'$100 per barrel if U.S. hits Iran'
I sure wish y'all had listened to us oil people years ago when we asked to be allowed to increase domestic drilling and construct new refineries.
The price of a barrel of oil could surge to triple figures if the United States were to attack Iran in order to halt that country's nuclear program.
That's the claim of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who said the Iranians would have no choice but to cut off their supply of fuel.
"If the United States attacks Iran ... oil could reach $100 a barrel or more," Chavez told a meeting today hosted by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, according to Reuters. "The English middle classes would have to stop using their cars."
"If they attack Iran, the Iranians will cut off their supply of oil. We would do the same if we were attacked. We would cut off our oil," Chavez told some 1,000 leftists and trade unionists. "Moreover, Iran has said it would attack Israel, and I know they have the wherewithal to do so."
In recent years, the price of oil has gushed to about $70 a barrel, meaning billions of dollars for the economy of Venezuela and fueling Chavez's self-styled socialist Bolivarian revolution.
"If they attack Iran I think it will be far worse than the situation is in Iraq," Chavez added, calling Iraq "the Vietnam of the 21st century."
Chavez got a warm welcome to London by Livingstone, who commenced the meeting by claiming President Bush was running "a gangster regime."
"We salute you Mr. President," Livingstone told Chavez. "Londoners stand with you, not with the oil companies and the oligarchs."
"Gangster Regime" huh? Guess it takes one to know one.
posted by Steve | 5/15/2006 07:57:00 AM
14 Comments:
Oh, you are the oil people. No wonder you want to join Israel in conquering the Middle East!
Naw, even conquering the Middle East is too much trouble. They're going to run out of oil in, at the most, 30 years. It seems to me, that instead of trying to shoot arrows at me (and missing) maybe you could study some facts. If we (that's you me and every other American) had pressed congress and the president to allow domestic drilling and refinery construction, years ago, we would not have a dependence on foreign oil, and it wouldn't matter what they did over there to each other.
Go home and grow up a little. You can come back when you can have a logical discussion, not emotional rants.
I'm all for saving the environment, but when it comes down to being dependent on an unstable nation (Iran) for oil or drilling in Alaska - I say get out the drills and lets look for black gold!!!! Forget Al Gore and the spotted owl and lets start being independent when it comes to oil. I realize its impossible to help the situation immediately but, why we are not already drilling on American land is beyond me! We cannot afford to continue this dangerous game any longer - its time to be practical and take practical steps (alternate fuels, drilling in america) to take care of our problems. If we cant fix our addiction to oil, we need to use our own natural resources to better our own country - forget Iran!
And I know that I'm not supposed to have a "I told y'all so" attitude, but the oil industry said back in 2000 and even before that if we didn't want to have $3 to $5 per gallon gas, we needed to start drilling domestically. Looks like everyone was too busy to listen.
Refineries are not oil wells. Alaskan oil would only last a short time. We need foreign oil and the way to get it is not by alienating the Muslim and Arab worlds by subsidizing Israel's obscene occupation of Palestine and by trashing Iraq. After all, according to "The 9/11 Commission Report" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, attacked us because of our biased support of Israel. (p.147) Until the Palestinians have their independence there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Anonymous,
You are a hoot this morning. I always like starting the day with a good laugh. Thanks for providing me one.
"Refineries are not oil wells". No, Really?? Well, who would have guessed that?
"Alaskan oil would last a short time". Based on what information? There is approx. 50 billion barrels of oil and over 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Alaska alone. If we used only the oil from Alaska, and did not tap any other domestic or foreign oil reserves, we could supply all the needs of this country for over six years. That is Alaska all by itself.
"We need foreign oil..." Yes at current usage levels and without domestic supply, you are right, we need foreign oil. Maybe if y'all hadn't been so concerned over who the next "idol" was going to be, or who was going to be "voted off the island", we could have a lot less dependence of foreign oil. Maybe if people conserved a little, we could have less dependence on foreign oil. You liberals crack me up. You're the first to blame everyone else, all the while doing exactly the same thing. Hypocrites.
"...and the way to get it is not by alienating the Muslim and Arab worlds by subsidizing Israel's obscene occupation of Palestine and by trashing Iraq." Page 53 from the book "Most commonly needed liberal buzzwords and phrases to use in order to impress your liberal friends and those who have no opinion of their own". You insult my intelligence with statements like that. It is obvious that not only are you clueless about how gas get to the gas pump, but you have no grasp of Middle Eastern history and no idea what is written in the Bible and the Koran.
Apparently you missed some key elements of this blog. Start on the left-hand side of the page and scroll down...keep going...keep going...what's that thing right below the hit counter? Well, I'll be...it appears to be an Israeli flag!! What's it say underneath it? "An Israel Friendly Site". Well how about that?
