Defying US sanctions, Iran is delivering oil to Venezuela.

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

Remember, we were trying to fight ISIS. ISIS was using captured oil fields, to fund international terrorism.

Do you support ISIS or not? If not, then you don't want them taking control of oil fields.

We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just did. Right there.

When we did not protect the oil fields, ISIS came and got control, because the replacement Iraqi government was not yet able to protect their resources.

That's how ISIS got control of those oil fields to begin with, and became an international problem.

This is why we are supplying protection for the oil fields.

Has nothing to do with oil. We are not there for the oil. We are not taking the oil. We are not stealing the oil. We are not demanding oil contracts.

It has to do with national security. If we leave, and ISIS or some other militant terror group gets control of the oil fields, then we have a national security problem, just like we did before.

It's easier to prevent them from becoming a problem, by protecting the strategic assets, than deal with them after they have taken control.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

Yeah, I know they are not our assets. We are not taking them. We are not stealing them. We are not confiscating them. But they are strategic assets, that could fall into enemy hands, and fund terrorist activity.

We know this, because when we didn't prevent that, they did.

So until the local governments are able to protect their own assets, we are helping them.

We are still not taking the oil, and the reason we are there is still not about oil. Saying that oil is a strategic asset, does not imply that it is our asset. Just that it is a military strategic asset.

Again, why are we not sending the military into Venezuela? Because they are not a terrorist threat, and they are not national security issue.

"But but! They have tons of oil!".... yes they do. So that's my point. Why are we not sending troops into Venezuela to protect their oil fields? Because they are not a national security concern.

Now if Venezuela ever starts selling their oil, to directly fund terrorism, that could change.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

Yeah, I know they are not our assets. We are not taking them. We are not stealing them. We are not confiscating them. But they are strategic assets, that could fall into enemy hands, and fund terrorist activity.

We know this, because when we didn't prevent that, they did.

So until the local governments are able to protect their own assets, we are helping them.

We are still not taking the oil, and the reason we are there is still not about oil. Saying that oil is a strategic asset, does not imply that it is our asset. Just that it is a military strategic asset.

Again, why are we not sending the military into Venezuela? Because they are not a terrorist threat, and they are not national security issue.

"But but! They have tons of oil!".... yes they do. So that's my point. Why are we not sending troops into Venezuela to protect their oil fields? Because they are not a national security concern.

Now if Venezuela ever starts selling their oil, to directly fund terrorism, that could change.

So as I said in the beginning it's about the oil. We kill people over the oil which is not ours.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

Yeah, I know they are not our assets. We are not taking them. We are not stealing them. We are not confiscating them. But they are strategic assets, that could fall into enemy hands, and fund terrorist activity.

We know this, because when we didn't prevent that, they did.

So until the local governments are able to protect their own assets, we are helping them.

We are still not taking the oil, and the reason we are there is still not about oil. Saying that oil is a strategic asset, does not imply that it is our asset. Just that it is a military strategic asset.

Again, why are we not sending the military into Venezuela? Because they are not a terrorist threat, and they are not national security issue.

"But but! They have tons of oil!".... yes they do. So that's my point. Why are we not sending troops into Venezuela to protect their oil fields? Because they are not a national security concern.

Now if Venezuela ever starts selling their oil, to directly fund terrorism, that could change.

So as I said in the beginning it's about the oil. We kill people over the oil which is not ours.

But it's not. It's about funding international terrorism.

Again, why are we not sending our people to get "killed over oil" in Venezuela? Because Venezuela is not a national security concern. They are not using the money from selling their oil, to fund terrorism.

You can say until the end of time, that it is about oil, but the facts contradict you.

Because if we leave those places, and ISIS or some other militant terror group gets control of that, then our people and military personnel will be dying because of having to deal with a funded terror organizations.....

...and people like you, will be responsible for their deaths, because you pulled our troops out, and allowed them to get access to that source of funding.

Do you support more Americans dying? Because that's what your position will result in. We know this because your position already did. Obama pulled out way too fast, because of people like you... and the result was a well funded ISIS.

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

Yeah, I know they are not our assets. We are not taking them. We are not stealing them. We are not confiscating them. But they are strategic assets, that could fall into enemy hands, and fund terrorist activity.

We know this, because when we didn't prevent that, they did.

So until the local governments are able to protect their own assets, we are helping them.

