Whom should US invade next

[Cimmerian Nights]

It just numbers, but who were the enemy in Vietnam, if it was all vietnamese, then yes, but if it was just the "rebels" then

Rebels? that's a cute euphamism.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

The United States actually produces 8.69 million barrels per day, and that number is INCREASING due to all the new drilling legislation. The only countries that produce more oil per day are Russia (9.27 million bpd) and Saudi Arabia (10.37 million bpd).

My, you *are* misinformed. USA currently produces between 3.5 and 4.0 million barrels of *crude* oil per day (it was 3.8 million on Sept 30, which is the lastest available data), mostly as a consequence of the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout the first half of 2005 the production was about 5.5 mil b/d. I don't know where you pulled that 8.69m figure from - USA hasn't had such production levels since 1986.

Anyway, it's all irrelevant. What's relevant are *trends*. Even the most optimistic estimates predict that US crude oil production levels will remain stagnant in the next eight years. A more realistic prognosis is that US oil production will decrease up to 5% a year. Consumption, on the other hand, will increase at the rate of 3-5%, which will put a great strain on the economy due to extremely high oil prices on the global market.

Ok...I can't take you seriously anymore.

The countries I named are all part of the top 14 biggest oil producing countries in the world. The list:
Country Oil Production in Million of barrels per day
1.) Saudi Arabia 10.37
2.) Russia 9.27
3.) US 8.69
4.) Iran 4.09
5.) Mexico 3.83
6.) China 3.62
7.) Norway 3.18
8.) Canda 3.14
9.) Venezuela 2.86
10.) UAE 2.76
11.) Kuwait 2.51
12.) Nigeria 2.51
13.) UK 2.08
14.) Iraq 2.03
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

As I said, your choice of comparative examples is poor.

Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world, but systematic extraction is still in a fairly early stage, so there is much potential for Iran's production to increase dramatically, whereas US can only watch its production decline. Similar is true for Iraq (where oil production is actually *decreasing* due to constant armed attacks on the infrastructure).

Oil fields in Mexico, China, Canada, Venezuela and Nigeria are already close to being 50% depleted, so their production will peak in 2-5 years and start declining afterwards.

Kuwait and UAE control about 10% of world oil reserves each. Not bad, if you believe their exaggerated figures and disregard the fact that much of that oil has already been extracted.

The only remaining countries in the world that have potential to dramatically increase their oil output in the future are Iraq and Iran. Possibly Canada, because it has an abundance of oil sands which may become viable for extraction and refinement in near future.

I'll give you that the US doesn't produce as much as it consumes daily, but it appears you don't know how much that is. The US consumes about 20.5 million bpd. It imports about 11.8 million bpd, while only producing 8.69. However, if you were aware of current events, you would know that oil companies are having new doors opened to them in the US...in Alaska, the Midwest, the Rockies, etc. More drilling will be taking place, more oil production. It probably won't be long until the US is the biggest producer of oil in the world.

No. As I stated above, even the biggest optimists estimate US oil production will stagnate in the upcoming years. Why? Because US has depleted majority of its oil wells, and no amount of drilling can change that fact.

Also, by your argument, why doesn't the US invade Canada? They have bigger oil reserves than Iran. Wouldn't it be much easier to just annex Canada? Hell, the US could probably steal all of Canada's reserves and they wouldn't even notice. You'd just have to distract them with some bacon, or maybe some good beer. So why would we then invade Iran? Why would we spend all of that money just to steal their oil reserves when we can take Canada's?

Because majority of Canadian oil reserves is far too expensive to exploit. It will probably be decades until Canada becomes the greatest oil producing country in the world.

I'm not sure if you're aware how a capitalist economy works. I produce something, and then you pay me for it. I don't give it to you for free. Exxon-Mobil is not going to just up and give oil to anyone. They're still going to charge competitive prices. If they don't, then there won't be an Exxon-Mobil anymore.

It's more complicated than that. The aim of the military intervention isn't to assume *direct* control over oil supplies. Rather it's about ensuring *access* to oil and preventing oil-producing countries from switching to euro as their oil trade currency (which is exactly what Iraq and Iran did). Also, you naively assume that US government's bid to control Middle Eastern oil supply is supposed to benefit American citizens. It isn't. US government serves interests of Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Haliburton and other corporations. They are the ones who profit from US military entanglements in the Middle East and they are the ones who dictate American foreign policies.

Oh, I dunno. How about capturing the freaking US embassy and holding everyone hostage for 444 days?

Invading a country over something that happened 25 years ago would be moronic.

Or how about sending troops to fight against the coalition in Iraq?

Evidence?

How about how Amadinejad has said he wants deterrence capability?

Can you blame him? Anyway, the official position of the Iranian government is different.

Not really. It's all about prevention. Take them out now so they don't pose an immediate threat down the road.

Please tell me you aren't in favor of such a moronic policy.

It was a strong enough justification to invade Iraq.

That's assuming that invasion of Iraq was justified, which it wasn't. Plus, Iraq case was different because Iraq under Saddam had a history of war and expansionism.

 

[King of Creation]

Also, you naively assume that US government's bid to control Middle Eastern oil supply is supposed to benefit American citizens. It isn't. US government serves interests of Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Haliburton and other corporations. They are the ones who profit from US military entanglements in the Middle East and they are the ones who dictate American foreign policies.

That would make sense if companies like Haliburton weren't already in Iran, having lucrative deals with the Iranian government. What possible benefit could they have by the US invading? Disruption of production? Loss of profit?



Also, I guess you don't look at links:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

 

[Tannhauser]

My, you *are* misinformed.

