It's Not About The Oil

[Alaska Darin]

WWI & WWII were about OIL? (England has some, mostly at sea, but I failed to notice where the vast reserves in western europe are)

 

Korea was about OIL? (Kim Ill Suck must have misplaced those vast reserves)

 

Vietnam was about OIL? (And all this time I thought it was about a game of Global Dominoes)

 

Smurf Boy, your inane responses continue to amaze me but this one is the best yet.

 

And to top it off you actually have the nerve to tell me to go look it up!

 

Try proving that the junk you spew is correct for once. Common smurf, it'll be a novelty.

 

Just think, it would be the first time you ever backed up any of your blatherings with a fact.

 

But that would require thought and effort on your part, so I'll just assume you'll start hurling insults and innuendo instead.

 

After all, that is what you do best.

I don't have to prove anything to you. There's plenty of information out there about this stuff. Do your own research.

 

I'll even get you started: The Japanese military, deeply engaged in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937, badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.

 

Oil runs the world. Countries fight for it. Sometimes they admit it, most times they don't.

 

Global Policy.org

[Orton's Arm]

I don't have to prove anything to you. There's plenty of information out there about this stuff. Do your own research.

 

I'll even get you started: The Japanese military, deeply engaged in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937, badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.

 

Oil runs the world. Countries fight for it. Sometimes they admit it, most times they don't.

 

Global Policy.org

That was a reasonably good article about Japanese Pearl Harbor raid and its relation to FDR's anti-Japanese oil embargo. But there are differences between that and the Iraq situation. Once FDR cut off U.S. oil sales to Japan, Japan had to launch a new war somewhere before its oil reserves ran out. The U.S. of Bush's era didn't face that same kind of situation. Over the short term, the oil situation was acceptable. If Bush was concerned about the U.S.'s long term energy security, he didn't need to invade Iraq. He'd have been better served promoting legislation to hold SUVs and light pickup trucks to the same fuel efficiency standards large cars are currently held to. While this may have lowered car manufacturers' and oil companies' profits, it would have improved the long term U.S. energy situation and balance of trade without spilling the blood of America's soldiers.

[RI Bills Fan]

I don't have to prove anything to you. There's plenty of information out there about this stuff. Do your own research.

 

I'll even get you started: The Japanese military, deeply engaged in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937, badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.

 

Okay, Japan AFTER STARTING A WAR WITH CHINA badly needed oil and other materials. Got it.

 

It's quite a reach, far worse than taking a safety with the eighth pick, but at least it's a fact.

 

So just how does the need for raw materials to support an already existing war, translate into the cause of that war? Even the article you quote doesn't say the initial conflict started because of oil. It says that the need for oil and other resources arose from the existing war. two completely different sets of circumstances.

 

Japan was already at war when the need arose. They didn't start the war because of oil. They caused the war to escalate into a global conflict because of political responses to their actions which included cutting off oil supplies.

[RI Bills Fan]

Oil runs the world. Countries fight for it. Sometimes they admit it, most times they don't.

 

Global Policy.org

 

So, from that, I'm forced to assume that you are in favor of an Imperialistic Foriegn Policy.

 

Should our UN Ambassador simply put the world on notice that whenever we want something another country has, and they won't meet our terms, we'll just invade and take it anyway?

 

I didn't think conquering the world was part of the Libertarian Manifesto.

[Alaska Darin]

Okay, Japan AFTER STARTING A WAR WITH CHINA badly needed oil and other materials. Got it.

 

It's quite a reach, far worse than taking a safety with the eighth pick, but at least it's a fact.

 

So just how does the need for raw materials to support an already existing war, translate into the cause of that war? Even the article you quote doesn't say the initial conflict started because of oil. It says that the need for oil and other resources arose from the existing war. two completely different sets of circumstances.

 

Japan was already at war when the need arose. They didn't start the war because of oil. They caused the war to escalate into a global conflict because of political responses to their actions which included cutting off oil supplies.

Japan wanted more of Manchuria's "RESOURCES" and didn't want to pay for them. Do you think those "RESOURCES" were hot chics or ramen noodles? That was 40 years earlier. The war of 1937 was a simple continuation of the bad blood (to put it simply), which ended with the Japanese declaring war on England and the US because we wouldn't sell them OIL. Welcome to WWII.

