US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973

[Skaman]

US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973
by Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.


Warning from US

The British assessment was made after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer.


" The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait where Iraq might be tempted to intervene "
British assessment



The ambassador quoted Mr Schlesinger as saying that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

The oil embargo was begun by Arab governments during the Yom Kippur or October war between Israel and Egypt and Syria, which left Israel in a strong position.

It was designed to put pressure on the West to get Israel to make concessions. The embargo was aimed mainly at the United States but many other countries were affected.

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment said that the seizure of the oilfields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force; it has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

This phrase indicates some knowledge of American plans.

Other possibilities, such as the replacement of Arab rulers by "more amenable" leaders or a show of force by "gunboat diplomacy", are rejected as unlikely.

Airborne troops

The JIC believed that military action would take the form of an airborne operation, possibly using bases in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran (then a US ally) or Israel.

"We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi," it said.

Two divisions would then be flown in but the report gives a warning that the occupation might have to last 10 years. It would also alienate the Arab world and provoke a confrontation with the Soviet Union, though the JIC did not think that Moscow would use military force itself.

British role expected

There was a potential task for the British. The report speculates, again perhaps with inside knowledge, that the US might want Britain to capture the Abu Dhabi oilfields as some British officers were seconded to the Abu Dhabi defence force.

"For this reason, the Americans might ask the UK to undertake this particular operation," it says.

The prospect of the British military fighting seconded British officers is not gone into.

The assessment reflects on the danger of action by Iraq, whose vice president at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein.

"The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait, where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," it says.

It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening western economies. This is called "the dark scenario."

In a follow up, a Foreign Office official noted: "Lord Carrington [the defence secretary] has suggested that some discreet contingency planning be put in hand"

In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3333995.stm

[SOG]

cool. if a countrys main supply of something needed is threatened over politics then wouldnt any country bring something to the table to prevent its utter stop and colapse? sounds reasonable.

not to mention the whole article hangs on:

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

so this is all guessing and speculation on unconfirmed members in any part of the british government roleplaying what may and may not happen? cool. eh, it is always fun playing what if, specially in the case of ww2 :)

[Skaman]

cool. if a countrys main supply of something needed is threatened over politics then wouldnt any country bring something to the table to prevent its utter stop and colapse? sounds reasonable.

not to mention the whole article hangs on:

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

so this is all guessing and speculation on unconfirmed members in any part of the british government roleplaying what may and may not happen? cool. eh, it is always fun playing what if, specially in the case of ww2 :)

Ya, I thought it was interesting as well. A lack of oil does not warrant military action however; even the thought is outlandish, likely why the proposal was dismissed. This is comparable to the German movement eastward as justification to satisfy their 'lebensraum' <--Spelling?

But yes, a thought provoking ‘what if scenario’.

[StarvingStudent47]

I think the important thing to remember here is that THIS IDEA WAS DISMISSED. All sorts of hare-brained ideas are "proposed." I'm sure that if I had unlimited security clearance, I could find plans to populate the moon with dairy cows and plans to invade Red China, oust the government, and appoint Trent Reznor and Tori Amos as co-dictators-for-life.

"Proposed plans" is a eupemism for "ideas thought up by some bureaucrat somewhere, laughed at by everyone else, and summarily scrapped."

[Tane Angle]

Thanks for the article.


the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

That doesn't mean much, as most countries maintain up to date contingency/war plans on most other nations, so it's assumable, but interesting just the same.

The question is, is there a difference between fighting over oil for profit, and fighting over oil for survival? Keep in mind that all plastics, at least at that time, needed oil to be made. What if we ran out of, just an example, plastic IV tubes and bags, because we ran out of oil? After such shortages, would war be justifiable? I'm not saying yes or no, just offering some food for thought. Note, however, that I am not saying that war for profit is acceptable.

And why didn't we learn the lesson and get serious about alternative fuel sources like hydrogen? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Whistler]

"Had plans to" and "did" are two totally different things. So what if they had a "just in case" plan to sieze oil reserves in the Middle East.

They also had a "just in case" plan to sieze Canada if there was ever a Communist revolution here. Does that mean America has something against Canadian's or wanted to invade us? No. Does it mean they thought that Communists were going to take over here? No.

