| Author |
 Topic  |
|
johnpostava
USA
35 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2003 : 20:52:49
|
> GASOLINE SOLUTION!
Let me start by saying I am a flag waving, blue blooded, republican, 100% doodle dandy. In other words, I stand behind George W. in every way. Those statements notwithstanding, here goes...
We can buy gasoline that's not from Middle East. Why didn't George W. think of this? Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us!
The Saudis are boycotting American goods - I say they need us more than we need them. We should return the 'favor'. An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the car, minivan, pick-up or SUV, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia or other OPEC terrorists. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the "dark side".
Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to certain circles of terrorists who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil ( for the period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01 ):
Shell......................205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco.........144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil................130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway..........117,740,000 barrels
Amoco......................62,231,000 barrels
> >
> > If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION a year!
>
Here are some large companies that do not import
Middle Eastern oil:
> >
> > Citgo...................0 barrels
> > Sunoco............. ..0 barrels
> > Conoco............. ..0 barrels
> > Sinclair............... 0 barrels
> > BP/Phillips...........0 barrels
> > Hess...................0 barrels
> >
> > All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a monthly basis. Keep this list in your car; share it with friends.
Stop paying for terrorism ..... ........
I would like to add one thing to this. Each time you fill-up, you are paying terrorists countries. I think the time has come for us to take a stand.
In the end, we are AMERICANS. And we would walk through fire and ice to get the job done before supporting those who would tear us down.
Buy gas from those companies that don't support terrorist factions. You'll be glad you did.
Just my 2-cents..... |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 21:25:03
|
That's a great thought but this war isn't about oil. It's about a madman who threatens the security of the free world and who is refusing to abide by the treaty he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war.
Besides that, oil is a commodity, that means that each unit is indistinguishable from every other unit. There is only so much oil on the international market and every barrel is spoken for before it is pumped out of the ground. OPEC makes sure of that. It doesn't matter if we buy all of our oil from Venezuela and Russia because then the people who are currently buying from them will just switch to the Arab countries.
There are only two ways to impact the world oil market.
1. Decrease our consumption and that ain't bloody likely any time soon. Perhaps this is why GW is talking about hydrogen fuel cells. HFC's are not currently viable, but then again neither was powered flight 100 years ago.
2. Increase increase American production. Open up the oil fields in Alaska and off the coasts of California and in the Gulf of Mexico. While this is an entirely doable option. I think the reason the government hasn't done it is because it doesn't make economic or strategic sense. (Don't believe it's because of environmental reasons because the government doesn't listen to those crazy tree huggers, nor should it.)
It isn't economical because it is cheaper to drill in foreign countries and ship it over here than it is to produce it here because of our labor costs and other overhead.
It isn't smart strategically because we don't want to use up all of our oil and then be forced to buy from other countries. Then we would literally be over a barrel. Given the choice, if oil is a finite resource, we'd rather use up everyone else's oil before we tap into our own.
Just some thoughts. Let the pot shots begin. |
 |
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 22:00:49
|
| You forgot a third option, use NAFTA and work with Mexico and Canada to replace overseas supplies. I don't know the Mexican reserves but the Candian tar sands have far more oil then our arab friends. Sleep well on your knowledge that oil isn't a key factor in juniors war, my world would be a lot more sinple if I could learn to wear blinders. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 22:08:24
|
Mark, if we wanted oil, why didn't we take it when were were there in '91? If we wanted oil through the use of military force we could just go to Venezuela and take theirs. It would be alot easier and alot closer. The oil argument makes no sense at all. We already have massive numbers of troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, why don't we take their oil? It simply doesn't make sense. If GW just wanted us to get Iraq's oil, we could just lift the sanctions and buy all of it that we wanted at much cheaper prices than an invasion. I'm sure Sadam would gladly sell below OPEC prices because he desperately needs the money.
I'm not the one with blinders on. Perhaps it is you who is being blinded by your hatred for the greatest president of the last 10 years. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 02/21/2003 22:13:26 |
|
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 11:28:38
|
John,
Excellent post! I think we must look at these issues separately, if we can.
I believe it makes sense to control the supply and demand part of the equation. We have been too dependent on OPEC for years. But to say the posturing that is going on has nothing to do with oil is simplistic. I think all of the bantering (all sides) has to do with economics. True, George W. is standing on the side of morality but he has to be concerned about the Economy too. I am comitted to reseaching where I buy my gas. (Just like I try not to but merchandise from China - becoming more difficult). Thanks for the info.
On another issue concerning the environment. I believe we have abducated the environment to the fringe element. I believe we have failed, as conservatives, christians, etc concerning the environment. We need to be stewards of the planet. We having allowed those who would save a bug and destroy a civilization to make the rules. But I think it's time to bridge the gap instead of widening it.
If anybody knows were Quik Trip purchases their gas, let me know.
Good discussion. Thanks again John! |
Don
"To be held in the heart of a friend is to be a king."
Bruce Cockburn |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 11:51:15
|
That is a good point, Don. About the environmentalists going off the deep end. I honestly don't believe anyone wants to polute or destroy the environment. The fact is all human endeavor will leave some sort of footprint on the land. The trick is to balance the impact with the gains achieved. I recently saw a story about a town in California that was trying to build a mall that would create thousands of jobs and bring in millions in revenue for the community. Some environmentalists have brought the project to a halt because of a tiny fly that lives on 200 acres where the mall will be built. It seems a bit nuts to me
Since we are on the subject of Iraq, remember it was Sadam who set the oil wells ablaze at the end of the gulf war and dumped millions of gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf. All these leftist anti-war liberals who care so much about the environment seem to overlook that. I just don't get it. They just don't like GW. If that pansy Bill Clinton would have had the guts to do this they wouldn't have said a word. To those morally bankrupt leftists, old Slick-Willy could do no wrong. I just don't see how seemingly intelligent people can think this way. |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 12:30:21
|
Howcome we aren't talking about the potential war dead. I saw on CNN that we could expect 20,000 to 45,000 dead and wounded. We have both Navy hosp. ships in the Gulf. It appears that our feerless leader is ready to accept mass casualties on our part. Is a gallon of gas worth even one death? I think inspection, containment and maybe some peace keepers could do the same job.