 

I'd say the current situation in Iraq parallels that one quite nicely.

[Alaska Darin]

So, from that, I'm forced to assume that you are in favor of an Imperialistic Foriegn Policy.

 

Should our UN Ambassador simply put the world on notice that whenever we want something another country has, and they won't meet our terms, we'll just invade and take it anyway?

 

I didn't think conquering the world was part of the Libertarian Manifesto.

I'm not sure how you'd make the leap that I support things that have happened. I'm simply explaining them. Industrialized nations need oil and other natural resources with mostly uncivilized nations control them. There's bound to be conflict.

 

I've said before, the best thing we can do is use all that crap up and force ourselves to alternative, clean energy. That seems to be the only thing that'll change the global political climate in relation to the subject.

[chicot]

I'm not sure how you'd make the leap that I support things that have happened. I'm simply explaining them. Industrialized nations need oil and other natural resources with mostly uncivilized nations control them. There's bound to be conflict.

 

I've said before, the best thing we can do is use all that crap up and force ourselves to alternative, clean energy. That seems to be the only thing that'll change the global political climate in relation to the subject.

 

I would say that invading other countries in order to steal their resources is pretty "uncivilized", but what the hell do I know?

[Alaska Darin]

I would say that invading other countries in order to steal their resources is pretty "uncivilized", but what the hell do I know?

Semantics, really. Someday, generations from now, we'll all live together in perfect harmony. Mostly because I'll buy the world a coke and keep it company.

[Alaska Darin]

We were talking about foreign affairs and the media's affect on Iraqis. I said it pailed compared to local sources, here is a nice story on that:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16497895/site/newsweek/

 

In domestic politics, especially during the hysteria created by 9-11, the President's bully pulpit was not challanged by the media here which gave him wide powers to say whatever he wanted.

Local sources are no different from CNN. You're proving MY point without even understanding you're doing it.

[RI Bills Fan]

I'm not sure how you'd make the leap that I support things that have happened. I'm simply explaining them. Industrialized nations need oil and other natural resources with mostly uncivilized nations control them. There's bound to be conflict.

 

Okay, I know you've never supported this botched war! But at times you come across as very supportive of the basic policies behind the decision to go to war. Yes I know that the two are very different things. I just tend to disagree with the "neocon" mindset more than you apparently do.

 

I've said before, the best thing we can do is use all that crap up and force ourselves to alternative, clean energy. That seems to be the only thing that'll change the global political climate in relation to the subject.

 

 

On this we are in complete agreement. IMHO the sooner we restart building Nuclear Power Plants the better off we'll be. One benefit of that would be a much easier path to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Infrastructure.

[Alaska Darin]

Okay, I know you've never supported this botched war! But at times you come across as very supportive of the basic policies behind the decision to go to war. Yes I know that the two are very different things. I just tend to disagree with the "neocon" mindset more than you apparently do.

I wouldn't say that. Most of the time I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate". The "Pie in the Sky" idea that got this started was a 20 year situation - and there's no way in this political climate that was going to work. At the end of the day, any "support" you may think I'm giving is ONLY toward the guys in the shitt, because they are the ones getting killed - and failing in this endeavor all but guarantees even more will get killed by emboldened scumbag terrorists in the future (another huge reason to be against this undertaking in the first place).

On this we are in complete agreement. IMHO the sooner we restart building Nuclear Power Plants the better off we'll be. One benefit of that would be a much easier path to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Infrastructure.

In my dreams. The Dummy's are in the pocket of the enviroterrorists and they're killing any chance we have of Nuclear Power.

[RI Bills Fan]

Japan wanted more of Manchuria's "RESOURCES" and didn't want to pay for them. Do you think those "RESOURCES" were hot chics or ramen noodles? That was 40 years earlier. The war of 1937 was a simple continuation of the bad blood (to put it simply), which ended with the Japanese declaring war on England and the US because we wouldn't sell them OIL. Welcome to WWII.

 

I'd say the current situation in Iraq parallels that one quite nicely.

 

So if this were (Heaven Forbid) to actually escalate into the WWIII Scenatio that certain people are claiming it already is, we would be cast in the same role that Japan was during WWII?

 

That idea really bothers me...