It just meant that they had plans made to cover their asses JUST IN CASE. Thats a smart way to go about business.

Also keep in mind that 1973 was a very different time than now. For instance, there was that little thing called the Soviet Union...

[Skaman]

Thanks for the article.


the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

That doesn't mean much, as most countries maintain up to date contingency/war plans on most other nations, so it's assumable, but interesting just the same.

The question is, is there a difference between fighting over oil for profit, and fighting over oil for survival? Keep in mind that all plastics, at least at that time, needed oil to be made. What if we ran out of, just an example, plastic IV tubes and bags, because we ran out of oil? After such shortages, would war be justifiable? I'm not saying yes or no, just offering some food for thought. Note, however, that I am not saying that war for profit is acceptable.

And why didn't we learn the lesson and get serious about alternative fuel sources like hydrogen? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Amenities that make ones life more accessible should not come at the expense of others lives. Be it plastic, oil, or water. Adapt and overcome, yet not under provocation of war. I would return to horse and carriage before I would warrant a war to fill my car.

[Tane Angle]

I agree, luxuries are luxuries, and we should not go to war over them. However, could we honestly tell a little girl dying in a hospital who urgently required the use of oil to save her life that it couldn't be done? Again, say that she needed a plastic IV tube and bad. Or take today, say that she needed the plastic in a pacemaker or artificial heart. Could we deny her that? A nation is there to protect the lives of it's citizens. Indeed, were a medieval city under seige, starved of incoming goods necessary for their survival, wouldn't it be rather expected for the people to attempt to break the seige by any means necessary. This is where I make the difference between luxuries and "living space" and saving the lives of one's citizens. Such a serious embargo is simply a seige, if perhaps a limited one. Just some food for thought. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Skaman]

Was Hitler justified in his lebensraum and need to have port access in the Port of Danzig. The German economy and nation would suffer indefinitely without these ‘adjustments’. Were the lives of thousands of polish worth it?

[Beowulf]

Was Hitler justified in his lebensraum and need to have port access in the Port of Danzing. The German economy and nation would suffer indefinitely without these ‘adjustments’. Were the lives of thousands of polish worth it?

Read previous posts, pull head from sphincter, then type.

[Tane Angle]

Guess that's your view, huh? Personnaly, I'm very much against war for luxuries or anything of that nature. Thank you for your candor and input. Alright, this has been a pretty peaceful, calm conversation! Have a good one, just some thoughts...

[OnTheRocks]

I agree, luxuries are luxuries, and we should not go to war over them. However, could we honestly tell a little girl dying in a hospital who urgently required the use of oil to save her life that it couldn't be done? Again, say that she needed a plastic IV tube and bad. Or take today, say that she needed the plastic in a pacemaker or artificial heart. Could we deny her that? A nation is there to protect the lives of it's citizens. Indeed, were a medieval city under seige, starved of incoming goods necessary for their survival, wouldn't it be rather expected for the people to attempt to break the seige by any means necessary. This is where I make the difference between luxuries and "living space" and saving the lives of one's citizens. Such a serious embargo is simply a seige, if perhaps a limited one. Just some food for thought. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

So you think its justifiable to kill other countries citizens by far greater numbers than what they themselves lose as is common with western countries when fighing others over something that isn't even situated in your own country?
What gives them the right? There's oil in the States, make your plastic IV tubes from that instead of taking what is not yours.

It seems that you value human life differently depending on nationality. :roll:

[farmgirl]

Was Hitler justified in his lebensraum and need to have port access in the Port of Danzing. The German economy and nation would suffer indefinitely without these ‘adjustments’. Were the lives of thousands of polish worth it?

Read previous posts, pull head from sphincter, then type.

Well said Beowulf.

[Beowulf]

It seems that you value human life differently depending on nationality.

Yeah, now you're getting the hang of it. Guess what? If you're a citizen in my nation, then I have an obligation to you first.

I can take care of other nations after I have ensured the well being safety and security of my own citizens, that's how nations work.

[Skaman]

Guess that's your view, huh? Personnaly, I'm very much against war for luxuries or anything of that nature. Thank you for your candor and input. Alright, this has been a pretty peaceful, calm conversation! Have a good one, just some thoughts...