I'm sure you can do better than this Ratty, this exchange is rather silly.

In any case, King has done us the favor of citing his source: InfoPlease, though you may have missed it. Could you please reveal where your figures come from?

Edit: Thanks.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

My info comes from Energy Information Administration of the US government.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/crudeoil.html

King, you apparently can't read small print. Let me help you with that:

1. Table includes all countries with total oil production exceeding 2 million barrels per day in 2004. Includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensate, refinery gain, and other liquids.

Whoops, it seems your figures also include liquid natural gas and NGC.

 

[King of Creation]

So what's your point?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

So what's your point?

My point is that your figures don't express actual *oil* production, but rather production of oil + other shit found in the oil wells. Furthermore, even if you subtract "other shit found in the oil wells", your figures are still incorrect because they reflect US oil production as it was in 2004 - i.e. long before hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed half of American oil infrastructure.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

It just numbers, but who were the enemy in Vietnam, if it was all vietnamese, then yes, but if it was just the "rebels" then

Rebels? that's a cute euphemism.

They were fighting against, the France(puppet regime)... and to bloc the expansion of communism came the futures concept of DNA.(Disunited Nations of America ), but whit the help of Soviet Union, china and...(URRS, just watch, it will rice again )even DNA had to retreat eventually.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Jesus Christ, Jarno, what the fuck are you, a bastard child of a Finnish conversation AI and a scrapped version of Babelfish?

 

[Brother None]

Annotated translation:

They were fighting against the French and their puppet regime [1]... and (then) to block the expansion of communism came the future concept of DNA (Disordered Nations of America) [2], but with the help of the SU, China and... (USSR, just watch, it will rise again [3] ) even DNA [4] had to retreat eventually.

[1] The Republic of Vietnam, AKA the South
[2] A puzzle. The UN had been around for a long time at that point and wasn't involved in the conflict, and the US also wasn't a new concept, so he can not be referring to either. Perhaps a more adequate translation is "and then to block the expansion of communism the US intervened". Or perhaps the writer thinks the UN was involved. Mistary.
[3] "SU, China and USSR" wouldn't make much sense since SU = USSR. It looks like "..." signifies nothing, unless the author meant to say "SU, China and other allies, such as the martians"
[4] the US

 

[RPGenius]

The US will invade whoever Bush claims to have been told by God to invade.

Does it worry anyone else that the leader of the largest superpower is ruled by a guy who claims god talks to him.
(PS God will "Tell" bush to invade the countries with oil, Convienient eh?)

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

US government serves interests of Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Haliburton and other corporations. They are the ones who profit from US military entanglements in the Middle East and they are the ones who dictate American foreign policies.

They killed Kennedy too man.

 

[Ashmo]

I say the US should finally invade Cuba. There just HAVE to be LOTS and LOTS of WMDs hid inside Castro's beard. Besides, they all drive classic cars although the country is revoltingly poor -- that's HIGHLY suspicious.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

Just read it then, whit out the jokes:
They(meaning the North vietnamese) were fighting, the Francine puppet regime witch were defeated, and the troops were withdrew. The USA came to bloc the expansion of communism(they thought it was like a plage) but with the help of Soviet Union, China, and they anonymous allies the USA retreated.
A declaration of futures events:
The URRS references, to a future event that, you just might have to see. If any of you, could still be alive.

 

[RPGenius]

Who knows what Vietnam had?
You guessed it OIL!!

 

[welsh]

It does, but only off-shore. It did have lots of rubber though.

But apparently our next invasion will sadly not be Bora-Bora. It might just by Syria (which has shit for beaches).

Bush demands Syria be 'good neighbor'
Damascus told to control Iraq border, not interfere with Lebanon

Wednesday, October 12, 2005; Posted: 4:15 p.m. EDT (20:15 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday called on Syria's government to be a "good neighbor" in the Middle East, warning Damascus not to interfere in Lebanon, incite Palestinian militants or allow insurgents to cross into Iraq.

"We're making good progress toward peace in the Holy Land, but one of the areas of concern is that foreign countries such as Syria might try to disrupt the peace process by encouraging terrorist activities," Bush said.

Holy land.

"Our mission to passify the the Holy Land is a Crusade...."

Bush said the government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad must let Lebanon rule itself after 30 years under pro-Syrian governments and "not to agitate killers in the Palestinian territory."

He also demanded that Damascus pay closer attention to its border with Iraq, where U.S. troops have battled an insurgency since the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

"We expect Syria to do everything in her power to shut down the transshipment of suiciders and killers into Iraq," Bush told reporters at the White House. "We expect Syria to be a good neighbor to Iraq."

Or else we will bomb the crap out of you.

U.S. officials have complained that insurgents, including Islamic militants linked to waves of suicide bombings, have been crossing into Iraq from Syria.

U.S. and Iraqi troops have launched recent offensives in towns near the border to crack down on insurgents, who have killed hundreds of U.S. troops since Bush declared an end to "major combat" in May 2003.

Bush's remarks came the same day that Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan committed suicide after Lebanese television accused him of taking payoffs as commander of Syria's military intelligence corps in Lebanon.

U.N. investigators also had investigated Kanaan in connection with the February assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who had begun to urge a withdrawal of Syrian troops.

Hours before his death, Kanaan denied the bribery allegations in an interview with a Lebanese radio station and said he had no involvement in Hariri's death.

Protests sparked by Hariri's killing helped end the decades-long Syrian presence in Lebanon, with a withdrawal in April.

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Al-Assad denied his government had played a role in the death and said any Syrian official who did would be guilty of "treason."

Syria?
or
Tahiti?