but it is their right.Well I made my point above but I agree with you that those people should have given the vets their day in peace.Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I am sure they are also smelly vegans and drive used Volvos.Like our WWII vets fought for oil!Clueless to the max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I agree with you about your last point, that they chose a disrespectful and perhaps selfish (another debate altogether) time to protest.However, your analogy is wrong. It's like protesting against killing animals for their fur IF there were a way to get the fur without killing them, perhaps in a less cost effective way. This is because there WAS a way to not lose the soldiers blood and still have oil, and that is to not have gone to war in the first place.JasonOh so now I see your actual point, you think we went to war for the oil. Maybe you should elaborate on what makes you think we did and show something that supports that other than opinion. Because that to me is no argument, because there is nothing to substantiate that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 DFW has no argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I am sure they are also smelly vegans and drive used Volvos. OMG. You are crazy. I am sure you all understand what GREASER is saying. Of course we all rely on oil one way or the other, but there are alternatives rather than taking human life just to increase our dependency. Know with all this, I am not showing my personal views, just my perspective on what DFW and GREASER are trying to get across. Bringing up fur coats is apples and oranges in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Oh so now I see your actual point, you think we went to war for the oil. Maybe you should elaborate on what makes you think we did and show something that supports that other than opinion. Because that to me is no argument, because there is nothing to substantiate that claim.WHAT???!!! I *NEVER* said that. All I said is if we did NOT go to war, today in 2006 we'd still have oil.In fact, if you want my personal opinion, which doesn't have much to do with my issue with the original post, I don't see Iraq as driven much by oil. It's possible it is, but I don't see a strong connection.JasonDFW has no argument.If by your post you're saying I have NEVER argued that Iraq was driven by oil, you'd be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Let's not be fools.We have Iran surrounded for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREASER Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 well these same people, I am sure, would blame someone else if gas was 6$ a gallon. Anyway, maybe my statements arent very clear, but hopefully my core idea is coming thru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Yeah, I think Jason nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 It's like protesting against killing animals for their fur IF there were a way to get the fur without killing them.Fake fur is made from oil.I think I just found a way to offend TWO special interest groups! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I agree with you about your last point, that they chose a disrespectful and perhaps selfish (another debate altogether) time to protest.However, your analogy is wrong. It's like protesting against killing animals for their fur IF there were a way to get the fur without killing them, perhaps in a less cost effective way. This is because there WAS a way to not lose the soldiers blood and still have oil, and that is to not have gone to war in the first place. Jason Jason somehow I took this as you were saying we went to war for the oil, now how could I have ever thought that. This is because there WAS a way to not lose the soldiers blood and still have oil, and that is to not have gone to war in the first place. Maybe I have just lost all grasp of the English language tonight. Too much cough and cold medicine I guess. Wayne......TWO...........now that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Well, duh. We know that. If it was a war for oil then gas prices would be going down.Unless the Administration screwed up the planning of the war. Of course we know that isn't true, since we "accomplished the mission" 3 and a half years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Unless the Administration screwed up the planning of the war. Of course we know that isn't true, since we "accomplished the mission" 3 and a half years ago.No war has one direct "mission". The tides have turned, and now we have another problem within a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 No war has one direct "mission". The tides have turned, and now we have another problem within a problem.Yeah, and I recall having seen an interview with GWB where the reporter asked about the "mission accomplished" speech. He replied that that particular carrier that he was on had been at sea for longer than had been expected and was on its way home, and that he wasn't making a comment with regard to the larger war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Yeah, and I recall having seen an interview with GWB where the reporter asked about the "mission accomplished" speech. He replied that that particular carrier that he was on had been at sea for longer than had been expected and was on its way home, and that he wasn't making a comment with regard to the larger war. Well the main mission was "accomplished", we got Saddam. So, I don't know if your just agreeing with me -I hope -, by saying that... (I don't know everything Bush said in his speech, or the interview), or trying to prove me, and/or the president wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Well the main mission was "accomplished", we got Saddam. So, I don't know if your just agreeing with me -I hope -, by saying that... (I don't know everything Bush said in his speech, or the interview), or trying to prove me, and/or the president wrong. To be clear, lets just strike the "Yeah, and" from my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 these people were actually IN the parade...not sure how that works.Maybe they were just re-enforcing the fact that there has been No Bloodshed FOR Oil ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.