I just think no one has the 'right' to such luxuries. If we couldn’t make plastics pacemakers, perhaps we would make them out of some other synthetic. I am not ready to jump on the chance to reclaim ones 'necessities' at the expense of another. Adapt and overcome, the human being is smart organism, and we are fully capable in doing so peacefully.

[budanski]

Or they can die without the pacemaker, thats life.

[Shake n Bake]

....

[Tane Angle]

Well, I was going to let this conversation go, but I guess it's picking back up again.

ducimus19, I see your point, but I mean hypothetically, were we not able to synthesize it, not able to overcome the problem, would it be justified? Just a hypothetical.

And On the Rocks, very true, the US does have oil reserves in Alaska. Like I said in the above paragraph, I mean hypothetically. Perhaps oil is a bad example, but I can't really think of something else.

And well, as a professional soldier, it isn't really up to me to defend all lives equally, sorry. If its a choice between a civilian of an enemy nation or a friendly civilian, well any professional soldier would, to do his or her job, have to make the choice to defend his charge, his own civilian. It's very tragic, and hence the reason to build guided bombs and such things, so that we can minimize "enemy civilians" killed, but they are still far from perfect. I'd like to be able to say that no civilians would be killed in conflict, but we're not there yet, I'm very sorry to say.

And I didn't say which nation would lose more civilians. But again, the idea of a nation is so that one's own group is protected, regardless of what happens to the other groups if necessary sometimes. Not necessarily a warm, fuzzy idea, but a true one.

I spent the better part of my military career in work that didn't directly help my own countrymen, but did directly help others, from the Lebanese to various peoples in Humanitarian Aid/Relief operations, to *gasp* the French. I have no problem helping people of other nationalities, and my work has quite often pus me in position to do so, fortunately. However, a soldier, and a citizen, must be loyal to one's nation and countrymen first for the nation system to work. If not, well it just means that the nation system won't be in use anymore.

And again, I meant hypothetically about the "ultra-important product/resource." Perhaps oil and IV tubes was a bad idea, but it was sort of spur of the moment. Assuming there was such an ultra-vital product, would it be worth fighting over?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ballistic]

And why didn't we learn the lesson and get serious about alternative fuel sources like hydrogen? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Hydrogen, Fusion, Fission. All amazingly long term and powerful alternative power sources that just dont get the attention/funding for research and development they need. I wonder why. Ofcourse, interest has begun to pick up, hopefully it will gain in importance.

[SOG]

what if scenario:

said company or country or whatever, is playing politics and thus in turn is causing harm to a people or nation over money. thats wrong.

fighting them back playing reverse politics with embargo's and other things. thats wrong.

watching two children pinch eachother till they draw blood. hilarious in the sense of the lowest common denominator. lemmings really.

but i think if you want more money or political leverage and your willing to starve a nation of a common item and you know in the future you might cause huge riots, accidents, all sorts of death, and also accept that any nation cannot make that change without drastic problems then you should be responsible for what that nation might do to you to SAVE the lives of thousands of its own people.

its really just a game of dumb and dumber, the 1st participant being no worse than the last.

but sure i see what ducimus says aka adapt, develop, use your own stuff. which is a huge problem aka we dont forward ourselves and make ourselves better when we could. on the other hand if a nation did this like the middle east and kept its oil it would hurt the US in the short term till we were all powered by natural gasses and nuclear means then in turn the middle east wouldnt get the billions every year from a roundabout of countries and theyd be back to the dark ages in a blink. so it works both ways of adapt and move onto survive but we really could be better with eachother than alone in some cases especially resource wise.

like many said, the US emabrgo of iraq hurt the people, not the fat cat saddam. but then he wasnt willing to play ball either so here we go with the childish pinching the **** out of eachother again. and because this isnt the middle ages the idea of "robin hood" we hurt the people, the people give him up, didnt work either because saddam had totally media saturation, the great white satan, and the US being an allie of israel all on his side to work with.

utter tards we are sometimes.

