Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:04 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Blood for Oil
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
COLA wrote:
Like with war, we and the government can attack a country over oil,


"Blood for Oil" is a phrase thrown around by anti-Americans and liberals all_the_time. As this is not the first time I've heard the term on the HR Wiki Forum, I have a proposition:

Anyone who believes in this nebulous "Blood for Oil" concept is hereby invited to explain what it means and

PROVE IT.

Note: To prove something, you must do more than post "Lolz bush is killinz peepz 4 oil lololol!"

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood for Oil
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
lahimatoa wrote:
COLA wrote:
Like with war, we and the government can attack a country over oil,


"Blood for Oil" is a phrase thrown around by anti-Americans and liberals all_the_time. As this is not the first time I've heard the term on the HR Wiki Forum, I have a proposition:

Anyone who believes in this nebulous "Blood for Oil" concept is hereby invited to explain what it means and

PROVE IT.

Note: To prove something, you must do more than post "Lolz bush is killinz peepz 4 oil lololol!"

What you forgot to include in that post is the end of my quote, which says:
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
Like with war, we and the government can attack a country over oil, and protest ourselves over attacking a country in the first place.


So either Way, we know were doing something wrong for Oil, but we can Protest ourselves because of it.

Final thing, am i becoming an Inside Joke?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:46 pm
Posts: 993
Location: In the Palace of No Wai, sipping PWN JOO Chai
Okay, this is a side issue, but I totally object to you bandying the terms "anti-American" and "liberal" around here. There are a whole spectrum of people who believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by oil. It's their moral objection (whether it's justified or not), and in no way does it need to be driven by anti-Americanism or liberalism.

And where does liberalism come into it, anyway?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:25 pm
Posts: 2439
Location: Empire of Sparkletania
It means that we invade harmless countries just to get cheap oil.

Prove it? Umm, Iraq. We Invaded them, we went to war for one reason, and fought for another, although I wouldn't call it war, maybe conquest fits. But we went there hoping to get rid of a middleman by taking over their oilfields.

Edit: Well, I guess I'm a hippy nogoodnik.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
Okay, this is a side issue, but I totally object to you bandying the terms "anti-American" and "liberal" around here. There are a whole spectrum of people who believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by oil. It's their moral objection (whether it's justified or not), and in no way does it need to be driven by anti-Americanism or liberalism.

And where does liberalism come into it, anyway?


No need to be offended. I'm just saying the term is popular with those two types of people... not that you ARE one of those types of people if you believe in Blood for Oil.

Quote:
It means that we invade harmless countries just to get cheap oil.

Prove it? Umm, Iraq. We Invaded them, we went to war for one reason, and fought for another, although I wouldn't call it war, maybe conquest fits. But we went there hoping to get rid of a middleman by taking over their oilfields.


Good attempt, but you haven't proved a thing. You've only stated what your opinion is.

I love it when people say we went into Iraq to get their oil. If this is true, why are gas prices as high as they are?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood for Oil
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:06 am
Posts: 2049
Location: Standing on Watterson's front lawn
lahimatoa wrote:
Anyone who believes in this nebulous "Blood for Oil" concept is hereby invited to explain what it means and

PROVE IT.


Some thoughtful liberal activist friends of mine have purposely ditched this thing because A) there is no hard evidence and B ) I think they said something about it being an oversimplification of the problem

lahimatoa wrote:
I love it when people say we went into Iraq to get their oil. If this is true, why are gas prices as high as they are?


The easy response is to look at the record profits for the oil companies. Blood for Oil doesn't mean blood so we have lower gas prices, but that through wars the oil economy is rigged for higher oil company profits. But still, that's just a convenient coincidence and there's no proof that was really the reason for the war.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
The easy response is to look at the record profits for the oil companies. Blood for Oil doesn't mean blood so we have lower gas prices, but that through wars the oil economy is rigged for higher oil company profits. But still, that's just a convenient coincidence and there's no proof that was really the reason for the war.


That's a good point... though oil companies can also get huge profits by upping their prices a few cents per gallon.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:29 pm 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
The easy response is to look at the record profits for the oil companies. Blood for Oil doesn't mean blood so we have lower gas prices, but that through wars the oil economy is rigged for higher oil company profits. But still, that's just a convenient coincidence and there's no proof that was really the reason for the war.


That's a good point... though oil companies can also get huge profits by upping their prices a few cents per gallon.


Yes, they can, but they can get bigger profits if they up gas prices a by more dollar per gallon.

If the Iraq war was over oil, why are we trying to rebuild the cities, putting in sewer, electricity, etc?

Why not just wall off the oil fields with a couple layers of security, and make them self-contained? It'd be a lot easier, a lot cheaper, and a lot faster.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
While I opposed the Iraq invasion, I'm not naive enough to believe the motive was oil. That's just a heavy oversimplification prompted by those who really don't want to look at the real issues involved.

