I get my stats from the CIA world factbook who may just be asking the Saudi's how much they have, I don't know. But as is proposed, evidently we went there for the oil, then why did we not invade Anwar, or Utah, or Colorado, or, Wyoming, or the Gulf of Mexico? We have more oil in the US than in the middle east. Canada is already tapping into the sand/tar pits to provide us with oil. Sno, what is the breakeven point for removing oil from the shale? I thought it was between $60-$80/barrel and dropping with one report claiming $50 or less in the very near future. I have also heard reports of oil fields replenishing (e.g. Eugene Island). What's up with that? So why are we invading the middle east for oil? To use theirs up first?

MajorCougar wrote:

craigoscarson wrote:

Pardon my sideways thinking here:

As someone that typically sides with the GOP (in this case I am pretty neutral and in some ways am embarassed by my party ); I have to say that the reason that Snos gives is ultimately one of the best arguments for the U.S. being in Iraq (dont' confuse that with a good argument to start a war/ completely different issue). Unfortunately, that alone will never be a good enough reason to unilaterally enter into a war....and we know that the WMDs excuse was borderline at best and one of the top 200 travesties in world history at worst.
So the next question is, if the U.S. and Iraq (and conceivably most of the democratic world; since their economies feed off of ours) stand to benefit from stability in Iraq and the middle east and 1. accessibility to Iraqi oil under conceivably a democratic and semi-capitalist government (competition is almost always a good thing, except for the monopolies) 2. potential for untapped or increased oil reserve; wouldn't we also be saying that Saudi Arabia stands to lose here? Could that potentially be dangerous?

And whether or not the Saudis are happy or not about this; isn't this possibly the next (I'm assuming most still think the best reason is avoiding giving birth to new terrorists and increased instability in the middle east)best reason we have (even if it selfish and somewhat misleading) to stay in Iraq?

And having said all that, if we're discussing this on a sports chat board, don't you think that our country's leadership knew about this light years ago? Was entering Iraq even more about oil than many of us thought? Did GW use 9/11 and his fathers legacy and hatred for all things Saddam to get our grips on "non-Saudi, uncontaminated oil stats" oil access? Or rather was GW used by others to attain this.....(seems more likely considering his "black or white" moral compass could have easily been turned by those smarter than him post 9/11)

By no means do I think we had the right to enter Iraq unilaterally (it was a terrible idea gone even worse by pathetic management (aka Rumsfield))
BUT (and this is a big BUT) based on what Snos just posted, it seems that there are several HUGE incentives to not leave until things are sorted out in Iraq; and that terrorism is just one of those issues.

The rhetorical question then would be aside from oil, why isn't this country in more of a panic to find alternative fuel sources?
answer: (involves $$, it's really the only thing that inspires serious R+D in this country)

I will make a comment on the WMD, and leave it at that.

Saddam DID have WMDs and he did have production capabilities. Saddam not only used these on the Kurds in the north, but also during the 8-year Iran/Iraq war. That is a known fact.

From the time of the 1st Gulf War, and subsequent cease-fire, to the fall of Saddam's regime, he had been working hard to keep the UN inspectors at bay. EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE - i.e. UN, MANY countries' leaders, Bush AND our congress) knew the above stated facts and believed he was furthering his research into the nuclear arena. The intelligence reports were there for everyone. Everyone knew Saddam was a serious threat - look at everyone's talking points in 2002.

As for the actual WMD, they existed. While in Iraq, our unit supported the Iraq Survey Group in doing "site surveys". The actual "canisters" were never found in great quantities, but the research facilities were there, including centrifuges, etc.

One of three things happened to these WMD: 1) They were destroyed. (And if they were, Saddam didn't document the destruction, according to the UN-dictated terms), 2) they were buried - (Over the years, several small caches have already been found), and/or 3) they were shipped to Syria. One of Saddam's top generals has written a book on this (he is in the West now) who eye-witnessed these truck convoys of shipments.