[SOG]

And why didn't we learn the lesson and get serious about alternative fuel sources like hydrogen? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Hydrogen, Fusion, Fission. All amazingly long term and powerful alternative power sources that just dont get the attention/funding for research and development they need. I wonder why. Ofcourse, interest has begun to pick up, hopefully it will gain in importance.

yeah pretty much, the more the saudis yank the americans chains over gas prices and middle east oil gouging the more our **** senate will grow some tassles over thier twig of a ****. right now oil companies pay the US government billions in import, oil rights, and basically run of the mill pricing and operation. once the cost is offset by public intolerance or supply vs demand then maybe more funding will stop getting railroaded and will finally get placed in strong sums in alternative research, which has been utterly deprived and misguided by the current power lobbies.

i figure one way of this happening is if by accident we need a power source for a oddball project and its grows out of bounds and enters the consumer market on a low industry level. then it would be alot harder to railroad and regulate its use.

[OnTheRocks]

And On the Rocks, very true, the US does have oil reserves in Alaska. Like I said in the above paragraph, I mean hypothetically. Perhaps oil is a bad example, but I can't really think of something else.

And well, as a professional soldier, it isn't really up to me to defend all lives equally, sorry. If its a choice between a civilian of an enemy nation or a friendly civilian, well any professional soldier would, to do his or her job, have to make the choice to defend his charge, his own civilian. It's very tragic, and hence the reason to build guided bombs and such things, so that we can minimize "enemy civilians" killed, but they are still far from perfect. I'd like to be able to say that no civilians would be killed in conflict, but we're not there yet, I'm very sorry to say.

And I didn't say which nation would lose more civilians. But again, the idea of a nation is so that one's own group is protected, regardless of what happens to the other groups if necessary sometimes. Not necessarily a warm, fuzzy idea, but a true one.

I spent the better part of my military career in work that didn't directly help my own countrymen, but did directly help others, from the Lebanese to various peoples in Humanitarian Aid/Relief operations, to *gasp* the French. I have no problem helping people of other nationalities, and my work has quite often pus me in position to do so, fortunately. However, a soldier, and a citizen, must be loyal to one's nation and countrymen first for the nation system to work. If not, well it just means that the nation system won't be in use anymore.

And again, I meant hypothetically about the "ultra-important product/resource." Perhaps oil and IV tubes was a bad idea, but it was sort of spur of the moment. Assuming there was such an ultra-vital product, would it be worth fighting over?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

To Tane Angel & Beowulf:

I understand your reasoning about where the loyalties of soldiers lie, but what exactly does Middle Eastern (!) oil have to do with US citizens and their wellbeing on moral grounds?

Its really no better than Nestle and other multinational-corporations kicking out tribes living in the rainforests so that we in the West can have our hot Chockolate for breakfeast in my eyes, but then again I might be wrong :(

[Tane Angle]

And again, I meant hypothetically about the "ultra-important product/resource." Perhaps oil and IV tubes was a bad idea, but it was sort of spur of the moment. Assuming there was such an ultra-vital product, would it be worth fighting over?

As good as chocolate may be, it isn't quite so vital. I was saying hypothetically, forgetting oil, but I get what you mean in terms of oil. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[OnTheRocks]

Yes assuming :lol:

Its 4am here now, im off to bed before my head implodes!

[Tane Angle]

Get some rest, nice talking.

[StarvingStudent47]

This is all a very interesting (if predictable) conversation.

None of this changes the fact that the BBC can suck my nuts.

[James]

I think we (the U.S.) should come up with a new plan for the world that combines the best facets of the British Empire at its grandest and American manifest destiny. We should expand our control over various places in the world that can provide raw materials and offer great economic potential. At the same time, we can make life better for the people that live in these places. After all, everyone knows that America is the best place to live, right? We know what's best for everyone, and everyone can benefit. I really think many people would be thankful if we took charge.

We can see the big picture.

[spectre5]

Tane would the one dying girls life be more worth than the possibly millions who would die in the war?

To James have you ever consideret that maybe somebody doesn't like to live in america? Or even like the nation it self? I cant just understand how somebody can be so blinded by goverment propaganda...

t.
Antti Korpela

[StarvingStudent47]

To James have you ever consideret that maybe somebody doesn't like to live in america? Or even like the nation it self? I cant just understand how somebody can be so blinded by goverment propaganda...

Well, the millions of people who come running to the USA every year from every corner of the world has given me the impression that we're doing SOMETHING right ;)

[Roger Rabbit]

Just interupting you all here. But if anybody reads the first part of Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy then it is basically a 'what if' scenario for if the Russias suddenly found they were about to run out of oil in the middle of the Cold War.