No, the motive for the Iraq war, in my assessment, was rage over 9-11, despite the lack of direct connection between the terrorists and Iraq.

Right now, I say we have a moral responsibility to rebuild their country and economy, so I'm not in favor of immediate withdrawal.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
see, the only reason Bush invaded Iraq is to finish what his father started.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:10 am
Posts: 14278
Location: Behind Blue Eyes
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
see, the only reason Bush invaded Iraq is to finish what his father started.
Actually, Bush 41 had no intention for going after Saddam.

Wikipedia wrote:
In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood for Oil
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
lahimatoa wrote:
"Blood for Oil" is a phrase thrown around by anti-Americans and liberals all_the_time.
Lahi, just because we don't agree with the president doesn't mean we're anti Americans. You using phrases like that makes you no better then the people you complain about.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Ramrod, I don't think Lahi's indicating that disagreeing with the president is wrong. I think he's addressing specifically the use of the mantra "Blood for Oil." Which, in my opinion, is a drastic oversimplification of what is taking place. I disagree with the invasion of Iraq, too, but I'm not naive enough to believe that oil is the sole motive for it. Or even the primary. Rather, this specific phrase is meant to villify those who support the war, and paint a picture of them as greedy slobs who would kill millions of people just so they could make more profits.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
I knew what he was saying Dids, but I had to respond to that.


As for the saying, while it is true that is a stupid saying, can you say, without any doubt, that oil has no affect on this war? No-one ever mention oil with the same sentence of Iraq?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
I never said oil had NO effect on the war. Only that it does not seem to be the primary motive behind it. After all, it's not like we're ruling Iraq and are yanking all their resources out from under them.

Lahi seems to have started this thread in reaction to something Cola said on another thread, in which he expressed his opinion that the war was entirely on account of oil.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
Didymus wrote:
Lahi seems to have started this thread in reaction to something Cola said on another thread, in which he expressed his opinion that the war was entirely on account of oil.

Exactly, im an Inside Joke.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
Exactly, im an Inside Joke.


If you are, I have no knowledge of it. I just quoted you because you used the phrase I wanted to examine.

And apparently you're not smart enough to define what the term means or prove it has any basis whatsoever.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 890
Location: Royse City, TX
As much as the phrase "blood for oil" and "finish what his father started" make me roll my eyes, saying that COLA isn't "smart enough" sounds a little close to Dr. Lurve-speak to me.

Now, saying that using these kinds of phrases is evidence that somebody is willing to use cheap rationalizations to defend their viewpoint, rather than making a considered and thorough analysis of the situation, that I can live with.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
saying that COLA isn't "smart enough" sounds a little close to Dr. Lurve-speak to me.


Maybe you're right, but I've been reading COLA posts for a long time, and I'm seriously questioning whether he's smart enough to discuss such complicated issues. He sure hasn't stood up and proved me wrong in this thread.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
Lahi, let's not start to insult the intelligence of other users. So you know what? I'm going to lock this thread for a day, and I'll unlock it tomarrow. Let's see if we calm down by then, ok?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
OK, I've unlocked this. Now lets see if we all have calmed down and can behave, ok?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:34 pm
Posts: 646
Location: Where do you think? Right here sitting at my computer. DUH!
Didymus wrote:
I never said oil had NO effect on the war. Only that it does not seem to be the primary motive behind it. After all, it's not like we're ruling Iraq and are yanking all their resources out from under them.


Well, we sure must be taking a lot though, because Iraq used to be very rich... of course, that's when Saddam was in charge. So I can't exactly say it was great, but it was a lot better than it is now. More Iraqies are being killed now then when Saddam was in charge. But that's off the point, because I'm trying to say is, Iraq was rich!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
More Iraqies are being killed now then when Saddam was in charge.


Link?

This whole R&P forum is being overrun by people pulling statements out of thin air.

At least tell me where you heard that, Snail.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
What about the genocide committed by Saddam's sons? Did they factor that into the equation?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
What about the genocide committed by Saddam's sons? Did they factor that into the equation?


Not to mention the fact that 99% of the deaths in Iraq over the past three\4 years have been Iraqis killing Iraqis or Americans killing insurgents.

Far different from mass executions of "political enemies" under Saddam. Or the attempted extermination of the Kurds.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 12
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
What about the genocide committed by Saddam's sons? Did they factor that into the equation?


Not to mention the fact that 99% of the deaths in Iraq over the past three\4 years have been Iraqis killing Iraqis or Americans killing insurgents.

Far different from mass executions of "political enemies" under Saddam. Or the attempted extermination of the Kurds.


Learn the history of oil in the United States, Saudi Arabia and our economie's dependence on Middle East oil.

Not only is our economy dependent on oil, many politicians and businessmen make billions of dollars off of it.

Seriously... the history of oil is not that old, and is all recorded in books. It's not a big mystery.

Most people prefer to say that we're in Iraq to fight terrorism instead of for oil, because that way it's easier to drive your gas guzzling SUV to the corner market and not feel guilty.

Besides... if the war was on terror, we'd be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Some great (cheap) books I'd recommend:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Under
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer (Ex-CIA agent)

Look at how people were suprised at the corruption and greed of Enron. Sorry folks... it seems most people are blinded by greed these days. From the Bushs, Rumsfields and Cheneys (who profit like mad haters) to the wealthy oil executives (who lavish themselves with exuberant profits). It's about world domination and greed.


Last edited by FogJuice on Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
FogJuice wrote:
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
What about the genocide committed by Saddam's sons? Did they factor that into the equation?


Not to mention the fact that 99% of the deaths in Iraq over the past three\4 years have been Iraqis killing Iraqis or Americans killing insurgents.

Far different from mass executions of "political enemies" under Saddam. Or the attempted extermination of the Kurds.


Learn the history of oil in the United States, Saudi Arabia and our economie's dependence on Middle East oil.

Not only is our economy dependent on oil, many politicians and businessmen make billions of dollars off of it.

Seriously... the history of oil is not that old, and is all recorded in books. It's not a big mystery.

Most people prefer to say that we're in Iraq to fight terrorism instead of for oil, because that way it's easier to drive your gas guzzling SUV to the corner market and not feel guilty.

Besides... if the war was on terror, we'd be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Some great (cheap) books I'd recommend:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Under
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer (Ex-CIA agent)

Look at how people were suprised at the corruption and greed of Enron. Sorry folks... it seems most people are blinded by geed these days. From the Bushs, Rumsfields and Cheneys (who profit like mad haters) to the wealthy oil executives (who lavish themselves with exuberant profits). It's about world domination and greed.

Woah, Lahi, looks liek youve got some (more) competition.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 12
Nah, it's not about competition...

It's easy to ignore the history. I'll admit it's not the most entertaining or exciting.

But hey, you're smarter than Dubya, so I'm figuring you can at least read! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:57 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
FogJuice wrote:
Some great (cheap) books I'd recommend:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Under
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer (Ex-CIA agent)

For some reason, those books don't sound too objective..

I still can't believe that people actually think the Iraq war is about oil. If it were, we would have been in there in January of 2001 (well technically, that's not true, Sr would have never pulled US troops out of there in the first place).

Based on your quote about Bush's intelligence (the thing about being smarter than the president meaning that one can read), I ask which is more likely:
1:The war in Iraq is a poorly planned, poorly executed attempt at bringing democracy to a facist regime.
2: This "moron" somehow came up with a master plan to invade a country so that he and his friends could profit from the oil contained therein.

I've weighed both and I've made my decision. It's sad that the second isn't true.. At least then we probably would have lost fewer lives.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 12
StrongRad wrote:
FogJuice wrote:
Some great (cheap) books I'd recommend:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Under
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer (Ex-CIA agent)

For some reason, those books don't sound too objective..

I still can't believe that people actually think the Iraq war is about oil. If it were, we would have been in there in January of 2001 (well technically, that's not true, Sr would have never pulled US troops out of there in the first place).

Based on your quote about Bush's intelligence (the thing about being smarter than the president meaning that one can read), I ask which is more likely:
1:The war in Iraq is a poorly planned, poorly executed attempt at bringing democracy to a facist regime.
2: This "moron" somehow came up with a master plan to invade a country so that he and his friends could profit from the oil contained therein.

I've weighed both and I've made my decision. It's sad that the second isn't true.. At least then we probably would have lost fewer lives.


Facts are usually objective:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2 ... index.html

Seriously, read the last book on the list. The one from the CIA agent who lived and worked in the Middle East. It's not the most exciting book, but it's filled with facts. Here's a guy who lived and breathed this stuff. I'd take his word before I'd take the word of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh (all of whom have claimed this war is NOT about oil).

Actually, it's both 1 and 2.

There's nothing "master" about the plan. The invasion of Iraq was a poorly planned power grab in the Middle East to secure the United States position of power. It's not just for the benefit of Bush, his cronies and his campaign contributors... it's for all of us. Last time I checked, we all use oil to run our cars and heat our homes, deliver our goods to Walmart, etc. We're all to blame. Some of us just got a better deal (monetarily) on the whole thing.

Do you honestly think we'd have any interest in the Middle East if it wasn't the WORLD'S STOCKPILE of OIL?

Go back in history to the days before 1938, before oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia. Tell me what interest we had in the Middle East (outside of Israel) back then?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group