NOW, REGARDLESS of why or how we are in Iraq and the status of the WMD (I personally do not see the oil-connection: where is it???), the real question is how do we get out, is it not? Just picking up now and doing a mass exodus is NOT the answer. At the same time, just staying there for a 100 years AND DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE TERRORIST THREAT (either actual or aiding/harboring/supporting) is not the answer either.

General Petraeus' surge plan IS working. We need to listen to him (because he listens to his commanders on the ground). A war needs input from the gound-up, NOT a political-driven, non-military, top-down decision. Let the guys on the ground figure it out - they can and they will. They were sent there to do a job; let them finish it.

With a stable, secure environment in place (it is getting there already - be PATIENT!), THEN, we can move towards political reform. The Iraqi army is practically in place. Now we just need to have Iraq self-govern themselves, factoring in all 3 sects.

I know I make this sound easy on paper - there is a LOT of work to do - but patience is needed to make Iraq come out of this successfully. Anything short of that is a travesty to them and a threat to us.

He said in his book the Baca Valley too and that they flew a lot out in converted 747's. Not many heard of this but two trucks FULL of nerve agents were stopped on the jordanian/syrian border. The terrorist driving them admitted they were going to blow them up in the capital in hopes of killing 10's of thousands of people. I wonder where the sarin gas, and other toxins came from? Not syria. Turkey? nah. Iraq? ding, ding, ding. you win! So please stop with the no WMD's found in Iraq. It is old and debunked a long time ago. BTW, I work with a guy who did the targeting of the WMD sites during both wars. He has given some pretty good stories about them and promises that we will find more somewhere be it in Syria or the Baca Valley or both.

imuakahuku wrote:

I get my stats from the CIA world factbook who may just be asking the Saudi's how much they have, I don't know. But as is proposed, evidently we went there for the oil, then why did we not invade Anwar, or Utah, or Colorado, or, Wyoming, or the Gulf of Mexico? We have more oil in the US than in the middle east. Canada is already tapping into the sand/tar pits to provide us with oil. Sno, what is the breakeven point for removing oil from the shale? I thought it was between $60-$80/barrel and dropping with one report claiming $50 or less in the very near future. I have also heard reports of oil fields replenishing (e.g. Eugene Island). What's up with that? So why are we invading the middle east for oil? To use theirs up first?

Good questions.

ANWAR- the fields in ANWAR are an interesting dilemma. To open ANWAR for exploration would cause a lot of political strife for which ever president/Congress goes that route, because it clashes with the Americal ideal of Alaska as a great virgin wilderness. ANWAR will eventually be opened, but only when our backs are against the wall politically to where the public is okay with it, and the estimates I have heard state that the price of oil would have to stabilize at $110+ per barrel to merit the cost of getting the oil out. ANWAR will be a very expensive venture because of the terrain. Find a topo map of ANWAR, and you can see the problems. The largest fields in ANWAR are to the south, which means a pipeline would have to be run North to Prudhoe bay to get the oil out. Expensive roads would have to be carved throughout the area to get rigs and equipment to drill sites. ANWAR will be a very very expensive project to bring online, and most of the reservoirs have not even been proven, so it is risky as well since no one is certain of the oil quality.

