| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| In hindsight, how would you rate America's decision to invade Iraq? |
| It was a necessary war, and the necessary goals have so far been or will be achieved. |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
| The idea was right, but the war was misjudged and tactically flawed. |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| I supported it at the time, but now I know there weren't WMDs, etc, I realise the war was morally wrong. |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| I supported it at the time, but now I realise that the war was flawed from the beginning, even leaving moral issues aside. |
|
21% |
[ 4 ] |
| I opposed this war then and my opposition has been justified by what has happened. |
|
36% |
[ 7 ] |
| War is wrong, full stop... therefore this war was wrong. |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
| I really couldn't care less. |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Mountains Magpie wrote: |
I'm less convinced (but not unconvinced) about the oil argument since I found out Canada was the USA's second biggest supplier (and they've got a lot more oil than Saudi Arabia) but as soon as that's said, why not invade Zimbabwe ? Lots of cloak and dagger stuff going on methinks. |
As I understand it;
Canada has "shale" Oil which needs to go through a more difficult and longer refining process.
Saudi Oil comes straight out of the ground with much easier processing.
Hence at $95 a barrel its still cheaper than shale oil.
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
 |
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | Mountains Magpie wrote: |
I'm less convinced (but not unconvinced) about the oil argument since I found out Canada was the USA's second biggest supplier (and they've got a lot more oil than Saudi Arabia) but as soon as that's said, why not invade Zimbabwe ? Lots of cloak and dagger stuff going on methinks. |
As I understand it;
Canada has "shale" Oil which needs to go through a more difficult and longer refining process.
Saudi Oil comes straight out of the ground with much easier processing.
Hence at $95 a barrel its still cheaper than shale oil. |
Canada has large deposits of oil sands. With conventional oil at US$95 a barrel or so the extraction of Canadian oil becomes a much brighter prospect. Coupled with lower transport costs and not having to deal with middle men, Canada's oil makes a much more attractive proposition for the Americans.
_________________
Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What do you look like? Are you free? |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Canada would be much easier strategically for the US to invade and convenient also as most of them speak English. The French don't have anything worthwhile to say so it shouldn't be an issue.
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Royal Dutch Shell are now admitting that "Peak Oil" may now be here.
One researcher is suggesting Oil may go to $200 a barrel by the end of this year
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