We are still not taking the oil, and the reason we are there is still not about oil. Saying that oil is a strategic asset, does not imply that it is our asset. Just that it is a military strategic asset.

Again, why are we not sending the military into Venezuela? Because they are not a terrorist threat, and they are not national security issue.

"But but! They have tons of oil!".... yes they do. So that's my point. Why are we not sending troops into Venezuela to protect their oil fields? Because they are not a national security concern.

Now if Venezuela ever starts selling their oil, to directly fund terrorism, that could change.

So as I said in the beginning it's about the oil. We kill people over the oil which is not ours.

But it's not. It's about funding international terrorism.

Again, why are we not sending our people to get "killed over oil" in Venezuela? Because Venezuela is not a national security concern. They are not using the money from selling their oil, to fund terrorism.

You can say until the end of time, that it is about oil, but the facts contradict you.

Because if we leave those places, and ISIS or some other militant terror group gets control of that, then our people and military personnel will be dying because of having to deal with a funded terror organizations.....

...and people like you, will be responsible for their deaths, because you pulled our troops out, and allowed them to get access to that source of funding.

Do you support more Americans dying? Because that's what your position will result in. We know this because your position already did. Obama pulled out way too fast, because of people like you... and the result was a well funded ISIS.

We've threatened Venezuela over and over. Right now they aren't going off on their own. We have seen to that.

 

[Andylusion]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

Yeah, I know they are not our assets. We are not taking them. We are not stealing them. We are not confiscating them. But they are strategic assets, that could fall into enemy hands, and fund terrorist activity.

We know this, because when we didn't prevent that, they did.

So until the local governments are able to protect their own assets, we are helping them.

We are still not taking the oil, and the reason we are there is still not about oil. Saying that oil is a strategic asset, does not imply that it is our asset. Just that it is a military strategic asset.

Again, why are we not sending the military into Venezuela? Because they are not a terrorist threat, and they are not national security issue.

"But but! They have tons of oil!".... yes they do. So that's my point. Why are we not sending troops into Venezuela to protect their oil fields? Because they are not a national security concern.

Now if Venezuela ever starts selling their oil, to directly fund terrorism, that could change.

So as I said in the beginning it's about the oil. We kill people over the oil which is not ours.

But it's not. It's about funding international terrorism.

Again, why are we not sending our people to get "killed over oil" in Venezuela? Because Venezuela is not a national security concern. They are not using the money from selling their oil, to fund terrorism.

You can say until the end of time, that it is about oil, but the facts contradict you.

Because if we leave those places, and ISIS or some other militant terror group gets control of that, then our people and military personnel will be dying because of having to deal with a funded terror organizations.....

...and people like you, will be responsible for their deaths, because you pulled our troops out, and allowed them to get access to that source of funding.

Do you support more Americans dying? Because that's what your position will result in. We know this because your position already did. Obama pulled out way too fast, because of people like you... and the result was a well funded ISIS.

We've threatened Venezuela over and over. Right now they aren't going off on their own. We have seen to that.

We most certainly have not threatened Venezuela over and over. There is only one time, when we made a threat, and that was when they themselves threatened. They moved their tanks to the border of Columbia, because their policies destroyed their economy, and they were mad because their own farmers were selling their rice to Columbia, because of their bad policies.

They wanted that to stop, and threatened starting a Latin American war. We put our Marines in Columbia a few weeks after they started massing along the border. They backed off.

That is the limited extent of our "threatening them over and over", to when they themselves threatened war.

You are just making up stuff now. You can't come up with any legitimate argument, that's why you have make up all these fake threats. This is like complaining about racism, and being forced to make up hate crimes like Jussie Smollett.

 

[Mac-7]

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No one is stopping you from having that electric car that runs on sunlight

you just want Uncle Santa Claus to buy it for you

 

[pknopp]

It's none of our business. This does show what it's all still about though. Oil. We bankrupt our future over it. We kill thousands over it.

Then some wonder why so many of us want to move away from it.

No evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

The wars that really are about the oil | The Spectator

Just not true though. You can post a million ridiculous articles until the end of time saying things like this, it doesn't make it true.

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

You can't. You know why you can't? Because it never happened. Nor did we start confiscating oil from anywhere else, not Venezuela, not Iran, not anywhere.

How can you say "it's a war over oil", when we were buying oil from the country before the war... and we're buying oil from the country after the war? How can you say it's a war over oil, when absolutely nothing oil related changed?