Oil Sands/Oil Shale- the point of economic feasibility I hear most is $85 a barrel. We are well past that point, but prices need to demonstrate that they are stable at current levels before the moneybags loosen. Energy investors don't want to throw a billion dollars into a separation/refinery plant as soon as the price crosses $85 just to see it drop to $60 the next month. Another barrier is the EPA. There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976 because of the new pollution strictures. To produce oil in significant quantities, a current refinery would have to stop refining oil and do expensive retro-fitting to handle the heavier sulfurous tars of the sands and shale. No one is going to do that, because you would be investing in a less profitable product. To build a new refinery for that purpose, the EPA or Congress would have to make some special concessions to allow the added pollution. Otherwise, the raw sands and shale would need to be trucked out of the country to Mexico, but that would simply add to the cost structure and delay original investment. An interesting thing to keep your eye on is Green River, Utah, however. There is an old abandoned refinery there that somehow never sold its pollution credits. A nano-tech company from South Jordan (whose name escapes me at the moment) recently purchased the refinery with the express intent of using it for the oil sands of Utah and Wyoming. They plan to circumvent the added pollution by reinjecting waste gases into current oil reservoirs recently found in the Paradox Basin area south of town. There are still a number of obstacles to getting the refinery up and going, but they have found a way and are trying. The biggest problem they will face is accessibility. Can you imagine 100+ big rigs a day going down Spanish Fork Canyon loaded to the brim with tar sands? The only other option is to take I-15 South to I-70, which is a rather long detour, and that section of I-70 is probably the worst kept stretch of freeway in the US, and it doesn't have any service stations. Getting the finished products out is a problem as well for the same reasons, and I-70 from Green River to Denver is a treacherous road. The transportation issue is the reason the original refinery got shut down, so the new project will have to deal with that to succeed.

As far as other fields in the US (the largest on-shore discovery in the US since 1979 is south of Gunnison in Utah, and the largest on-shore gas discovery in the US is just now being developed southeast of Green River) the problem is cost. Geologists as late back as the 40s could have told you there was a lot of oil in Utah, and people drilled for it and found it as recently as the 70s, but they left it. The oil was too deep, the structures too complex, the terrain too treacherous, and the oil too thick and sour to produce at those prices. The only reason oil companies are going after that oil right now is because only now can it be produced at a profit. These reservoirs on-shore are smaller than in the past, and most will only produce significant amounts of oil for 5-8 years per well before rapid decline sets in. The off-shore finds are much the same. Exxon recently announced a super-deep discovery off of Florida that qualifies as a giant field, but they have no plans to develop it because the cost for each well drilled would be nearly $400 million. They only announced the find to boost their reserves. Prices will need to exceed $200 a barrel to make that giant field economically recoverable.

The oil in the Middle East is light, sweet crude in carbonate or sandstone reservoirs and generally overly pressurized aquifers. All together that means you have oil flowing out of the ground without the need to pump it out since the aquifer beneath is pushing it out for you and sweeping all the oil to your wells. Sweet oil has very little sulpher or other pollutants, and therefore much more valuable. Because there is so much oil coming out of the Middle East, the slightest disturbance in their supply or production can cause immense financial shocks to the entire world. Look at how oil and gas prices shoot up everytime Ahmedinejad waves his fist. The US interest in Middle Eastern oil has less to do with supply needs, but more to do with the need for stability. The economy can adjust to rising oil costs provided the rise takes place over a period of time. Massive swings in either direction are detrimental to the smooth functioning of a capitalist economy. By removing Saddam Hussein from power, the US not only stabilized a very unstable country, but they also released Iraq from embargoes and restrictions put in place by the UN. Who were the three main opponents at the UN Security Council to the US contingency's invasion? France, China, and Russia--who coincidentally were the only three still getting oil from Iraq.

Now, I am not saying that the US only invaded Iraq for oil. Something had to be done with Saddam as he was blatantly disregarding previous warnings and was simply a power-drunk genocidal tyrant who used his position to endanger millions. There was a very real possibility that Iraq was making WMDs, we knew he had made and used them in the past and he was blocking UN attempts to verify he did not have them. Also factors could have been the Bush family animosity towards Hussein and the feeling that his continued rule was a stain on the name of Bush I. And finally, the American people were still smarting from 9/11 and feeling the need to get some tit for tat, and only Middle Eastern persons would satisfy that bloodlust--mine included. I do, however, think it naive to not recognize that while not the primary reason for the invasion, oil had everything to do with the first Persian Gulf War, and oil had a strong hand in the second, thobeit a supporting role.

happyvalleycougar wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

Airwolf84 wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never listen to NPR, Air America or even watch 60 Minutes.