[StarvingStudent47]

Just interupting you all here. But if anybody reads the first part of Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy then it is basically a 'what if' scenario for if the Russias suddenly found they were about to run out of oil in the middle of the Cold War.

Yeah, I've read it. The Cold-War-turned-hot hypothetical was really interesting. I liked seeing how it would play out. However, the little story about the soldier wandering around Iceland and picking up some Icelandic chick and falling in love was TERRIBLE. Tom Clancy is absolutely abysmal at character development. He should stick to aircraft carriers and cruise missiles and stuff.

[Dalleer]

As many people have commented before me, this whole "seize the oilfields"-plan was nothing short of the "If" scenario and therefore any arguments over it should be handled on a very large fictional basis.

However, the interesting thing is that if that thing truly had happened, we would surely be living in a very different world right now.

The US would have been regarded as an invader, I could imagine that the US would have been blamed as "Nazi America hungry for oil" or
"fascist invaders ". The US would have received international condemnation but at that situation the "condemnation" would have not mattered too much since the conflict was indeed about the very life blood of the western world, oil.






They also had a "just in case" plan to sieze Canada if there was ever a Communist revolution here

Hmm....now that is interesting (I sense a great scenario idea for Steel panthers: main battle tank) would you happen to have any further information of this "plan to invade Canada by the US" ?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Amenities that make ones life more accessible should not come at the expense of others lives. Be it plastic, oil, or water. Adapt and overcome, yet not under provocation of war. I would return to horse and carriage before I would warrant a war to fill my car.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but that's really naive and idiotic.

To say that you wouldn't fight to save your life or way of life is very telling. You simply don't deserve the freedom your society gives you (at the expense of other's lives, by the way). I pity any family that you may in time produce. This kind of idiotic left wing ****ouncement really cheeses me off. You enjoy all the benefits of an industrialized society - a well developed metropolitan system, clean water, health care, education, abundant food, comfortable living conditions...you take advantage of all that - and yet you would wait for other people to maintain it for you. If you really meant what you say, you'd stop taking advantage of the system provided by "the man" and go live in the country, growing your own food, heating your meager cabin with pig dung. Are those your plans? My guess is that you're planning to get a high paying job deep within the system & take full advantage of what others have built for you.

Oil and water are not "an amenity". Without oil, the world economy would utterly collapse. Without water, well, you die. All major wars have been fought over resources - most over oil. Haven't you seen "Oil" on PBS, that bastion of right wing thought?

See, the problem is, you could not return to horse and carriage. It's simply not possible. Will a horse and carriage heat your house? Produce electricity for your city? Pump your city's water? Keep the lights on at night? Without oil, our entire way of life would fall apart. When that happens, food production dries up. Millions starve. Violence erupts over control of what's left. The world is transformed back into the middle ages. After 10 years or so, the entire world would resemble Afghanistan.

I myself long for the day when the west develops sufficient alternative sources of energy & eliminates their dependence on foreign oil. The middle east will devolve back into a prehistoric wasteland as everybody with any money gets the hell out while the gettin's good. Then we can all sit back and let them fight in their sandbox all they want.

[WARPIG]

Good thought 2 sheds. Although I'm not inclined to think quite as extremely as you.. it seems that your one of the few that has taken a step back to see the "big picture." Oil has a tremendous impact on the world that goes completely unnoticed. Running my friggin minivan is not the reason for war. Most goverments are quite aware of that. Oil is much more than a luxury. I also have my reservations to what impact those oil dependant countries will do when we become less dependent on them. We have had the technology to run our cars and electrical plants on alternate fuels for decades.. it is just a matter of time now.

Contingencies are a crucial part of US policy. Even with the countless scenarios that our nation's leaders try to plan for there are an unlimited number of scenarios that we cannot account for. Looking at the US stance on oil 30 years ago in the context of today is pretty naive. But the look back is quite informative. For the time, it shows that even in a period when the US military might was in question.. we still planned for the worst.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

About our contingency plans - back when I worked in intel, I got to see a fair number of the really weird things we planned for. Who we figured we could count on, and who we thought would not support us. Man, these guys had a plan for everything. Kind of scary & depressing to read...but they were only plans, not policy.

