• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

ptif219 said:
Enemy doesn't exist? What was 911?

We are in Iraq,Afghanistan, Pakistan, and have concerns about Iran. Then there is the Israel problems that occur every couple of years.
Click to expand...

Wow. The ability to understand the English Language clearly eludes you.

The US military circa 1991 was designed to fight and stop a Soviet attack.

Tell me, did the Soviet Union exist in 1992, 1993, or 1994? :rofl

So tell me genius, what was the sense in maintaining a military designed primarily to stop an enemy that did not exist?

For someone who talks about the military, you sure seem extremely uninformed about what it was.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Iraq was not about oil.
Click to expand...

O'rly? So you think we would have invaded if Iraq had no oil? :2wave:

Only a true diehard Bush fan thinks that oil wasn't a reason.

Wolfowitz even stated that part of the reason to invade Iraq was to break OPEC, which amusingly, I'm totally for.

When Saddam attacked Kuwait did we go there on our own or was the UN involved?
Click to expand...

When Saddam attacked Kuwait, we were afraid he'd gain increased influence over oil along with a deep water port which could be used in an attack against Saudi Arabia as well as operations to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. If there was no oil in the region, we wouldn't have given a **** about it.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
O'rly? So you think we would have invaded if Iraq had no oil? :2wave:

Only a true diehard Bush fan thinks that oil wasn't a reason.

Wolfowitz even stated that part of the reason to invade Iraq was to break OPEC, which amusingly, I'm totally for.



When Saddam attacked Kuwait, we were afraid he'd gain increased influence over oil along with a deep water port which could be used in an attack against Saudi Arabia as well as operations to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. If there was no oil in the region, we wouldn't have given a **** about it.
Click to expand...


And we still kiss Saudi ass after 19 of them attacked our country on 9/11!
 
Look at the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 14% of Azeri territory is still being held by the Armenians. Did we give a **** back then? No.

Sure there's oil...but in tiny amounts and with transportation issues that render it essentially useless to America. Now, Iraq produced more then Azerbaijan does prior to the invasion and had relative ease of access to ocean borne tankers.
 
obvious Child said:
Look at the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 14% of Azeri territory is still being held by the Armenians. Did we give a **** back then? No.

Sure there's oil...but in tiny amounts and with transportation issues that render it essentially useless to America. Now, Iraq produced more then Azerbaijan does prior to the invasion and had relative ease of access to ocean borne tankers.
Click to expand...

Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves on the planet, its easily accessed and inexpensive to refine. Without it we have very short future based on our current oil economy. Iraq's nationalized oil policy was the only obstacle to energy security.

This was more or less spelled out in Cheney's taskforce on energy in 2001, before we invaded Iraq!

It could hardly be more clear.
 
obvious Child said:
Wow. The ability to understand the English Language clearly eludes you.

The US military circa 1991 was designed to fight and stop a Soviet attack.

Tell me, did the Soviet Union exist in 1992, 1993, or 1994? :rofl

So tell me genius, what was the sense in maintaining a military designed primarily to stop an enemy that did not exist?

For someone who talks about the military, you sure seem extremely uninformed about what it was.
Click to expand...

No we started downsizing before Clinton. Clinton took it to an extreme.
 
obvious Child said:
O'rly? So you think we would have invaded if Iraq had no oil? :2wave:

Only a true diehard Bush fan thinks that oil wasn't a reason.

Wolfowitz even stated that part of the reason to invade Iraq was to break OPEC, which amusingly, I'm totally for.



When Saddam attacked Kuwait, we were afraid he'd gain increased influence over oil along with a deep water port which could be used in an attack against Saudi Arabia as well as operations to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. If there was no oil in the region, we wouldn't have given a **** about it.
Click to expand...

Nice rant you did not answer my question.. If it was about oil how much oil are we now getting from Iraq?
 
Catawba said:
Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves on the planet, its easily accessed and inexpensive to refine. Without it we have very short future based on our current oil economy. Iraq's nationalized oil policy was the only obstacle to energy security.

This was more or less spelled out in Cheney's taskforce on energy in 2001, before we invaded Iraq!

It could hardly be more clear.
Click to expand...