You should be wary of Alex. He may be right on something occasionally(even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), but you need to take it with a grain of salt. He is well known for blowing things WAY out of proportion and spews so many conspiricy theories that you and I must be involved in two or three. You need to take what he says (or rants) as just more information for you to evaluate the facts on something. My attitude is question everything. Everything people say is agenda driven and finding that agenda is critical to understanding their agenda. Bear in mind that even our Prophets have agendas so not all agendas are bad (in this case the spreading of the gospel and the salvation of souls). Also, keep in mind that people can have more than one agenda.

I have learned the facts my friend... been reading about and researching this stuff for a few years now, so you can save your hollow and ill-advised insults. I've never come out and accused Bush or his regime of carrying out 9/11, although, the evidence and proof of foreknowledge is overwhelming and so the deliberate ignorance of the warnings makes the Bush administration complicit in the attacks. I've maintained that whoever the perpetrators were had to have motive, the means, the knowledge and the sophistication to be able to execute the powerfully unconventional demolition of three buildings all on the same day. Who matches all of the criteria? The U.S. military-industrial complex. However, it could also be a much more powerful group that has a lot of wealth and power behind it. A real, independent investigation needs to happen, but we'll probably never see one.

Thanks for calling me friend. Although I disagree with nearly all yours and other's points I bear no ill will. I just think that our society is given so much misinformation that people like Obama and Clinton are able to get away with "murder". Reread this article and contemplate it some more. There is a much smaller agenda involved in this than in anything that Alex or CNN or MSNBC or any of those others may propose.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

As for why Bush went after Iraq... easy... it was a country that would provide the least resistance to a U.S. invasion over in the region and provided an opportunity to begin setting up permanent bases for a planned transformation of the middle east under U.S. control. Isn't it interesting how not one penny of Iraqi oil has gone towards paying for the 'war', now over $600 billion. You want an eye-opener kahuku... do some research on the Taliban coming to Washington in 2001 to discuss with our government the allowance of a natural gas pipeline through their region to the Caspain Sea... you'll see why Afghasnistan was invaded. Things are not as they seem my friend... open your eyes.

I have read up on the "gas pipeline" and it is a red herring. What are you getting at? That the Taliban who supported it and now don't support it and are now stopping it were the cause of us invading Afganistan? Of course it had nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al-Queda being protected and supported by the Taliban. Or the many terrorist training camps or the frequent meetings that the worlds terrorist leaders had there. Yep it was to stop? or start? the pipeline.

Also, why would Iraq be easier to conquer than Saudi Arabia. Remeber in '91 when we put our forces in S.A. to protect them from being invaded by Iraq! And wasn't it Iraq who had the fourth largest army in the world when we invaded in 2002? We could have sent the Provo police force to Saudi Arabia and taken the country in minutes! Now this is an exageration but we could have used far less troops, had much less inhabited areas to maintain (98% desert), and no military resistance to speak of as well as the home of Bin Laden and the birthplace of Al Queda. And over double the oil and natural gas that Iraq has. And WAY more coastline which is critical for shipping. Now explain again why he would choose to invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Common sense alone dictates that S.A. is by far a better target. And after taking over S.A. wouldn't it be easier to either push Sadaam or overthrow him? If these people are so smart then why would they take the far poorer choice?

Imuakahuku,

You're making one bad assumption. You assume all people are logical. I was intrigued by this thead, and actually posted because it was a fairly civilized debate. It has now gone the way of most of Airwolf's threads. You can't argue with him, because he doesn't follow logic. When you respond to his point with irrefutable logic, than he just switches to something else. He doesn't want the truth, he wants his opinion. Logic has nothing at all to do with it. Just one example. When we follow the intelligence that is gathered, we are liars. (Didn't Airwolf just state that Hussein was trying to fool everyone he had WMD? He must have done a good job.) When we don't use the intelligence (from the same sources), we are "complicit in the attacks". You and I can't have it both ways, but apparently that's not a problem for someone. When he insists on illogical statements and won't listen to "the other side", the debate ends.