So it doesn't surprise me that somebody cooked up a plan invade in '73. Hell, we've prolly got plans to invade Iceland if the world sardine supply is threatened.

[Skaman]

I think we (the U.S.) should come up with a new plan for the world that combines the best facets of the British Empire at its grandest and American manifest destiny. We should expand our control over various places in the world that can provide raw materials and offer great economic potential. At the same time, we can make life better for the people that live in these places. After all, everyone knows that America is the best place to live, right? We know what's best for everyone, and everyone can benefit. I really think many people would be thankful if we took charge.

We can see the big picture.

MANNIFEST DESTINY? are you kidding me? You can keep your mits of my soil thank you.

[Dalleer]

About our contingency plans - back when I worked in intel, I got to see a fair number of the really weird things we planned for. Who we figured we could count on, and who we thought would not support us. Man, these guys had a plan for everything. Kind of scary & depressing to read...but they were only plans, not policy.

I wonder if the US has ever cooked a plan for Finland...

[WARPIG]

Finland was known for being a go between for KGB and other USSR intel. Although the official stance was neutral.. Finland always had close ties to Russia. I am sure there were many contingencies involving Finland.

"We are currently monitoring and planning for future contingencies with the Nokia Empire." Just kidding. :lol:

[OnTheRocks]

This is all a very interesting (if predictable) conversation.

None of this changes the fact that the BBC can suck my nuts.

Ofcourse its predictable as there aren't that many standpoints to have on this particular topic.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Finland was known for being a go between for KGB and other USSR intel. Although the official stance was neutral.. Finland always had close ties to Russia. I am sure there were many contingencies involving Finland.

"We are currently monitoring and planning for future contingencies with the Nokia Empire." Just kidding. :lol:

Yes, if I remember correctly, we planned to execute a massive airstrike, using heavy bombers to bury them with their own used battery packs....

[Trigger]

I think we (the U.S.) should come up with a new plan for the world that combines the best facets of the British Empire at its grandest and American manifest destiny. We should expand our control over various places in the world that can provide raw materials and offer great economic potential. At the same time, we can make life better for the people that live in these places. After all, everyone knows that America is the best place to live, right? We know what's best for everyone, and everyone can benefit. I really think many people would be thankful if we took charge.

We can see the big picture.

MANNIFEST DESTINY? are you kidding me? You can keep your mits of my soil thank you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
According to you, James and anyone else who wants to can pretty much bend you over and do what they want to your soil. Remember?
you said:

I am not ready to jump on the chance to reclaim ones 'necessities' at the expense of another.
You're really becoming quite ridiculous.

[Skaman]

Manifest destiny-the American right to the whole of North America; frankly I think the idea is quite outlandish and no governing nation has a right to the whole of North of America. In the context of resources, I would rather adapt and overcome then promote further conflict as a means to satisfy ones ‘sovereignty’ and ‘freedom’. By the time the USA runs out of oil, the whole world will pretty much be in the same position, so no worries, we will all galloping down the cobblestone together. What worries me is that the nations such as the USA may take every chance they have to take as large a piece of pie as they can; all the while, world oil supplies start to dwindle. The mercantile drive to harness as much oil in an attempt to savor every last drop as the world goes dry is a serious threat. Who says the US has the right to the last of the oil reserves? They don’t. Adapt and overcome. If the USA runs out, too bad, better put some serious thought into the aftermath. This goes for Canada and any other nation.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think we'll start seeing some interesting developments over the next 20 years. With the huge push to develop "oil alternatives" now strongly funded by the US gov't, I'm sure real progress will be made. Now that it's seen as a national security issue, real money will be thrown at it. And the first guy to develop a 300hp car fueled only buy laundry dryer lint will make a fortune.
This will of course create a new cartel that controls the world's energy engine. Once power shifts away from these unstable regions, we can all let them fall into total anarchy, while we blissfully travel the highways in our Lintmobile 2000s.

[Trigger]

^Sweet!
I'm starting my own cartel RIGHT NOW!
*starts picking navel lint*

[Whistler]

Well, our own Government seems to be working pretty hard to destroy the country, so how much worse could American rule be for us?