George W. has a duty and obligation to disclose any information we may have concerning weapons of mass destruction. Please refrence last UN 1441. Back in the 80's Wendy's had a commercial,(where's the beef). I ask George W. where is the proof of these weapons of mass destruction that he keeps harping about. Wheres the proof?
It looks like George W. is looking for a little pay back for daddy. Who profits from a war? All of Geoge W.'s little oil buddies and let's not forget about all the defense contractors. Weren't these the major contributors to his and dad's campaigns.
Show me some proof? |
|
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 14:16:32
|
Alan,
I respect your questions and position.
Questions and statements to all.
Why is the burden of proof on our President and / or the United Nations Security Council?
I do not believe UN #1441 was really necessary. It has been proven again and again that the Iraqi government and military have violated the Treaty established at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Are governments not expected to adhere to their terms of the Treaty (policy for us adjusters). How many hundreds of times have U.N. airplanes been shot at by the Iraqi military? Have there really been atrocities on people in the region and Iraq? Is it reasonible to think the people of Iraq have a voice in their elections? 100% of the people vote and 100% of the people voted for Saddam? The world spoke at the end of the last war. Violations occur without any recourse. (That was a mistake the previous U.S. administration made). Of course this really falls on the shoulders of the U.N. and they have failed. Res. 1441 calls for compliance by Iraq not proof by the inspectors. I guess the rub is, are all the previous violations of the Treaty, atrocities, funding of known terrorists (Huzzbullah and Hamas) enough to fight? I think so. With 6 sons and 3 daughters, I do not want to see war. But all the protesting and name calling only weakens our posiiton, globally (divide and conquer). I support the right to protest.... but think many are on the verge of treasonous acts. Why is Pres. Bush being compared to Hitler?
It is my understanding that the Congress has granted the same type of authority to G.W. as they did Clinton when we sent in troops to assist keeping U.N. strength.
I continue to pray for wisdom. I believe I am seeing the leadership seek it. I believe the majority of those around the world seeking peace would never agree to any military action. I appreciate their philosophy but not the name calling siding with the enemy. I believe you can protest for peace (and should if you really believe that) but not accuse the President of being a dictator.
Enjoying the discussion, hope it continues. |
Don
"To be held in the heart of a friend is to be a king."
Bruce Cockburn |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 14:20:49
|
| Kile, I know you understand that even Junior cannot just invade on a whim, he has to sell the world that he has a just reason. An invasion of Venezuela or Suadi Arabia would also spell the end of NATO and the UN, and would result in a world of the US vs everyone. Even Blair wouldn't be able to hold his voters. The evidence for the need to take out Sadam is growing, but as they said in the song, "is that all there is". PS it would be easier to invade Mexico it's closer. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 14:21:03
|
There were projections of 100,000 casualties before the last gulf war. What did we have? somthing like 200. During the Gulf War fewer soldiers actually died than normaly would during peace time because they were constantly busy and couldn't go out drinking and driving.
Speaking as former infantry Sergeant Anderson, I would have no problem going to fight this war. It is something that should have been done 12 years ago. Because of the UN we didn't do it then. Now, we will do it inspite of the UN, no thanks to those gutless cowards in France and Germany.
During WWII, did we demand to know everything that Eisenhower or Roosevelt or Truman knew? No we didn't, because back then people understood the secrecy keeps soldiers alive when the bullets start flying. I gurantee you, once Iraq is under US control and all of the nastiness is out in the open you guys will be praising GW and Rummy. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 14:22:29
|
| Mark, we don't have to invade Mexico, they are invading us. |
|
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2003 : 20:17:41
|
| Right on Kile! I, too, was an infantry platoon sergeant and think this is just an action that was delayed for 12 years by the damned politicos in the UN who were trying to keep both sides of their bread buttered and keep their past actions from coming to light. I spent 13 years ready to go at a moments notice without question. Some people in this country haven't put their money (or lives) where their mouths are and (in my opinion) should maybe listen a little to people who have sacrificed something for their way of life. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2003 : 06:55:20
|
| Alan......Saddam is a madman.....period.....he is brutal and insane and he has weapons of mas destruction......he should have been eliminated 12 years ago......I'm with Kyle.....and Tom....Oh , Tom ,It is OUR way of life........like you, been gthere ,done that,got the T shirt to prove it. |
|
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2003 : 10:35:06
|
Newt,
I understand your passion. I am pondering what to do about your post. I am needing to chew on some of your words (ie - 'savages'). If your intent is that all leaders in the Middle East are 'madmen' you have accomplished that. I'm not sure I would want others viewing all adjusters through those lenses. As a newbie moberator, I struggle with pulling posts. I want their to be a free expression, but this one is skatin' on that thin stuff. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2003 : 10:38:55
|
| Nobody ever accused Newt of being politicaly correct. |
|
|
|
Ron McGuire
7 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2003 : 14:41:49
|
| Newt, sadly, I think most of your points are correct. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Iraq
Forum Locked