Now have we had some problems when another country confiscates the property of US citizens? Sure, but that's not because it's oil... that's because they stole the property of our citizens. The United Fruit company, had nothing to do with oil.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me the exact fields in Iraq or anywhere else, that we sent our troops to confiscate the oil, and now we have billions of barrels of free oil flowing into the US. Where is it?

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

Name the oil field that we captured in Iraq, and started pumping oil into the US from? Name it. Name the field that we own... that we don't pay money for... that we are getting oil from?

Trump OKs wider Syria oil mission, raising legal questions

'Secure the oil': Trump's Syria strategy leaves Pentagon perplexed

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

I didn't ask you if they were securing oil fields. I have no problem with US troops securing oil fields. Remember what happened in Kuwait, when we didn't?

View attachment 427270

You need to protect the oil fields for many obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean, that the entire purpose of us going there is to get oil. Obviously, when we liberated Kuwait, we didn't steal their oil. We don't currently own any oil fields in Kuwait.

Before the first gulf war in 1991, we paid for oil from Kuwait, just like we pay for oil from kuwait now.

And after this deal is Syria is over, we won't own a single oil field there either, and we'll still pay for oil from Syria after the civil war ends, just like we did before the Civil war started, and just like we're doing right now.

Right now, we are paying the market price for oil from Syria.

Why do we need to protect the oil fields in Syria? Because if radical Islamic terrorist organizations take control of the oil fields, they'll use their money to fund international terror. We don't want that.

But we're not there to steal the oil, and never have been. We're their to protect are national security.

You know what the deal is which is why you phrase your question as you did. It's not just taking the oil, it's deciding who other countries will sell their oil to also. Syria was all about an oil pipeline.

No, it's not, and that isn't even logical.

Oil is sold on an international market.
It does not matter who gets the initial sale, because eventually it all ends up in global trades.

Meaning this.... Let's say that you pknop, don't like Andy. You decide that you don't want Siria over there, selling Andy oil, because you hate Andy.

Even if you convince Siria to not sell Andy the Oil, it doesn't matter. Because if Siria sells that oil to Turi instead of Andy, what is Turi going to do? Sell it to Andy. Because now Andy will be a higher bidder, and Turi will have a surplus of oil they don't normally use.

It's global market. If you sell the oil to someone else, they'll sell it to whom ever needs it... which will be the people they didn't sell the oil to before.

Regardless of who Syria sells their oil too... we're not taking the oil. We're not stealing it. We are not confiscating it. We are not living on free oil from Syria right now. Nor in the future.

That's the reality.

U.S. warns energy cos like Rosneft, Chevron over ties to Venezuela's Maduro

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government, and energy companies with ties to it, from Russia's Rosneft <ROSN.MM> to U.S.-based Chevron Corp <CVX.N>, should "tread cautiously," a senior administration official...

www.reuters.com

Yes, and rightly so.

Again, still is not proof of any claim that we are stealing their oil.

It's ironic that you post that link. Which is it? Do we go to countries and steal their natural resources, or are we forcing our companies out of Venezuela and demanding they not steal their resources?

I thought left-wingers in general claimed that evil western capitalists forced their way into foreign countries, to take all their stuff, and here you are linking an article of evil western capitalist refusing to steal their natural resources?

Is having US companies operating around the world, bad because we're taking their resources?

Or is having a US company in Venezuela good, and it's evil that we're demanding they stop producing oil in Venezuela for a profit??

Which is it? Contradictory claims in your own post.

I never said it was about getting the oil but you know that and just can't be honest.

Well, that's stupid. "It's all about oil!".... "I never said it as about getting the oil".

If it is not about getting the oil, then that defeats the entire argument.

The whole argument, is that we only involve ourselves in countries with oil, and the given reason is because we're their for the oil.

That simply isn't true. If all we wanted was the oil, or oil was the reason for us being involved... why is our government demanding we NOT get the oil from Venezuela? Why are we demanding our companies NOT making a profit off of Venezuelan oil fields?

It just isn't true.

I don't know how else to say it. The facts do not fit that claim.

You skipped an entire part of my argument. You know why.

Because your argument sucked, and was flawed.

If you can actually provide a useful alternative to fossil fuels, that is both practical and has as much utility as oil, or any other fossil fuel, by all means do so.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

But short of that, it's a pointless unicorn and rainbows mythology that the left-wing is peddling. And we know this, because the moment they stop directly subsidizing so-called green energy, the entire sector implodes.

