Phoenix Network Forums

antirem wrote:Russia has 11,000ish nukes (we have 3,600ish) enough to destroy the world 4 times over. They overstocked and knew it.. why? To sell it. They sold iran parts to make nuculer power plants... they aslo sold them the thing that detonates nukes (forgot what its called) There are no explosions in power plants for them to work and the only use for it is for nukes.

Umm, America has more nukes then Russia does.

10,600 to 8,600 as of 2002. http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=nd02norris

I think we should have gone after iran..

I'll agree with you here. Saddam Hussein was a pretty much secular leader, and could always be counted on to look after himself, and we should have exploited that and used him as a tool.

I was debating about the war with my friend and those were the statistics he listed... sorry for saying the wrong ones.

There is the issue of how many of these war heads are active and still usable tho.. i know that a lot no longer work. I cant cite anything but if you know about it please post

Hey,

1) I never said america sold oil. Just that oil is required by the american economy, as an industrial nation.

2) I was merely illustrating, by the fact that the U.S.A did not want to admit that the burning of fossil fuels was directly linked to the el nino effect, that America is so reliant on oil that they are not willing to admit something that is blatant FACT.

Bandit

nighthawk, do you seriously think the world, and more importantly Canada would have sat idly by and watched you invade Canada?



I'm not saying the war was just for oil, but I'll say that saddam would have been a very good excuse.

Samppa wrote:nighthawk, do you seriously think the world, and more importantly Canada would have sat idly by and watched you invade

What!? He was only saying that if we were to go to war for oil then we should have gone to war with canada. Hes using it as an example, if we really were going to go to war for oil it would make more since to attacka canada. Since we are not at war for oil then there is another reason for the war.

I was making the point that if the war is/was for oil, US got off scot free by invading Iraq - had they (tried to) invaded Canada, they would have had the wrath of the rest of the world to endure, even if they had succeeded.

By going to Iraq with the pretence of saddam and wmd, they'd get the oil and not get slaughtered by everyone.

BanditZA wrote:I was merely illustrating, by the fact that the U.S.A did not want to admit that the burning of fossil fuels was directly linked to the el nino effect, that America is so reliant on oil that they are not willing to admit something that is blatant FACT.

El nino and La nina have nothing to do with global warming. They've been observed as early as 1923. "These effects were first described in 1923 by Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino

nighthawk, do you seriously think the world, and more importantly Canada would have sat idly by and watched you invade Canada?

I'm not saying the war was just for oil, but I'll say that saddam would have been a very good excuse.

No, but there are other nations who are enemies of the US whom if we were really fighting for oil, we SHOULD have invaded because they have for more oil then Iraq does. Venezsuala for example, or Nigeria or Qatar. And like I've stated before, currently we aren't importing and oil from Iraq.

My, mistake, I always took El Nino to be global warming, excuse my ignorance. However, instead of pointing out my fault, could you please answer my question

Bandit

Which one is that? I believed I did, but I may have missed something.

nighthawk wrote:

nighthawk, do you seriously think the world, and more importantly Canada would have sat idly by and watched you invade Canada?

I'm not saying the war was just for oil, but I'll say that saddam would have been a very good excuse.

No, but there are other nations who are enemies of the US whom if we were really fighting for oil, we SHOULD have invaded because they have for more oil then Iraq does. Venezsuala for example, or Nigeria or Qatar. And like I've stated before, currently we aren't importing and oil from Iraq.

But they all miss the excuse needed to invade. There is no horrible regime that needs taking care of (granted that qatar has some problems), and it would have been deeper condemned by the world. And thinking about getting allies for the war, how many countries would have agreed to the invasion of venezuela or such?
Also, you say you aren't importing oil from iraq, but that's not to say you won't do so in the future.

I'll say it again to clear things up, I'm not saying the war was for oil.
I'm saying if the war was for oil, then iraq was a great place to invade.

Samppa wrote:But they all miss the excuse needed to invade. There is no horrible regime that needs taking care of (granted that qatar has some problems), and it would have been deeper condemned by the world. And thinking about getting allies for the war, how many countries would have agreed to the invasion of venezuela or such?
Also, you say you aren't importing oil from iraq, but that's not to say you won't do so in the future.

We could pull the same 'spreading democracy' arguement there, since the current president attempted a coup before he was 'elected'. There's current political strife there as well, so it wouldn't be too hard to put the 'WMD spin' on it.

Nighthawk: Your country refuses to sign a treaty to reduce fossil fuel omissions because they say that it has not been proven that the burning of these fossil fuels causes global warming. I was merely pointing out that if the American economy did not require oil to run they would not be the largest omitter of fossil fuels and the only nation who was asked to sign and did not...

nighthawk wrote:We could pull the same 'spreading democracy' arguement there, since the current president attempted a coup before he was 'elected'. There's current political strife there as well, so it wouldn't be too hard to put the 'WMD spin' on it.

You do seem very keen on war! any reason thereto?

BanditZA wrote:Nighthawk: Your country refuses to sign a treaty to reduce fossil fuel omissions because they say that it has not been proven that the burning of these fossil fuels causes global warming. I was merely pointing out that if the American economy did not require oil to run they would not be the largest omitter of fossil fuels and the only nation who was asked to sign and did not...

All nations require oil to run. America is just the most industrialized large nation out there, hence the massive oil drain. China is catching up us in oil use, and it will only go up as their GDP and wealth increases. And global warming has nothing to do with Iraq.

You do seem very keen on war! any reason thereto?

No, I'm just pointing out the flaws that others ignore when they say we went to Iraq for oil. It would have been a justified accusation if we actually imported oil from Iraq after the war.

There is still the possibility that US wanted to secure the oil..