Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1635518

This was at the end of yet another long attempt to un-addle you and get you to understand that we were talking about 2003 being about IRAQI oil, not 1991 and KUWAITI oil. You only accept that oil had anything to do with it via KUWAIT in 1991. But's that a strawman, as Hermit and others weren't talking abou KUWAITI oil. They were talking about IRAQI oil in 2003. In this link above you deny that 2003 was largely about Iraqi oil (and probably the Bush family's ego). You believe it was a continuation of 1991 via 1441. Which it wasn't, as amply shown by the wording and surrounding authoritative quotes of the resolution itself, and the quotes by people high up in the administration and it's agencies.

Um, you are trying to divorce the trigger event and justification for any sort of military action in Iraq from the debate by eliding the root justification created by Saddam, over oil, in his invasion of Kuwait.

Everything, and I mean absolutely everything that has happened since that event was "about the oil," but not Iraqi oil, Kuwaiti oil. The purpose of the resumption of hostilities in 2003 was not about "Iraqi oil" it was about Kuwaiti oil and the cease fire agreement Saddam and his government signed after he tried to steal Kuwait's oil and then blew up their wells on his way out of Kuwait.

The involvement of American business interests in post-Saddam Iraqi oil was neither the intent nor the justification for the 2003 actions. That was strictly about his violation of the cease fire agreement to end hostilities fomented by Saddam's attempt to expropriate Kuwait's oil.

That American business interests came to Iraq, at the invitation and request of the Iraqi government I must add, after they had extinguished the Kuwaiti fires, had nothing whatever to do with the justifications for the 2003 conflict, no matter how much you want to make it into that to support your political agenda.

Red herring nonsense. You said it wasn't about Iraqi oil in 2003, and then stated to Hermit that you knew it was. Take yer fucking Alzheimer's meds and follow the Damn thread.

[pErvinalia]

The business of ramping up Iraq's oil trade post-Saddam had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the motivations or justifications for going to war with Saddam, either the first or second time.

Empty assertion. Authoratative quotes prove you wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

All that's out there is speculation and surmise and anti-American rhetoric.

And of course, no one should ever criticise the USA, because you are so...





...exceptional?

Well, no, but you really ought to have some actual evidence backing up your criticisms.

Evidence has already been presented.

[piscator]

Forty Two wrote:

In short, if the war was all about oil for the US, then how come we still only import about 1 or 2 percent of our oil from Iraq? We get 75% of our middle east imports from Saudi Arabia, and the rest from a combo of Kuwait, and other middle eastern countries, including a small percentage from Iraq. The bulk of US foreign oil comes from Canada and South America. Wow, we are such great oil thieves, eh?

What this neglects is the profits gained by US firms in extracting Iraqi oil and selling it to other parts of the world. Given the siamese twin relationship of US corporations and the US government, the motive, means and opportunity is there.

So you think they're out there pumping oil of the ground and not paying anyone for it?
Or do you think they're paying royalties and taxes on the oil they pump out of the ground and sell?

[Seth]

The business of ramping up Iraq's oil trade post-Saddam had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the motivations or justifications for going to war with Saddam, either the first or second time.

Empty assertion. Authoratative quotes prove you wrong.

Haven't seen any such thing yet. All I've seen are personal opinions, which are of no probative value.

Documents! I want to see official, verified Wikileaks documents from the White House or any other head of the Coalition stating that the reason for the 2003 invasion was to secure Iraq's oil for the US.

Put up or shut up.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

All that's out there is speculation and surmise and anti-American rhetoric.

And of course, no one should ever criticise the USA, because you are so...





...exceptional?

Well, no, but you really ought to have some actual evidence backing up your criticisms.

Evidence has already been presented.

No, unsupported statements, personal opinions and out-of-context quotes have been presented, none of which count as credible critically robust verifiable evidence of your claims.

If it doesn't have the White House seal on the page and Bush's signature at the bottom and it doesn't say "Let's go invade Iraq so we can steal all of Iraq's oil" in his hand you have presented nothing of interest or value.

[pErvinalia]

As Jim said, this is naive bullshit. Or more likely, yet more red herring nonsense.

[Seth]

As Jim said, this is naive bullshit. Or more likely, yet more red herring nonsense.

Yes, "this," which means your false claims, are naive bullshit and red herring nonsense.

You got nothin, Sparky.

[pErvinalia]

Except direct quotes from influential people.

[Seth]

Except direct quotes from influential people.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one, and most of them smell bad. Yours particularly so.