Which by the way, is just another one of the many hypocrisies of the left. They talk about capitalism benefiting the rich, and the directly give money to rich people.

Facts are simply facts. They are not left or right, they are just facts.

Yeah, and the facts make my point. I know. That's why I believe the things I do, because the facts support it.

Thanks for finally ceding my point. Allowing other countries to sell their resources to whoever they want does not stop the use of oil.

If that was the only point you were making... then you didn't make any point. No one can control what other countries do with their resources.

Right, that's why we have troops surrounding Syrian oil fields. That's why we have had troops surrounding Iraqi oilfields for years. That's why Quaddafi is dead. That's the reason for this thread to start with. We want the world to enact sanctions on Iran because they sell to whoever they like.

And of course....... they are going to use their resources. So saying "Allowing" as if we had any choice in the matter, and saying doesn't stop the use of oil.... is like saying... we didn't stop them from using fresh water either.

It's pointless, and a waste of time bringing up obvious statements.

We've had an embargo against Cuba for decades, and they still sell their natural resources to other countries.

We have sanctions against Venezuela right now, and we still can't stop them from selling their oil.

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Our we can't stop them from using oil. We can't stop them from exporting oil.

It's their oil. They can do whatever they want with it.

Bring all the troops home. We won't do it even though we can not explain why they are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right. Protecting a strategic asset, is not the same as coming there for the strategic asset.

They aren't our assets. But you are arguing it's about the oil. Something you originally argued it wasn't about.

Yeah, I know they are not our assets. We are not taking them. We are not stealing them. We are not confiscating them. But they are strategic assets, that could fall into enemy hands, and fund terrorist activity.

We know this, because when we didn't prevent that, they did.

So until the local governments are able to protect their own assets, we are helping them.

We are still not taking the oil, and the reason we are there is still not about oil. Saying that oil is a strategic asset, does not imply that it is our asset. Just that it is a military strategic asset.

Again, why are we not sending the military into Venezuela? Because they are not a terrorist threat, and they are not national security issue.

"But but! They have tons of oil!".... yes they do. So that's my point. Why are we not sending troops into Venezuela to protect their oil fields? Because they are not a national security concern.

Now if Venezuela ever starts selling their oil, to directly fund terrorism, that could change.

So as I said in the beginning it's about the oil. We kill people over the oil which is not ours.

But it's not. It's about funding international terrorism.

Again, why are we not sending our people to get "killed over oil" in Venezuela? Because Venezuela is not a national security concern. They are not using the money from selling their oil, to fund terrorism.

You can say until the end of time, that it is about oil, but the facts contradict you.

Because if we leave those places, and ISIS or some other militant terror group gets control of that, then our people and military personnel will be dying because of having to deal with a funded terror organizations.....

...and people like you, will be responsible for their deaths, because you pulled our troops out, and allowed them to get access to that source of funding.

Do you support more Americans dying? Because that's what your position will result in. We know this because your position already did. Obama pulled out way too fast, because of people like you... and the result was a well funded ISIS.

We've threatened Venezuela over and over. Right now they aren't going off on their own. We have seen to that.

We most certainly have not threatened Venezuela over and over. There is only one time, when we made a threat, and that was when they themselves threatened. They moved their tanks to the border of Columbia, because their policies destroyed their economy, and they were mad because their own farmers were selling their rice to Columbia, because of their bad policies.

“Venezuela is one of the very few countries with significant oil reserves which does not submit to U.S. dictates,” wrote Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who first published documents leaked by fugitive former U.S. spy contractor Edward Snowden.

“Such countries are always at the top of the U.S. government and media list of ‘Countries To Be Demonized’,” he said.

Venezuela's Maduro says may go to U.S. to challenge Obama

It's none of our business who they sell their oil to.

They wanted that to stop, and threatened starting a Latin American war. We put our Marines in Columbia a few weeks after they started massing along the border. They backed off.

That is the limited extent of our "threatening them over and over", to when they themselves threatened war.

You are just making up stuff now. You can't come up with any legitimate argument, that's why you have make up all these fake threats. This is like complaining about racism, and being forced to make up hate crimes like Jussie Smollett.

Everything I've stated I've backed up.

 

[Penelope]

In this crazy world, nothing surprises me anymore.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is nothing new actually.
(6 months ago)

Who in the hell cares, everyone needs a friend.