[RI Bills Fan]

I wouldn't say that. Most of the time I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate". The "Pie in the Sky" idea that got this started was a 20 year situation - and there's no way in this political climate that was going to work. At the end of the day, any "support" you may think I'm giving is ONLY toward the guys in the shitt, because they are the ones getting killed - and failing in this endeavor all but guarantees even more will get killed by emboldened scumbag terrorists in the future (another huge reason to be against this undertaking in the first place).

 

I disagree only in the area of the root cause, I still think that the invasion was something that certain members of the administration wanted before 9/11 and would have occurred under some pretext even if 9/11 had never happened.

 

 

In my dreams. The Dummy's are in the pocket of the enviroterrorists and they're killing any chance we have of Nuclear Power.

 

Hopefully some of the smarter ones will come around. Although that might be "Pie in the Sky" thinking on my part.

[Alaska Darin]

So if this were (Heaven Forbid) to actually escalate into the WWIII Scenatio that certain people are claiming it already is, we would be cast in the same role that Japan was during WWII?

 

That idea really bothers me...

I don't see THAT happening.

[Orton's Arm]

So if this were (Heaven Forbid) to actually escalate into the WWIII Scenatio that certain people are claiming it already is, we would be cast in the same role that Japan was during WWII?

 

That idea really bothers me...

Japan launched an attack on the U.S. in part because they wanted our oil. Specifically, they wanted to buy our oil, we wouldn't sell it to them, and the attack (from their point of view) was the next-best thing. Also, the U.S. had broken Japan's codes; so we knew unless we reached an agreement to sell Japan oil, it would mean war. Given FDR's subsequent refusal to reasonably negotiate with the Japanese with regards to oil sales, it's clear FDR entered the war with his eyes wide open.

 

The U.S. launched an attack on Iraq in part because we wanted their oil. In this case, the Iraqis wanted to sell us their oil, but we wouldn't let them. Did Saddam Hussein have the same opportunity to avoid war that FDR had back in 1941? I suppose that depends on whom you ask.

[chicot]

Japan launched an attack on the U.S. in part because they wanted our oil. Specifically, they wanted to buy our oil, we wouldn't sell it to them, and the attack (from their point of view) was the next-best thing. Also, the U.S. had broken Japan's codes; so we knew unless we reached an agreement to sell Japan oil, it would mean war. Given FDR's subsequent refusal to reasonably negotiate with the Japanese with regards to oil sales, it's clear FDR entered the war with his eyes wide open.

 

The U.S. launched an attack on Iraq in part because we wanted their oil. In this case, the Iraqis wanted to sell us their oil, but we wouldn't let them. Did Saddam Hussein have the same opportunity to avoid war that FDR had back in 1941? I suppose that depends on whom you ask.

 

 

It's not just about who gets the oil, it's also about which companies get to develop the oilfields, as RI Bills Fan's link makes clear.

[Orton's Arm]

It's not just about who gets the oil, it's also about which companies get to develop the oilfields, as RI Bills Fan's link makes clear.

I can agree with that.

[molson_golden2002]

Virtually every war fought in the last century was about oil. Do any of you people actually know anything, or are you just going to continue regurgitating the same crap that your political parties feed you?

Ummmmm, no, try again. You are way overstating a point

[molson_golden2002]

Japan launched an attack on the U.S. in part because they wanted our oil. Specifically, they wanted to buy our oil, we wouldn't sell it to them, and the attack (from their point of view) was the next-best thing. Also, the U.S. had broken Japan's codes; so we knew unless we reached an agreement to sell Japan oil, it would mean war. Given FDR's subsequent refusal to reasonably negotiate with the Japanese with regards to oil sales, it's clear FDR entered the war with his eyes wide open.

 

The U.S. launched an attack on Iraq in part because we wanted their oil. In this case, the Iraqis wanted to sell us their oil, but we wouldn't let them. Did Saddam Hussein have the same opportunity to avoid war that FDR had back in 1941? I suppose that depends on whom you ask.

What was FDR suppose to do? The Japs were trying to strangle the nationalist Chinese by taking advantage of the war in Europe to pressure the Europeans to cut off all supplies to them. No way we should have supplied the Japs with the material to conquer the Chinese

[molson_golden2002]

Local sources are no different from CNN. You're proving MY point without even understanding you're doing it.

No difference? Perhaps you need to restate your point. And explain how CNN and local Iraqi sources are no different.