(Hides ;) )

[He219]

But will happen to all the Oil-Export dependent economies in the Middle East without a robust demand for Oil?

;)


btw. Canada, Venezuela , Mexico and Saudi Arabia are America's top sources of imported crude .....

[usa320]

Read previous posts, pull head from sphincter, then type

Kinda my feeling as well.

After all, ****mus didnt post this to provoke thought, he just did it in a weak effort to try and play off like the US invaded IRaq for oil.

If we did, i havent seen a damn drop of it.

[Trigger]

But will happen to all the Oil-Export dependent economies in the Middle East without a robust demand for Oil?
They will at last be free from the 'Great Satan' and they will all hold hands briefly before returning to barbaric tribal warfare, just like the good old days of the 12th century, which will of course lead to a genocide or two, which will of course be blamed on the U.S. (by ducimus), which of course...ugh!
*head starts spinning*

[usa320]

I wish we had our own oil. Then we could show the arabs how much they really rely on the business of the Great Sattan.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I wish we had our own oil. Then we could show the arabs how much they really rely on the business of the Great Sattan.

Well, we do. It just costs a lot more to extract. Look around the midwest & southwest US - lots & lots of idle oil pumps. If crude got expensive enough they'd be producing again.....

[He219]

We import oil because it is cheaper than our own! California continues to rank fourth among oil producing states behind Louisiana, Texas and Alaska, respectively.

California produced 293.7 million barrels of oil in 2001 from 47,263 wells in 206 active oil fields, including federal offshore fields. The 2000 figure was 307.4 million barrels. The all-time high for the state was 423.9 million barrels in 1985.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/news/2003%20News%20Releases/NR2002-02_OilandGasReport.htm

[Tane Angle]

2Sheds_Jackson brought up a really good point about water. Water is a natural resource, and so is oil. If a nation's entire water supply was cut off, everyone would die. If a nation's entire oil supply was cut off, how many millions, in the US's case, perhaps hundreds of millions, would die? People might very likely be unable to revert to the Middle Ages quickly enough.

Also, if oil isn't necessarily worth fighting over, is water? And is there a difference? Oil provides heat, would a forest be worth fighting over?


Tane would the one dying girls life be more worth than the possibly millions who would die in the war? I think people's opinions differ on this, and yours are up to you. Ignoring rationale and logic for a moment, what might a parent choose? I feel that I should mention that when posing this question to myself, I can't say that I would automatically put the vague thousands or millions ahead of my children.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[He219]

Some pertinent figures from the US DoE:

(Thousand Barrels per Day Except Where Noted)

12/05/03 12/12/03 12/19/03 12/26/03
CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION:
Domestic Production 5,597 5,592 5,663 5,658
Domestic Production 4-wk. Avg. 5,670 5,645 5,640 5,628

IMPORTS:
Total Crude Oil Incl SPR 9,531 9,140 9,515 9,438
Total Crude Oil Incl SPR 4-wk. Avg. 9,541 9,238 9,329 9,406

EXPORTS:
Total 988 988 988 988
Total 4-wk. Avg. 918 937 960 988
Crude Oil 10 10 10 10
Crude Oil 4-wk. Avg. 10 10 10 10
Products 978 978 978 978
Products 4-wk. Avg. 908 927 950 978

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/table11.txt

Some people find it hard to believe that Purified Water costs more than Gasoline in California!
:D

[StarvingStudent47]

I wonder if the US has ever cooked a plan for Finland...

Yeah, since you guys currently have the world's highest suicide rate, our plan is just to sit and wait ;)

(just yankin' your chain, don't take it too seriously)

[ibstolidude]

as large a piece of pie as they can; all the while, world oil supplies start to dwindle
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

rofl :lol:

wrap the tin foil tighter the microwaves are getting in!!!!

you goofy ****.

[Dalleer]

Yeah, since you guys currently have the world's highest suicide rate, our plan is just to sit and wait

(just yankin' your chain, don't take it too seriously)


Yep, I'd better not take it seriously or I might just get depressed and join the sad numbers of suicide casulty rates!!

And, I can tell you that the Eastern-European countries actually have the highest suicide rates (such as Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) and since 2001 the Finnish suicide rates have actually decreased.