How much oil are we now getting from Iraq?
 
ptif219 said:
How much oil are we now getting from Iraq?
Click to expand...


Its not about how much we are getting now. Most of the world gets their oil from the Middle East. We use 25% of the world's oil. In other words, our oil based economy goes down the tubes without a steady supply of ME oil in relatively short order.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on planet but Iraq kicked big oil out of their country 38 years ago. With our war, they are back in again!
 
Catawba said:
Its not about how much we are getting now. Most of the world gets their oil from the Middle East. We use 25% of the world's oil. In other words, our oil based economy goes down the tubes without a steady supply of ME oil in relatively short order.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on planet but Iraq kicked big oil out of their country 38 years ago. With our war, they are back in again!
Click to expand...

You show you have no argument. If the reason for the war was oil How much are we getting?
 
Catawba said:
Its not about how much we are getting now. Most of the world gets their oil from the Middle East. We use 25% of the world's oil. In other words, our oil based economy goes down the tubes without a steady supply of ME oil in relatively short order.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on planet but Iraq kicked big oil out of their country 38 years ago. With our war, they are back in again!
Click to expand...

What you fail to consider is that all we needed to get Iraqi oil was to buy it.
Just like we are now.
 
Goobieman said:
What you fail to consider is that all we needed to get Iraqi oil was to buy it.
Just like we are now.
Click to expand...

See from Cheney's oil industry task force reasons the strategic energy risk Iraq's nationalized oil presented to the US oil based economy:

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence, while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas. More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process. Dependence is so incredibly large, and growing so inexorably, that national autonomy is simply not a viable goal. In the global economy, it may not even be a desirable one."

"But recently, things have changed. These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with U.S. strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. A trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area.
The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government."

"Sanctions’ role in constraining investment in several key OPEC countries has aggravated the global problem of spare production capacity, which is now less diversified among a number of large producers than was the case twenty years ago. The consequent lack of competition has contributed to high prices."

"Several key producing countries in these important areas remain closed to investment. Encouragement of open investment policies in these countries would greatly promote renewed competition among the largest oil producers and the advancement of oil supplies in the coming years. A reopening of these areas to foreign investment could make a critical difference in providing surplus supplies to markets in the coming decade."

"The Gulf nations have one major asset—their oil and gas reserves. They, like Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and some other oil-producing nations, depend heavily on hydrocarbons to support their citizens. If the current regimes in the Gulf cannot deliver a better standard of living for rapidly increasing populations, social upheaval could result, and anti-Western elements could gain power. Similar concerns exist with respect to some other oil-producing countries outside the Gulf."

"Working together with the GCC could restrict some of the U.S.’ freedom of movement on security and foreign policy actions that might be desirable with regard to Iraq or the Arab-Israeli conflict from a U.S. point of view."

"Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions."

"Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry to allow greater investment is that GCC allies of the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market share in international oil markets"

"More oil could likely be brought into the market place in the coming years if oil-field development could be enhanced by participation of U.S. companies in countries where such investments are currently banned, particularly in Libya where frozen U.S. assets remain in limbo. Resources are large and, with major contributions of foreign investment capital, large additions to production rates could be accrued in the coming two to three years."
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
 
Catawba said:
See from Cheney's oil industry task force reasons....
Click to expand...
This doesn't address what I said, and it certainly doesnt support the argument that the war was for oil, as none of the things he described necessitate going to war to allow for their implementation.

Meanwhile... what has the greater availability of Iraqi oil done for oil prices?
 
Goobieman said:
This doesn't address what I said, and it certainly doesnt support the argument that the war was for oil, as none of the things he described necessitate going to war to allow for their implementation.

Meanwhile... what has the greater availability of Iraqi oil done for oil prices?
Click to expand...

Oil companies waiting to get busy in Iraq was not possible without our invasion/occupation. No one expected the Iraqis would be able to fight back for 7 years. You will just have to be patient for our occupation a bit longer, unless you want more oil businessmen beheaded. It has the effect of slowing down productivity.

Any rational and honest person reading Cheney's task force report knows that Iraq's nationalized oil was considered a threat to our oil based economy.
 
