Two questions (I would love some in-depth answers rather than a quick rant):
1) Why has the U.S. dollar depreciated so much?
2) What causes gas prices to rise and fall as they do?
The first question is because I have some low-mid knowledge but not a vast amount of knowledge of the subject.
The second question is because it seems like people are just making up numbers. Numerous times I keep hearing stuff about "running out of oil" but I've never gone to a pump and not been able to get some gas. (Around 2003, there was even that talk of "we rise prices so if you don't need it, you won't buy it" as if people did not have to drive to work...)
Also, I'm writing an editoral on the subject but I want to be sure I'm comprehensive (I can take all the time I want though because it's for my website, 🙂 )
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201075.html
2) http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/tully_oil_bust.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060610
Although I'm sure their are other views that contradict these.
The U.S. put Hussein in power, gave him the WMDs while also dealing with Iran and at the same time dealing with Contras that were shipping drugs to ghettos filled with African-Americans and then saying "Look at those crazy negros!"
NOTHING, the government does surprises me.
There is something to supply though. Oil is not nationalized but there is something percuilar about not drilling oils in areas we can. On CNN Headline, about a week ago, the governor of Alaska (a Republican woman) was saying that she felt they could drill in the reserves without harming wildlife. She kept pressing the fact that it would drive down oil prices and that there was no reason to not drill if they could help Americans across the country.
The Saudis have been in coohoots with the U.S. government since at least the early 80s and this whole thing about supply is fishy. I read that article that xmarks put up about oil, but the explanation of "why" prices are like they are is still blurry for me.
This is ugly though. It's like you can't get a clear answer.
Originally posted by chithappens
The U.S. put Hussein in power, gave him the WMDs while also dealing with Iran and at the same time dealing with Contras that were shipping drugs to ghettos filled with African-Americans and then saying "Look at those crazy negros!"NOTHING, the government does surprises me.
There is something to supply though. Oil is not nationalized but there is something percuilar about not drilling oils in areas we can. On CNN Headline, about a week ago, the governor of Alaska (a Republican woman) was saying that she felt they could drill in the reserves without harming wildlife. She kept pressing the fact that it would drive down oil prices and that there was no reason to not drill if they could help Americans across the country.
The Saudis have been in coohoots with the U.S. government since at least the early 80s and this whole thing about supply is fishy. I read that article that xmarks put up about oil, but the explanation of "why" prices are like they are is still blurry for me.
This is ugly though. It's like you can't get a clear answer.
So, Hussein did have WMD? I thought we couldn't find any.
Whatever he had was given to him by the U.S. so it would've been silly anyway. I think that's why we never heard word about it. Too many people were waiting to jump on that.
The U.S. put Hussein in power just like they did all across Central America, in the early 20th century, during Roosevelt's era and his whole "big stick" diplomacy.
Originally posted by chithappens
Whatever he had was given to him by the U.S. so it would've been silly anyway. I think that's why we never heard word about it. Too many people were waiting to jump on that.The U.S. put Hussein in power just like they did all across Central America, in the early 20th century, during Roosevelt's era and his whole "big stick" diplomacy.
The US supported Hussein, because Iran was a common enemy, but the US did not put him in power. Please learn your history. 🙄
Originally posted by inimalist
Ya, Hussein's rise was fairly independent, but they did give him WMDsnot nuclear, but chemical, which he used on the Kurds and Iranians.
The Saudi thing is also to compete locally against Iran, but seriously, the Saudis are NOT America's ally...
Yes, we did give him chemical weapons, and then he used them. Stupid US government; bad, bad. 😠
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, we did give him chemical weapons, and then he used them. Stupid US government; bad, bad. 😠
Your link mentions no U.S. intervention until it brings up the United Nations...
Even with what you said, you don't think the U.S. wanted to keep him there?
Iran was given arms, not WMDs.
Originally posted by chithappens
Your link mentions no U.S. intervention until it brings up the United Nations...Even with what you said, you don't think the U.S. wanted to keep him there?
Iran was given arms, not WMDs.
I have no idea what the US wants.
Chemical weapons are considered WMD.
Also, the link I gave was the first one I could find on Goggle.
That's not an adequate source. I read multiple books on this stuff.
It would be nice if you did the same rather than just put something up and assume it supports your argument.
Edit: Oh and just to be clear -
According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:
* August 20, 1984. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
* September 14, 1984. 408 more TOWs
* November 24, 1984. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
* February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
* February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
* May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
* August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
* October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs
** TOW is (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided)
As you said, chemical weapons are considered WMDs.
No WMDs given to Iran.
Originally posted by chithappens
That's not an adequate source. I read multiple books on this stuff.It would be nice if you did the same rather than just put something up and assume it supports your argument.
Bullshit. I just found something to support what I was saying. I don't have the time to go read a novel just for you. 😉
Plus there are a lot of wacko books out there. Just ask Deano. 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bullshit. I just found something to support what I was saying. I don't have the time to go read a novel just for you. 😉
😂 That's the same thing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Plus there are a lot of wacko books out there. Just ask Deano. 😆
I try to read more than one book one a particular subject that might be on either side. Iran-Contra was a pretty big scandal and once it was out, there was no point in trying to hide everything. Oliver North took most of the fall but Regan signed off on everything claiming that it was because he wanted to save hostages and so on.
The stuff about Iraq is mainly discussed as a ploy to keep the USSR away because that region was of strategical importance.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaI was watching C-SPAN today (typically), and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer mentioned that there is 6 times more oil in areas that have already to authorized to be drilled than even the most optimistic projections of the oil content of ANWR.
I think its inevitable that ANWR will be drilled.No one takes PETA or Greenpeace seriously anyways.
I don't really think PETA has anything to do with protecting ANWR, it's mostly the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is exactly that. It is protected federal land and instead of trying to drill and endanger thousands of threatened species like I'm hearing a Republican Congressman say right now, we should actually drill in places where it's less damaging, and in fact we are already authorized to do so.