Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:24:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1698 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> A straw man argument is setting up an easy but inaccurately depicted target
> that you can knock down. "America is wasting the oil it gets from Saddam,
> so it must go to war with him." If it was getting it already, why would it
> need to go to war? Is the oil really going to America? No.
Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption
which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or
West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use*
the oil to benefit from it. We both know that the majority of the companies
who exploit the oil in the Arabian Region are american-controlled, and that
they generate a lot of profit from the drilling activity...
So yes, you are right in what you said *as you said it*. Just please don't
claim in the future that the oil from the Persian Gulf does not benefit the
US in any way - you haven't *said it*, but it can be implied from your
passionate rufuse of iraqui oil consumption by the US. Or am I 100% wrong? :-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) "I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?" If you are going to castigate Americans for something that Canadians are doing (wasting oil through self-indulgence), you aren't going to garner a lot of respect for whatever point you are (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