First off... Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publications which is owned by GE which just so happens to be the largest defense contracting company in the United States. Follow the money.

Look, I'm just sharing what I've learned over the past few years... I would encourage you to do a little research on your own before insulting and patronizing someone who knows what they are talking about.

You should be wary of Alex. He may be right on something occasionally(even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), but you need to take it with a grain of salt. He is well known for blowing things WAY out of proportion and spews so many conspiricy theories that you and I must be involved in two or three.

Yeah, I know... Alex can get quite sensationalistic sometimes and start to go off on tangents and issues that you can't help but take with a grain of salt because of their subject matter, but overall, the guy has done a ton of homework and knows what he is talking about most of the time. He began to decry the dangers of fluoride many months ago and how governments like to put it in our water because it has properties that can make you submissive and sure enough, the health dangers and symptoms of fluoride poisoning are now coming out publicly and health experts are warning about the dangers. Anyway... all you can do is investigate and research things yourself and then make conclusions on what you discover. I'm sorry that many of you here on the boards can't watch the Twin Towers being pulverized to dust in mid-air and collapse at almost free-fal speed into their own footprint, not to mention building 7, and raise serious questions or doubts about it.

Airwolf84 wrote:

happyvalleycougar wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

Airwolf84 wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never listen to NPR, Air America or even watch 60 Minutes.

You should be wary of Alex. He may be right on something occasionally(even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), but you need to take it with a grain of salt. He is well known for blowing things WAY out of proportion and spews so many conspiricy theories that you and I must be involved in two or three. You need to take what he says (or rants) as just more information for you to evaluate the facts on something. My attitude is question everything. Everything people say is agenda driven and finding that agenda is critical to understanding their agenda. Bear in mind that even our Prophets have agendas so not all agendas are bad (in this case the spreading of the gospel and the salvation of souls). Also, keep in mind that people can have more than one agenda.

I have learned the facts my friend... been reading about and researching this stuff for a few years now, so you can save your hollow and ill-advised insults. I've never come out and accused Bush or his regime of carrying out 9/11, although, the evidence and proof of foreknowledge is overwhelming and so the deliberate ignorance of the warnings makes the Bush administration complicit in the attacks. I've maintained that whoever the perpetrators were had to have motive, the means, the knowledge and the sophistication to be able to execute the powerfully unconventional demolition of three buildings all on the same day. Who matches all of the criteria? The U.S. military-industrial complex. However, it could also be a much more powerful group that has a lot of wealth and power behind it. A real, independent investigation needs to happen, but we'll probably never see one.

Thanks for calling me friend. Although I disagree with nearly all yours and other's points I bear no ill will. I just think that our society is given so much misinformation that people like Obama and Clinton are able to get away with "murder". Reread this article and contemplate it some more. There is a much smaller agenda involved in this than in anything that Alex or CNN or MSNBC or any of those others may propose.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

As for why Bush went after Iraq... easy... it was a country that would provide the least resistance to a U.S. invasion over in the region and provided an opportunity to begin setting up permanent bases for a planned transformation of the middle east under U.S. control. Isn't it interesting how not one penny of Iraqi oil has gone towards paying for the 'war', now over $600 billion. You want an eye-opener kahuku... do some research on the Taliban coming to Washington in 2001 to discuss with our government the allowance of a natural gas pipeline through their region to the Caspain Sea... you'll see why Afghasnistan was invaded. Things are not as they seem my friend... open your eyes.

I have read up on the "gas pipeline" and it is a red herring. What are you getting at? That the Taliban who supported it and now don't support it and are now stopping it were the cause of us invading Afganistan? Of course it had nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al-Queda being protected and supported by the Taliban. Or the many terrorist training camps or the frequent meetings that the worlds terrorist leaders had there. Yep it was to stop? or start? the pipeline.

Also, why would Iraq be easier to conquer than Saudi Arabia. Remeber in '91 when we put our forces in S.A. to protect them from being invaded by Iraq! And wasn't it Iraq who had the fourth largest army in the world when we invaded in 2002? We could have sent the Provo police force to Saudi Arabia and taken the country in minutes! Now this is an exageration but we could have used far less troops, had much less inhabited areas to maintain (98% desert), and no military resistance to speak of as well as the home of Bin Laden and the birthplace of Al Queda. And over double the oil and natural gas that Iraq has. And WAY more coastline which is critical for shipping. Now explain again why he would choose to invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Common sense alone dictates that S.A. is by far a better target. And after taking over S.A. wouldn't it be easier to either push Sadaam or overthrow him? If these people are so smart then why would they take the far poorer choice?

Imuakahuku,

You're making one bad assumption. You assume all people are logical. I was intrigued by this thead, and actually posted because it was a fairly civilized debate. It has now gone the way of most of Airwolf's threads. You can't argue with him, because he doesn't follow logic. When you respond to his point with irrefutable logic, than he just switches to something else. He doesn't want the truth, he wants his opinion. Logic has nothing at all to do with it. Just one example. When we follow the intelligence that is gathered, we are liars. (Didn't Airwolf just state that Hussein was trying to fool everyone he had WMD? He must have done a good job.) When we don't use the intelligence (from the same sources), we are "complicit in the attacks". You and I can't have it both ways, but apparently that's not a problem for someone. When he insists on illogical statements and won't listen to "the other side", the debate ends.

First off... Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publications which is owned by GE which just so happens to be the largest defense contracting company in the United States. Follow the money.

Look, I'm just sharing what I've learned over the past few years... I would encourage you to do a little research on your own before insulting and patronizing someone who knows what they are talking about.

You should be wary of Alex. He may be right on something occasionally(even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), but you need to take it with a grain of salt. He is well known for blowing things WAY out of proportion and spews so many conspiricy theories that you and I must be involved in two or three.

Yeah, I know... Alex can get quite sensationalistic sometimes and start to go off on tangents and issues that you can't help but take with a grain of salt because of their subject matter, but overall, the guy has done a ton of homework and knows what he is talking about most of the time. He began to decry the dangers of fluoride many months ago and how governments like to put it in our water because it has properties that can make you submissive and sure enough, the health dangers and symptoms of fluoride poisoning are now coming out publicly and health experts are warning about the dangers. Anyway... all you can do is investigate and research things yourself and then make conclusions on what you discover. I'm sorry that many of you here on the boards can't watch the Twin Towers being pulverized to dust in mid-air and collapse at almost free-fal speed into their own footprint, not to mention building 7, and raise serious questions or doubts about it.

I heard the fluoride conspiricy about 15 years ago while I was in college. Of course the internet wasn't anything like it is now so info was pretty scarce. I was one of the first at BYU-h to be able to "surf" the internet. I was actually the first to write a paper all from internet sources at BYU-h. Of course everything basically went through U of Minn's library (that's why it was called Gopher back then). And no pretty pictures. Just lists via Archie or Veronica and IIRC they were expecting an exciting new websearch program called JugHead. Man if only I had thought of Yahoo back then!

Airwolf84 wrote:

Look, I'm just sharing what I've learned over the past few years... I would encourage you to do a little research on your own before insulting and patronizing someone who knows what they are talking about.

Airwolf,

I am a mechanical engineering student, currently getting a PhD. Every engineer I have spoken with about the Twin towers agrees with the 9/11 commission. None of them agree with you. I have spent time doing research on 9/11, I have taken material science classes, I have studied dynamical systems and failures, and I tell you that the towers could fall from planes hitting them. Please, act like an idiot if you want, but don't tell me I haven't done research. I know what I am talking about. What are your engineering credentials? Where are you getting your "research" from? ASME and ASCE have both stated that the towers could fall the way they did, and knowing material science like I do, personally, I agree with them.

Oh, but I forgot. I am being funded through the Jet Propulsion Lab, who get's money from NASA, which gets money from the Government, so you can't trust me. I'm bought and paid for.