Is it all about oil , or fighting terrorism?


The United States is planning to move some of its forces from Europe to Africa.

Africa's oil reserves are vital for the US
Draft plans have been submitted to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as part of America's attempt to come to grips with the new challenges that have arisen since the end of the Cold War.

Dealing with the twin threats of drugs and terrorism is now an integral part of American military thinking.

But their thinking is also being driven, in part, by the new oilfields being developed off the coast of West Africa
I don't doubt that oil was a very important factor in deciding to go to war against Saddam. And why should it not be? Or is oil such an unimportant resource we can live without it?

Do you really think that if Saddam Hussein had been ruling a country in Central America, or anywhere in the world that a. He would have been able to both afford what he did and simaltaneously threaten the west? and b. That the US would have treated him so seriously?

Currently Iraq is known to have the 2nd largest known oil reserves in the world. It is also known to have currently unmeasured and untapped oil resources in its Western Desert which industry experts believe could make it the worlds largest oil supplier.

Hold that thought. At the moment, the world uses 75 billion barrels of oil a day. That is enough to last until 2050(ish). However, the rate of consumption is increasing every year. Experts estimate that by 2010 world daily consumption will have reached 120 billion barrels a day. That is over 50% more than currently being used, with the attendant decrease in time our reserves will last.

Does anyone out there know of an energy source which can a. replace oil as the worlds primary energy resource and b. Is (or will be) available both easily and affordably within the next 10 years?

Does anyone think our society, or indeed the whole of the world, can carry on life as we know it, without oil?

Anyone able to answer either of the above questions with anything other than a 'no' should contact their nearest energy supplier and prepare for wealth beyond their wildest dreams!

The rest of us are going to have to get used to the fact that America will continue to protect their (and our) energy sources for the forseeable future.

Question - why do so many people who flapped and whinged about the very minor power outage in London recently not understand the need for stable energy supplies? Discuss please!!
This is all about oil, sadly the US Govt cannot be honest to its people and are hiding behind the threat of international terrorism.

America imports over 55% of the oil it uses. They have large oil reserve in Alaska but have massive problems with drilling and exploration due to the strict rules and involvement of conservationists. So over the next few years you should expect them to increase their involvement in oil rich countries round the world.

I would not be surprised if something happens in Venezuela within the next 12 months due to the problems they are having with their govt which in turn is disrupting oil supplies, which is reducing available oil for America.

Think about this....

If you become dependent on oil and someone attempts to cut off your available supply do you have the right to fight for the supply??
Well it certainly seems like its only just for oil, what about the american lust for world domination? :wink:

seriously though Oil seems to be the priority for the americans government and the "War on terror" could be the mask for it.

just a conspiracy theory ive thought of this minute :)
Sorry Gringo, but you're wrong on all points.

There are untold ways to produce energy, both efficeintly and ecologically friendly, from solar to wind to various chemical reactions.

The problem isn't that we can or can't do without them, it is that the oil companies have a vested interest in maintaining the need and reliance on oil. The profits from oil are enormous, and the power behind controlling oil is a mighty big incentive to preserve oil as the dominant source of fuel. If we invested a hundredth in developing new power sources as we do in finding and servicing the oil industry we would be pretty far down the road to solving the problem. Blair and New Labour in 1997 changed the company tax laws regarding assett disposal, and saved just one oil company in Scotland over £2 billion a year alone on that. At the same time they 'increased' grants for research into renewable and clean energy by a piffling few percent, from only about £1.5 million a year. Now wht that demonstrates to me is that oil is, and will remain, the dominant power source because it comes with political and financial power. Look at the new hydrogen fuel cell cars? Why is there not a drive by Government to develop this into a mainstream product? Because there isn't huge profits to be made from them and huge backhanders and political subscriptions.
doesnt America use something like 70% of the oil produced in the world but only produces 2% itself (at the Ewing Ranch in Texas)
With the amount of lard the fat f**ks eat, Thank god they havent discovered 'Ginsters' yet, one day Afghanistan the next that famous terrorist stronghold known as Cornwall!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted:
I suspect that many of the alternative energy production methods have been quietly bought up and patented by the oil companies as insurance for when the oil really does run out.

Similar threads

Latest Threads