Let's see the smoking gun documents from Wikileaks or STFU.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

In short, if the war was all about oil for the US, then how come we still only import about 1 or 2 percent of our oil from Iraq? We get 75% of our middle east imports from Saudi Arabia, and the rest from a combo of Kuwait, and other middle eastern countries, including a small percentage from Iraq. The bulk of US foreign oil comes from Canada and South America. Wow, we are such great oil thieves, eh?

What this neglects is the profits gained by US firms in extracting Iraqi oil and selling it to other parts of the world. Given the siamese twin relationship of US corporations and the US government, the motive, means and opportunity is there.

So you think they're out there pumping oil of the ground and not paying anyone for it?
Or do you think they're paying royalties and taxes on the oil they pump out of the ground and sell?

No, but I am saying that the invasion of Iraq provided them with much greater opportunities for profit than if the regime was unchanged. At the very least, an additional motive to throw in to the mix - the US government is always going to act in what it considers to be the national interest, which very often conflates with the interests of major US corporations. This is not always going to be a problem, but let's not be naive and think that corporate-based motivations don't cross the boundary into US government decision making...

[pErvinalia]

Except direct quotes from influential people.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one, and most of them smell bad. Yours particularly so.

Let's see the smoking gun documents from Wikileaks or STFU.

No, let's ignore you. Because you are a dishonest debater.

[piscator]

Forty Two wrote:

In short, if the war was all about oil for the US, then how come we still only import about 1 or 2 percent of our oil from Iraq? We get 75% of our middle east imports from Saudi Arabia, and the rest from a combo of Kuwait, and other middle eastern countries, including a small percentage from Iraq. The bulk of US foreign oil comes from Canada and South America. Wow, we are such great oil thieves, eh?

What this neglects is the profits gained by US firms in extracting Iraqi oil and selling it to other parts of the world. Given the siamese twin relationship of US corporations and the US government, the motive, means and opportunity is there.

So you think they're out there pumping oil of the ground and not paying anyone for it?
Or do you think they're paying royalties and taxes on the oil they pump out of the ground and sell?

No, but I am saying that the invasion of Iraq provided them with much greater opportunities for profit than if the regime was unchanged. At the very least, an additional motive to throw in to the mix - the US government is always going to act in what it considers to be the national interest, which very often conflates with the interests of major US corporations. This is not always going to be a problem, but let's not be naive and think that corporate-based motivations don't cross the boundary into US government decision making...

Yes, let's not be naive. They cross and figure prominently in every country's decision making, including yours. Oil has the money and muscle to do whatever it wants. If you're a country, the best you can do is ransom your oil for the best price and try to keep the destruction to a minimum.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

In short, if the war was all about oil for the US, then how come we still only import about 1 or 2 percent of our oil from Iraq? We get 75% of our middle east imports from Saudi Arabia, and the rest from a combo of Kuwait, and other middle eastern countries, including a small percentage from Iraq. The bulk of US foreign oil comes from Canada and South America. Wow, we are such great oil thieves, eh?

What this neglects is the profits gained by US firms in extracting Iraqi oil and selling it to other parts of the world. Given the siamese twin relationship of US corporations and the US government, the motive, means and opportunity is there.

"What's good for Halliburton et al is good for the USA" to paraphrase an earlier, historic declaration of this symbiotic relationship...

Except that US firms aren't doing the extracting. Iraq awarded its first major post-invasion oil concessions in 2009, and the big winners? Norway, France, China and Russia. Of the 11 contracts signed only one went to a US company (Exxon Mobil). The only sector in which US firms prevailed was oil services—but “in that sector the US has always enjoyed a virtual monopoly, invasions or no. And, ExxonMobil had a big oil field in Iraq which it acquired from Iraq in 2010, but it has let that go to Kentz/SNC Lavalin Group -- which is a Canadian/Brit combo conglomerate.

What you're forgetting is that the US companies aren't the major players there.

Big European, Chinese and Russian oil companies are the ones drilling the oil in Iraq, with only a tiny percentage being drilled by US companies.

[Forty Two]

Seth wrote:

All that's out there is speculation and surmise and anti-American rhetoric.

And of course, no one should ever criticise the USA, because you are so...





...exceptional?

Folks should, and do, criticize the US, and Americans do so all the time. As a country, the US is probably the most scrutinized and criticized country on the planet, probably because of its size and power.

But, folks should also criticize other countries, and their behavior. What's the import of the fact that UK, Canadian, Chinese, French and Russian companies are holding almost all of the contracts for drilling/extracting oil in Iraq? Is it as nefarious as the fact that US companies are out there looking to drill for oil too?