SOFA

Adola,

I believe that you have inadvertently mistaken your protected wildlife. It is the polar bear. If the caribou were sleeping, the polar bears would eat them and not worry about us infidels punching holes in the barren terrain. Paint the pipes white, and they'll never know we were there (literal study). For those of you that think we went to Iraq for the oil, we didn't. We went there to spread democracy: a gift that is an impossibility for a culture that defies order and peace. Oops. Maybe we just need to go ahead and take the oil and call it a draw. I hope my next car will be without a fossil fuel requirement, but everyone on this website relies on it for a paycheck. Is the industry sustainable at $100+ per barrel?

onlybiff

Hey Duke, am I correct in assuming you've read "The Oil Factor" and "The Coming Economic Collapse?" Both are fantastic books for those of you who are into reading, and will give you a real quick reality check in terms of your career fears and sociological fears....

Biff

Eric Stratton

I thought we went their because he had/was getting WMD's???? I don't remember too many speeches about spreading democracy.

js081285

We did go there b/c of WMD's. He used them on his own people, and we had no reason to believe he wouldn't use them again.

KC10 FATboy

I hate to get off thread topic, but I felt compelled to do so. And I know I am going to get shotdown for it.

This is perhaps the one subject that I think a lot of people and the world misunderstand why we went to war with Iraq -- all be it -- because the Bush administration talked publically about WMDs so much.

Iraq violated at least three cease fire resolutions stemming from Gulf War I which according to the agreement are acts of war. Also, don't forget the 17 or so United Nations resolutions, the humanitarian crisis, the Clinton Administration's authoring of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, countries illegally dealing/trading with Saddam, and the terrorists that fled Afghanistan and took up shop in Iraq after Op Infinite Justice ... later to be known as, Op Enduring Freedom.

I can quote hundreds of political figures calling for an overthrow of Saddam and his WMDs, both in America and abroad ... years before G.W.Bush ever thought of being president. I guess they lied too. There was a lot of stuff moved from the US into bases that "didn't exist" in the late 90's and early 00's -- our military was preparing for war. I spent 4 deployments in the middle east before 9-11. On two occasions, I sat alert because we were told "we're going in". They shut off our email and phones; I woke up the next day to find out that whole damn thing had been called off. The Clinton Admin sent cruise missiles into Iraq on two occasions. Our government was preparing for war while Americans were giddy about their tech stocks.

I really hate when I hear people say "we never should of gone back in." Those of us in the military air forces know that the 90's and early 00's were filled with us taking tit for tat shots at Iraq as they tried to shoot us down -- hardly a cease fire. Sure, we didn't have boots on the ground, but having AWACs, tankers, and an assortment of fighters and bombers flying over your country blowing up stuff now and then, is hardly a cease-fire.

I think when you put all this stuff together, there where legitmate reasons to go in and bring this crap to an end. Thankfully, for those of us who went in, he didn't have WMDs. But since the Bush admin talked and sold the war solely on WMDs, the war has become extremely unpopular among Americans.

Now that the Iraqi military / police are becoming productive, we should divert some of our troops in Iraq over to Afghanistan. We need a president that will play hardball with Pakistan, let us go in and take care whats left of the Taliban and Al Quaida regimes, and to bring an end to this bullcrap before we all go broke. Shooting million dollar missiles just to blow up a couple of bad guys in the desert isn't exactly "cost effective".

-Fatty

wrxsteve

Im still trying to figure out why we killed Saddams sons.... i can understand Uday but why Qusay.... this would just be like taking out the queen of england but also killing all the princes even though they were not head of the country. And it wasnt some huge gunfight, they were found in a building surrounded by special forces and yet we call in a air strike knowing the sons are in there. What was the sole purpose of it besides taking out the entire family to make sure no one can rule the country again by blood line? ( stupid question and analogy, im not highly educated on the topic as some of you guys are, im just curious to know why )

Andy

Yeah, and my Mustang got best gas mileage above 80. At least that's what I told the wife ...

Andy

I'll be conservative and go below $100; split the difference and our over/under is $125.

Dude, if you REALLY think that oil's going to go up in cost by >35% this year, you should be buying DIG.

The Duke

I have not read either of these books, sounds like I should. I need to read "Twilight in the Desert" by Matt Simmons as well. Most of my stuff I've gotten from reading the occasional article, such as Kuhlman's Airways article posted by jayray2, or watching Bloomberg Report and CNBC. That's about it. Also, I have seen a documentary called "Crude Awakening: The Oil Collapse." It is a bit extreme, but is well researched and makes some interesting claims surrounding Peak Oil and our current involvement in the Middle East.

JetPiedmont

Go to www.financialsense.com Many good discussions about peak oil, inflation and the problems ahead. Check out the webcast archives. Many authors of books about peak oil etc are interviewed by the host.

BTW, I like "ryvix" for oil exposure.