Catawba said:
Oil companies waiting to get busy in Iraq was not possible without our invasion/occupation
Click to expand...
Unsupportable.
It is -impossible- to argue that the -only- way for US companies to get involved in Iraq is to invade Iraq; it is similarly impossible to argue that ONLY US companies in Iraq could achieve this same effect.

And remember -- the issue here is not oil available to US companies to sell, but US companies developing Iraqi fields to put more oil on the market. Nothing in what you posted necesitates that US companies will sell mre oil.

You will just have to be patient for our occupation a bit longer, unless you want more oil businessmen beheadedd...
Click to expand...
So, you cannot demonstrate any effect. Thanks.

Any rational and honest person reading Cheney's task force report knos that Iraq's nationalized oil was considered a threat to our oil based economy
Click to expand...
You mean anyone with the same degree of partisan bigotry as yourself, as nothing in what you posted - and certainly nothing in reality - supports such a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Oil companies waiting to get busy in Iraq was not possible without our invasion/occupation. No one expected the Iraqis would be able to fight back for 7 years. You will just have to be patient for our occupation a bit longer, unless you want more oil businessmen beheaded. It has the effect of slowing down productivity.

Any rational and honest person reading Cheney's task force report knows that Iraq's nationalized oil was considered a threat to our oil based economy.
Click to expand...

Another words you don't know the democrats screwed us on getting any Iraq oil
 
RightinNYC said:
Let's be realistic when we're discussing graphs.

514px-USDebt.png


The bottom one is far more relevant than the top (which is still more relevant than using one not adjusted for inflation).



As the doctor fix goes, so goes the nation.



Not insignificant, but not much compared to Medicare's $89 trillion unfunded liability.



The Constitution also doesn't mention joining and providing funding/troops for an international "world's policeman," but most people making your objection don't seem to have a problem with that.



And on those occasions where we've refused to get involved, it's been much better for all those involved. Just ask the Tutsis how happy they are to live in a country that practiced self-determination.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely correct, just look at Rwanda.
 
ptif219 said:
No we started downsizing before Clinton. Clinton took it to an extreme.
Click to expand...

And you still haven't answered my question.

Why is that? Because you can't understand English or because actually answering would blow your argument to pieces?

If it was about oil how much oil are we now getting from Iraq?
Click to expand...

Oh look kids! Another person completely ignorant as to how oil markets work. It doesn't matter how much we get. And you ignored how Wolfwitz argued that Iraq could be used as a tool to break OPEC. Increasing supply of LSC to the market reduces prices, furthermore, a strong presence in Iraq stabilizes trading of oil.
 
obvious Child said:
And you still haven't answered my question.

Why is that? Because you can't understand English or because actually answering would blow your argument to pieces?



Oh look kids! Another person completely ignorant as to how oil markets work. It doesn't matter how much we get. And you ignored how Wolfwitz argued that Iraq could be used as a tool to break OPEC. Increasing supply of LSC to the market reduces prices, furthermore, a strong presence in Iraq stabilizes trading of oil.
Click to expand...

Because Vietnam was over

If it was about oil how much oil are we receiving?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves on the planet, its easily accessed and inexpensive to refine. Without it we have very short future based on our current oil economy. Iraq's nationalized oil policy was the only obstacle to energy security.

This was more or less spelled out in Cheney's taskforce on energy in 2001, before we invaded Iraq!

It could hardly be more clear.
Click to expand...

Isn't it ironic that due to the invasion, they amount of oil produced in Iraq has actuallu gone down due the the strife in the country. This has ahd the effet of increasing ME oil.Earlier this year the cost per barrel was down to $35 and now it is $80 dollars. People do not talk about it much but this is a hge indirect tax on the American public.
 
washunut said:
Isn't it ironic that due to the invasion, they amount of oil produced in Iraq has actuallu gone down due the the strife in the country. This has ahd the effet of increasing ME oil.Earlier this year the cost per barrel was down to $35 and now it is $80 dollars. People do not talk about it much but this is a hge indirect tax on the American public.
Click to expand...

Yeah it didn't quite turn out to be the cakewalk to victory that Dick-n-Bush thought it would be. They didn't expect the Iraqis to fight back for 7 years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom