She is one tough cookie

[N.O.R.F]

Calling her tough is giving her too much credit.

 

She is simply towing the line many are towing at the moment and to which the US is only happy to invite and expose in full colour. There is always an ulterior motive and its usually politically inclined.

[Che -Guevara]

muslims in general are prone to violence

Thats racist!!!

 

All major conflicts of the last five hundred years was instigated by the Christain European Countries. Some of these conflicts were specifically carried out in the name of Christianity starting with Spanish conquest of the new world to the holocoust. N you say we are prone to violence.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Castro:

My choice is the first one since that's what the topic is about.

 

Fine by me. Take a crack at it.

 

 

 

Did I not go out of my way to hold your hand through all the 12 digit math?

 

Yes you did and you were wrong. I'm still right and will show how soon. Currently I'm extremely busy but soon mabye later tonight or tomorrow I'll show why I said what I said -- with FIGURES! Be be prepared!

 

In the meantime, go ahead and refute the other points I raised. Once I get through this hectic patch, I'm gonna stream roll through your rebutals like German Panzer Divisions through French maginot line

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Yo-Yo Ma:

Thats racist!!!

 

How so? Muslims are not a race, they hail from ALL corners of the globe. Please elucidate on that bizarre accusation.

 

 

All major conflicts of the last five hundred years was instigated by the Christain European Countries.

 

You mean like Moaist China -- 30 million dead in Cultural Revolution upheaval ALONE. Or Stalinist Russia, 20-30 million dead in 'engineered' famines in Ukraine alone. Or Pol Pot, Kim Jon Ill of N. Korea; Saddam Hussien.... or is it that only whites and christians are culpable of excesses, the rest are saints?

 

 

Some of these conflicts were specifically carried out in the name of Christianity starting with Spanish conquest of the new world to the holocoust. N you say we are prone to violence.

Hitler was not Christian neither were the Nazis. And yes muslims in general are prone to violence, just take a look at somalis, 99% muslims... what exactly are we fighting over :confused:

[Pi]

SB, dude, Hitler had a catholic upbringing. And he referred to himself as a Christian in more than one setting. This is not a disputed historical fact. Even though, most biographers and historians say that he was not a "practising" Catholic. Hitler still thought he was a devout christian.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Good call, yaa Pi. I say that if it would make any difference to the man who so barefacedly asserts unsupportable claims so often. His is a habit that we are unfortunately forced to deal with, here in SOL, and I knew good Castro would be left to clap with a one hand when he commenced this debate; the net result would predictably be a commendable effort but, sadly, an incomplete one.

 

But having a Somali speaking Sultan is not rare these days, I suppose .

[Jacpher]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

And yes muslims in general are prone to violence, just take a look at somalis, 99% muslims... what exactly are we fighting over.

Not only Muslims, people in general whatever nationality or belief they belong to, are prone to violence. Somalis are not the only ones with a history of prolonged civil war. What sources did you use to conclude Somalis are 99% Muslims??

 

Xiinoow, Isn’t that the ultimate price we paid in qurbaha??

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Castro:

In fact, these reserves are to the tune of 115 billion barrels. I don't know if they teach math at Mickey Mouse University but let me break it down for you like this. The US is spending almost $1 billion a week in Iraq. The war has been going on three years this week and the total cost so far is close to $500 billion. If this occupation lasts a decade (including the previous three years) it is estimated it will cost close to $1.5 trillion. With me so far? Now, forget the

incalculable value

in having

full

control of the largest

and

second largest proven sources of oil in the entire world, but imagine having

uninterrupted

flow of such oil. Not to mention buying it for decades to come from friendly (read: installed) regimes at "negotiated" (read: dirt cheap) prices. Still with me? Here comes the astonishing part no one ever thinks about when the talk radio hosts ask the same question you asked. The US consumes about 20 millions barrels per day (4 times the second closest consumer, Japan). So yearly, that comes out to about 7.3 billion a year. At that rate, Iraqi proven oil reserves will have been exhausted by the US alone in less than two decades. So, if they were to buy it at market rate and have to

compete

with other nations such as China , as you and Oreily claim, they would have to spend $5.5 trillion to purchase it (at a modest and unrealistic $50 a barrel). Now tell me, which is cheaper, to invade for a $1.5 trillion, have full control, keep the US dollar the purchasing currency, and buy it for negotiated prices OR not invade and buy it at market prices while

competing

with every Chinese and Indian out there

and

in Euros no less.

 

Ok, atheer Castro, here is my rebuttal (with facts and figures) as promised

 

 

Let me start off by saying I accept your total Iraq oil reserves figure, the 115 billion one. Also let me aver my stand by my earlier rebuttal of your post where I pointed the omission on your behalf of the cost of refinery, transportation, storage etc. With that out of the way, I'll know show why it would've been cheaper for the US to buy ALL Iraq's proven oil reserves than it was to go to war.

 

My claim is based on Iraq's maximum oil production capacity in SINGLE year. The reason being Iraq's current oil reserves will last close to 90 years at maximum production rate, not potential production rate that you've calculated. Realistically speaking, the world will not still be using oil as source of energy for the next 90 years. The oil age will come to an end much earlier than that and when it does they'll be plenty of oil still remaining in Iraq and other parts of the world. Historical precedence fatefully avows this since at the end of Stone Age there were still plenty of stones left. At the end of Iron age there were plenty Iron still remaining, same with bronze and so forth. When the Oil Age ends, there will still be alot of oil in the ground. From this we can be confident that not all of Iraq's proven oil reserves will ever leave the ground!

 

Now lets take a closer look at the total value of realistic Iraqi oil output in a single year and contrast that with cost of the War in the same span of time. Prior to the 1st Gulf War Iraqi was producing 3.5 mbd (million barrels per day). That is highest output we know Iraq is capable of. At that rate, times the current oil price of $60/barrel, the value Iraqi oil output is $76.8 billion dollar/year. The US has spent close to $500 billion since the invasion as you pointed out. Costing about $150 billion a year. Difference of $73.2 billion that the US has to spent OVER the total value of Iraq's max. oil output in a single year! So my point proven at this point.

 

But that is the most optimistic calculation as Iraq's oil production since the invasion hasn't exceeded 2.4 mbd and no more than 1.6 mbd in export end. Total value in a single year at current market price of $60/barrel is the meager value of $35 billion a year. A deficit of $115 billion for the US, that is how much MORE they spent in a year than the cost of Iraq's yearly output since the invasion. It doesn't stop there though! You and/or others suggested here and IN other places that possessing the Iraqi oil fields was beneficial without taking into consideration the cost of development, production and other associated costs which are all borne by the OWNERS. In this case the US. So it would cost the US even more to invade Iraq since the revenue from oil sales would be offset by the expenses such as production and development.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Pi:

SB, dude, Hitler had a catholic upbringing. And he referred to himself as a Christian in more than one setting. This is not a disputed historical fact. Even though, most biographers and historians say that he was not a "practising" Catholic. Hitler still thought he was a devout christian.

Hitler wasn't a christian! And I'm right.

 

Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Christianity

Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup's Hitler FAQ.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

 

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

 

10th October, 1941, midday

 

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

 

14th October, 1941, midday

 

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....

"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....

"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....

"Christianity the liar....

"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

 

19th October, 1941, night

 

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

 

21st October, 1941, midday

 

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....

"The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....

"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the

instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

 

13th December, 1941, midnight

 

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe

transubstantiation>....

"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

 

14th December, 1941, midday

 

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism,

under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

 

9th April, 1942, dinner

 

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

 

27th February, 1942, midday

 

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Atheism

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

"For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life".

 

 

Both of these quotes are from Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942, cited in an Internet article by Doug Krueger.

 

 

Another interesting quote is found in a book by Albert Speer, Hitler's Minister of Armaments:

 

 

"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs. Bonanza Books ; Distributed by Crown Publishers, 1982, cited in an Internet article by Kevin Davids).

 

These sentiments are obviously neither atheist nor Christian.

 

 

 

source

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Ducaqabe:

Not only Muslims, people in general whatever nationality or belief they belong to, are prone to violence.

 

Agree, never said otherwise. Your point is what?

 

 

Somalis are not the only ones with a history of prolonged civil war.

 

I couldn't care less. Somalis are fighting and shoudn't. And no, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because others perform self flagellation it doesn't mean you should as well.

 

 

What sources did you use to conclude Somalis are 99% Muslims??

Circumstantial evidence/s... why?

[sweet_gal]

Socod badne..........

Do me a favour......Tomorrow morning start walking like the Socod badn dude u are, and don't stop until u're in the middle of no where and can't return to Somalia Online ever again...

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Salaan...

 

I knew this MEMRI organization for a couple years, mainly from Western print media's, particularly the conservative ones, fondness of oft-quotation of its selectively translated Carabi media.

 

So, what is MEMRI? From Wikipedia [not always accurate, but it is this time]:

 

M EMRI was founded in February 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon a retired colonel in Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser. The organisation became more prominent after the September 11, 2001 attacks, due to increased Western public interest in Arab and Iranian affairs. At that time, it expanded its staff considerably, setting up new branches abroad in early 2002. More growth and expansion of focus was experienced during the Iraq war, as media activity increased in that area.

 

Prominent critics of MEMRI include the academics Dr. Juan Cole and Dr.Marc Lynch who have criticized MEMRI on their non-academic blogs, Mr. Brian Whitaker a former graduate student in Middle Eastern studies and the Middle East Editor of the British Newspaper, the Guardian, who has criticized MEMRI in the newspaper he edits, and Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London.

 

Dr. Cole has accused the institute of "cleverly cherry-pick[ing] the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials", selecting the Arabic equivalent of comments on Islam by the likes of Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell or outspoken conservative columnist Ann Coulter. He also notes that, "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."

 

Professor Marc Lynch, on his blog "Abu Aardvark", expressed agreement with Cole, "MEMRI routinely selects articles which show the worst of Arab discourse, even where this represents only a minority of actually expressed opinion, while almost never acknowledging the actual distribution of opinion. It is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your [MEMRI's] service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges."

 

Brian Whitaker quotes Dr. William Rugh, former US ambassador to the UAE and Yemen, describing MEMRI as a service which, "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. Its owners are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

 

In another point of criticism of the Reform Project, Mohammed El Oifi wrote in Le Monde Diplomatique that MEMRI

 

"...[takes] hostage Arab liberals by creating the strange category of 'liberal or progressive Arab journalist'. In order to belong to this category, one must pronounce himself against any armed resistance in the Arab world, in particular in Palestine and Iraq; denounce Hamas and Hezbollah; criticize Yasser Arafat; plead for 'realism', that is accept the power structure of foreign domination; be favourable to US projects in the Middle-East; incite Arabs to make self-criticism and renounce the 'conspiracy mentality'. He must also demonstrate a strong hostility to nationalism and political Islam, or even despise the Arab culture. His criticisms must target in particular religious people, and, more generally, societies which would lag behind enlightened Arab leaders. He must praise individual liberties, without insisting however on political liberties and even less on national sovereignty."

 

The "Reform Project" has also been praised. Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times credits MEMRI with helping to,"shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears..."

 

Brian Whitaker has made the more general criticism that, "The stories selected by Memri...reflect badly on the character of Arabs." In his 2002 Guardian article entitled, "Selective MEMRI" Whitaker presents several examples of this:

 

1) An article from Saudi Arabia describing how, "Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival". Whitaker objected to MEMRI's claim that "al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" because this "impl[ied] that the article had some form of official approval," and stated that al-Riyadh was a privately owned company. He did not object to MEMRI's choice to translate the article, which he notes, "demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories".

 

2) MEMRI's description of a poem by Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London entitled The Martyrs - about a young woman suicide bomber - as "praising suicide bombers". Whitaker argues that the poem actually should read as, "condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders".

 

3) MEMRI's choice of an extract of an article in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Dr. Adil Awadh, a Iraqi National Congress (INC), detailing an order by Saddam Hussein that deserters from the army should have their ears amputated. Whitaker suggested that since this was, "the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers would happily reprint without checking... it needs to be treated with a little circumspection".

 

According to an article by Mohammed El Oifi published in Le Monde diplomatique, London mayor Ken Livingstone requested a report to inform himself on Yusuf al-Qaradawi before his visit. After reading the study, he concluded "nearly all of the lies distorting al-Qaradawi's statements came from the MEMRI institute, which pretends to be an institute of objective research. However, we found out that the MEMRI had been founded by a former MOSSAD officer, who systematically distorts not only al-Qaradawi's statements, but what many other Muslim scholars say. In most of the cases, disinformation is total, and this is why I published this study."

 

Professor Halim Barakat of Georgetown University wrote that MEMRI had mistranslated an article in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, changing "Zionists" to "Jews" and "Zionist leadership" to "Israeli Jews" and had taken sections of the article out of context.

 

Brian Whitaker, in a Guardian article critical of MEMRI, has noted that three of the original six founders of MEMRI were former members of the Israeli secret services.

 

MEMRI describes itself as nonpartisan and independent. However, Juan Cole has accused MEMRI of being part of a conspiracy to serve the interests of Israel:

 

"MEMRI was founded by a retired Israeli colonel from military intelligence, and co-run by Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser. David Wurmser is close to the Likud Party in Israel and served in Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, where he helped manufacture the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to al-Qaeda. David Wurmser, who wants to get up American wars against both Iran and Syria, then moved over to Vice President Dick Cheney's rump national security team. "[28]Cole also wrote that MEMRI is "a sophisticated anti-Arab propaganda machine...and...one of a number of public relations campaigns essentially on behalf of the far right-wing Likud Party in Israel."

 

After noting the Israeli Military background on the President of MEMRI and the ties of a former executive to the Bush-Cheney US Whitehouse, Dr. Juan Cole wrote on his blog that, "MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year by someone."

 

Dr. Cole suggested that Carmon's protest might have been motivated by fear that Cole's comments could endanger MEMRI's tax exempt status: "[The] issue [that] almost certainly generated the entire letter [is that] MEMRI is a 501 © 3 organization, which is tax exempt in US law, and therefore cannot engage in (much) directly political activity without endangering its exemption. I don't think MEMRI does so directly intervene in politics as to make its 501 © 3 status questionable. But it is obvious that 501 © 3 is widely abused by rightwing think tanks."

__________________

 

Xigasho

[Castro]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

My claim is based on Iraq's maximum oil production capacity in SINGLE year. The reason being Iraq's current oil reserves will last close to 90 years at maximum production rate,

not

potential production rate that you've calculated.

A country with huge reserves and a primitive oil industry that has been invaded twice in the last 15 years in order to bring it out of the dark ages and into rapid oil extraction, is what Iraq is. Saddam never got on the boat with the US. Always sneaky and always reluctant to become another king Fahd. If he had signed up, he'd have seen his oil production rise like you wouldn't believe. And do you really think the U.S. wants to stand in line with every Tom, Kumar and Wong waiting to buy oil on the markets. If you think that, you're not deluding yourself, you're brainwashed. The US doesn't beg for access to anything, it demands it and if that fails the bombs start to drop.

 

So your argument that the US could just wait and see what Iraq does with its oil on the market is childish. It shows a lack of even basic understanding of how the world works. A classic symptom, indeed, of listening to talk-radio. Let me reiterate, your weak "buy the entrie yearly output" misses two crucial points that render it useless:

 

1) Access, competition and control. The US is unwilling (and incapable really) of competing with the rest of the world to get this oil. Specially when the sellers don't like the US, which is ofen the case.

 

2) Buying the oil in the US dollar as a currency keeps the greenback, undeservedly, the "official" currency of international commerce. There's absolutely no reason why that should be the case and the world (including Europe, South America and Asia) is quickly realising that. A change of such currency, the US knows, will bring the economic house of cards (a.k.a. the US economy) down within months. Something that the US will not allow to occur no matter what the cost to lives or to taxpayer. And this sense of urgency goes beyond just the Iraq oil reserves. The US needs a few more Iraqs to keep the mirage of the greenback going.

 

Is any of this sinking in atheer?

 

Realistically speaking, the world will not still be using oil as source of energy for the next 90 years. The oil age will come to an end much earlier than that and when it does they'll be plenty of oil still remaining in Iraq and other parts of the world.

Since you've chosen to look into your murky crystal ball, let me respond by looking in mine: not while there's no investment in finding alternative sources of energy. The world will be using oil in this century if not the well through the next but certainly not in the current unsustainable rate. And the Iraq war is one of many to come in the quest for that resource.

 

Historical precedence fatefully avows this

since at the end of Stone Age there were still plenty of stones left

. At the end of Iron age there were plenty Iron still remaining, same with bronze and so forth.

Atheer for you to compare oil to stones and iron neither of which had the uses of oil shows your stone-age thinking. An absolute insult to me and to the gallery for you to even suggest such a comparison. Stones and oil? War ileen balaayo.

 

When the Oil Age ends, there will still be alot of oil in the ground.

From this we can be confident that not all of Iraq's proven oil reserves will ever leave the ground!

A conclusion, I highlighted in bold, coming from the the stone and iron age comparisons shows, again, how flawed your thinking is atheer. You're right about one thing though, the reserves in Iraq will be there but you're wrong about why they'll be there. The oil in Iraq will stay because (IA) the US will be kicked out with its tail between its legs and not because the world has abondoned fossil fuels as the king of energy sources.

 

Difference of $73.2 billion that the US has to spent OVER the total value of Iraq's max. oil output in a single year! So my point proven at this point.

SB, I'm very dissapointed in you saaxib. All this time I thought you were a critical thinker that looks beyond the surface when addressing issues. To say I'm dissapointed is a miassive understatement. Still, I'll look at the rest of your arguments and respond later. But to tell you the truth, after reading that whole stone age comparisons, I don't have the stomach to read any more.

[N.O.R.F]

^^ exhausting isn't it? Need water?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Castro:

A country with huge reserves and a primitive oil industry that has been invaded twice in the last 15 years in order to bring it out of the dark ages and into rapid oil extraction, is what Iraq is.

 

Didn't Saddam Hussien invade Kuwait in '91 unprovoked? Didn't the world led by the US (as it was the only one capable of) including many muslim and arab countries join forces to evict him from Kuwait. Prior to kuwait invasion, Saddam initiated yet another unprovoked invasion of neighbouring country - Iran. A conflict that lasted for 8 years crippling both countries and costing close to million casualties. Saddam incurred the wrath of the US and world by his reckless and miscalculating fumbles. Not oil, which is of no value without the US and other industralised nations.

 

 

And do you really think the U.S. wants to stand in line with every Tom, Kumar and Wong waiting to buy oil on the markets. The US doesn't beg for access to anything, it demands it and if that fails the bombs start to drop.

 

 

The US doesn't have to stand in line because oil is fluid market commodity and it goes to the highest bidder. The US can afford to pay for oil even at inflated prices at much cheaper cost than it was to bomb. Keep in mind also that the US is 3rd largest oil producer but because it has economy that consumes more than it produces it needs to look to others to cover its needs.

 

 

So your argument that the US could just wait and see what Iraq does with its oil on the market is childish.

 

What would Iraq or any of other Middle Eastern oil nations do with their oil? Do they even have a choice? They need to sell their oil to make money since they got no non-oil based economy. So we know what Iraq will do with its oil -- SELL IT. Otherwise they'll starve.

 

 

1)

Access, competition and control

. The US is unwilling (and incapable really) of competing with the rest of the world to get this oil. Specially when the

sellers don't like the US

, which is ofen the case.

 

But the US can afford to buy all the oil Iraq is able to produce in a given year. It has the economy that needs it and is able to pay for it better than any other nation on earth. Iraq on the other hand has no choice BUT to sell to the US. And it was doing that willingly!

 

 

2) Buying the oil in the

US dollar as a currency

keeps the greenback, undeservedly, the "official" currency of international commerce.

[qb]

 

The US dollar is the prefered international currency for its stability. I believe the US dollar was accepted as the trading oil currency in 1971, different world back then.

 

 

[qb]A change of such currency, the US knows, will bring the economic house of cards (a.k.a. the US economy) down within months. Something that the US will not allow to occur no matter what the cost to lives or to taxpayer.

 

Maybe but given how interconnected world economies are now days, a collapse of US economy will induce similar collapse on other world economies. How does the collapse of US economy benefit China, Japan, India or Europe?

 

 

Since you've chosen to look into your murky crystal ball, let me respond by looking in mine: not while there's no investment in finding alternative sources of energy.

 

But there is investment in alternate sources. Hybrid cars is one, cow manure as energy source another. And the impetus for a move away from oil as energy source will be economics! As oil prices soar accompanied by all adverse environmental side effects, alternate energy sources become more affordable.

 

 

The world

will

be using oil in this century if not the well through the next but certainly not in the current unsustainable rate.

 

 

Why do you say that? For example the theoretical ground work for cold fusion -- limitless energy -- is done, the only thing holding us back are engineers who are still unable to apply it. And as I've said the more costly oil prices get the cheaper the alternatives will be regardless of how expensive they may seem today.

 

 

Atheer for you to compare oil to stones and iron neither of which had the uses of oil shows your stone-age thinking. An absolute insult to me and to the gallery for you to even suggest such a comparison. Stones and oil? War ileen balaayo.

 

How is the comparison impertinent besides your obvious dislike for its implication? You didn't say! Stones fueled our technological progress, so did Iron and bronze. More recently coal was until oil come along. But there is still plenty of stones, iron and coal remaining in the world long after humanity was finished with them. How is oil age any different from Coal or Stones as energy source? Not much since all serve/served the same purpose -- give humans the wherewithal to do WORK. The Oil Age will come to an end but when it does they'll still be oil. A conclusion inferred from the past.

 

 

The oil in Iraq will stay because (IA) the US will be kicked out with its tail between its legs and not because the world has abondoned fossil fuels as the king of energy sources.

 

What will Iraq do with its oil then? Use it as water source? Oil was discovered and became of value by industralised nations and its them who still make it valueable commodity. Without industry based economies, oil is useless liquid.