In 2001, there were 1204 deaths due to suicide and in 1990 it was 1 512 so you could say that there has been a decrease during the few years, although there has been a slight increase in them again last year...


http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/04/09042002073543.asp

"Prague, 9 April 2002 (RFE/RL) -- Recent statistics indicate that the Baltic state of Lithuania now has the highest suicide rate in Europe, and possibly in the world."

This is a few years ago, but the Baltic states are still leading the statistics nevertheless.

[Ballistic]

Oil is not an unlimited resource, and the sooner people start to realise that the better. More money and development on renewable and long term power/energy sources is needed. Oil cannot sustain us indefinately, it's to our own benefit that research into Fusion and Fission based power sources grows in importance. Oil companies would have it differently it seems, if not for anything else but to line their pockets with money. It's selfish and greedy thinking like that which has held back cheaper and more powerful alternatives. The day oil runs out is the day the world becomes a cleaner and better place to live, in more ways than one. (Extreme thinking perhaps. But thats how I see it).

[Tane Angle]

Fusion and hydrogren=good. Fission=bad. Fusion is more powerful, safer, and leaves elss harmful waste behind. But yes, we should move to alternative fuel sources today. Of course, let's hope we have them implemented fully before it starts getting too bad with fossil fuels.

[Ballistic]

Fusion and hydrogren=good. Fission=bad. Fusion is more powerful, safer, and leaves elss harmful waste behind. But yes, we should move to alternative fuel sources today. Of course, let's hope we have them implemented fully before it starts getting too bad with fossil fuels.

Ofcourse you are right. Fission is a more dangerous way, but is more near term than Fusion. But I guess if these types of energies are to be harnessed and used safely, looking to the future and the not yet practical would be better for us all. Fusion would definately be the better choice, less radiation, same power if not, as you said more powerful outputs than Fission. If Fusion based propulsion can be perfected (break-even Fusion) for space flight (possible 12% of light speed or more !) the applications here on earth for alternative long term sustainable power sources would be huge !! Heh, I always go over the top when talking about this stuff. :D

[Tane Angle]

Not at all, buddy. Isn't it amazing stuff?

[Ballistic]

It sure is !! Humans are capable of some amazing and brilliant things when they put their minds too it ! It's just a shame it's an all too rare occurance. We'll get better though, there's always hope. :D

[StarvingStudent47]

Screw oil. We should just stick everyone in the prison system on bicycle-style electric generators. It'd solve all our problems.

[WARPIG]

Cars and Electrical power plants already have several alternatives. College kids are making alternative fuel cars every day. I saw some kids drive a french fry grease powered VW bus around the country several years ago. The US government is looking into fuel cell vehicles for the military. Alcohol and electric hybrid vehicles are a viable technology today. The thing is .. anyone who does have a strong product that runs on alternate fuel is bought out. Guess who bought them out? Oil companies. If the oil industry expects survive they have to hold all the patents to alternative power until the resource dies. Kind of an extreme statement but not really a new development is it? We will definately deplete the resource but we won't be pushed into the dark ages. Those oil dependent countries might have a harsh awakening but horse and buggy are kind of a stretch.

[James]

I think we (the U.S.) should come up with a new plan for the world that combines the best facets of the British Empire at its grandest and American manifest destiny. We should expand our control over various places in the world that can provide raw materials and offer great economic potential. At the same time, we can make life better for the people that live in these places. After all, everyone knows that America is the best place to live, right? We know what's best for everyone, and everyone can benefit. I really think many people would be thankful if we took charge.

We can see the big picture.

MANNIFEST DESTINY? are you kidding me? You can keep your mits of my soil thank you.

Yeah, Ducimus, I WAS kidding.

Doesn't anyone get dry humor anymore? I thought you all knew me better than that.

[James]

To James have you ever consideret that maybe somebody doesn't like to live in america? Or even like the nation it self? I cant just understand how somebody can be so blinded by goverment propaganda...

t.
Antti Korpela

rofl yeah, I'm blinded by government propoganda.

Antti, that was posted as sarcasm. If you read some other posts I've made in this forum over tha months, you would realize that. Anyway, no worries.

[usa320]

You can keep your mits of my soil thank you

Fine, ill keep my mits of your soil... assuming you mean those gloves filled with dirt.

jerkoff doesnt even know how to spell off.