Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:56:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1767 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> 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? :-)
Wrong in the sense that I never said that U.S. companies do not benefit from
Middle Eastern oil in any way. Dave is saying we want their oil because we
are sucking up so much Middle Eastern oil (and specifically Iraqi oil) with
our SUVs. My point is that we don't really depend on middle eastern oil,
and certainly not Iraqi oil (directly, I understand that the oil market is
interconnected and not wholly divorcable). There is a great deal of finger
pointing in Europe at America for wanting the oil, but no acknowledgement of
the real situation: those doing the biggest pointing are the ones currently
getting the oil. Who's position is more suspect?
Of course, Bush is getting what he wants right now: higher profit margins
for the oil companies based on sheer speculation. But really, what drives
Bush is idiocy ("Never attribute to malice what can be explained by
stupidity"). Somehow he thinks he has the moral imperative to oppose all
"terrorism" (as he defines it) anywhere in the world. All I can say is he
didn't even win a plurality of the vote *here*, much less abroad. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) You are correct, you did not say that at any time. I also did not say you did say it... :-) I just call your attention to the fact that it would be wrong *if* you had that in mind. Therefere I chose the words "as you said it" to be highlighted (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