It amazes me how many of you libs still believe that there would be peace in the Middle East if the pali Holy Land occupiers got land. You are completely oblivious to the fact that the pali terrorist have called for the complete genocide of the Jews, with the support, I may add, of most of the muslim world. Khalid didn't need any excuses to attack us...his holy book (the koran) and his fake prophet (mohammed) gave him all the permission he needed. You, your liberal friends and even the 9/11 Commission are trying to spin this in a secular, "why can't we all just get along" mentality. Wake up. The muslims, as a whole, have never wanted peace with the "infidel" (that's you and me, by the way). The Israel/pali conflict is just a rallying point for them to have an excuse to kill us. Period.
Oh, before you even bother to mention it, I've read "The Iron Wall" by the "revisionist historian" Avi Shlaim (what a contradiction in terms) and it's a bunch of rot. So don't even bother to quote it to me.
One last thought. It always amazes me that you libs never put a name to your comments, always hiding behind the "anonymous" moniker. The only reason I don't disable the anonymous setting on the blog is that it's so entertaining to see how far out y'all can get. But I expect no less from you libs. It so much easier for y'all to snipe and run that way.
Steve,
You crack me up!!!!
I gets in trouble if I does it, but I does it anyway. :-)
Polls show most Palestinians and most Israelis want peace and justice with a two-state solution. Of couse one won't see that mentioned on this racist blog since you like to portray "palis" (is that your equivalent to "kikes"?) as blood-thirsty maniacs. It may be news to you, but unlike you, Jesus was not a racist.
Anonymous,
So sad. Once more my sniper is back, under cover, to spout the liberal mantra.
It really doesn't matter what the polls show. Let's look at the reason why:
Fact: The current ruling government of pali-land is hamas.
From a WorldNetDaily interview:
Regarding the possibility of recognizing Israel, Haniyeh said in an English language interview with the Jerusalem Post Hamas would respect the agreements ensuring the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines, as well as the release of Palestinian prisoners. He added that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 lines, Hamas would formulate peace in stages.
Hamas chief in Gaza Mahmoud al-Zahar made similar statements in several interviews with WorldNetDaily.
But speaking in Arabic, Haniyeh told the Al-Shuruq newspaper, "One of the fundamental principles of the new government is not to surrender to international pressure and refuse to recognize Israel."
Meshaal told Al-Rai al-Am, a Kuwaiti daily, "No to negotiations with Israel. No to recognition of Israel. And no to surrendering Palestinians' rights."
Another article:
The latest edition of Hamas' children's website includes comic strips encouraging hatred of Israelis, who are defined as "evil Zionists."
Hamas, officially considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, now governs the Palestinian Authority.
Anonymous, try this on for size:
Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland?
"Well," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem."
That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.
The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.
Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.
There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.
But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.
Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.
I know what you're going to say: "The Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites."
Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.
So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
-Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily
Look everyone, today anonymous is also going to try to throw Jesus at me. Since this person is not familiar with the Bible and what it says, it will take more than name dropping to impress me.
You are mistaking my lack of respect for the pali's as racism. That's another liberal trick that doesn't bother me. Libs are famous for assigning the "racism" tag to anyone and anything that doesn't agree with them. Sorry, that doesn't work here.
Maybe, just maybe, I'll show the pali's some respect when they stop blowing up innocent women and children. Maybe then, I'll call them "Palis". Until then, they are "palis" and "Holy Land occupiers".
Why don't you consider for a change a perspective that doesn't sound like it was concocted by the Israeli Lobby. For instance www.kabobfest.blogspot.com contains first-hand accounts. See: "We Will Always Remember" "The Definition of Occupation" "The Palestinian Nakba Continues" "Israel's Independence: The Victims' Views" I have no idea whether you are remotely patriotic or whether you have any desire to end the current wars, but if so, it's well to find out why the US is so hated in the world.
Why don't YOU consider a change of perspective that doesn't come right out of the liberal, Jew hating, anti-Semitic playbook? Have you ever had an original thought of your own?
Tell me this...how can you look yourself in the mirror every day knowing that you support a group that not only wishes to exterminate all Jews, but currently has called all Israeli women and children "legitimate targets"? What kind of monster are you, that you can endorse a group who sends their so called "martyrs" into cafes and restaurants, and targets children; children who's only crime is trying to have fun with their friends; something you do every day with not a second thought about your safety? Hypocrite. Typical uninformed, left wing liberal rot.
Patriotic? What does this have to do with being patriotic?
The reason the U.S. is hated throughout the world cannot be covered in its entirety here, but the reason the islamic world hates us, is that we support Israel.
I wonder if you have ever read the Bible?
Even if you are not a believer in God and Jesus, it's a good idea to take the time and read the Bible. It really does answer a lot of questions about the early history (and I do mean history) about these groups.
You see, way back thousands of years before the birth of Christ, God told the Israelites that He was going to give them the land that we now refer to as the Holy Land.
The Jews have lived there, in one form or another, since that time. No other "race" can claim that. Even discounting the Bible completely, the Jews have lived in that land so long, that they have a birthright to it. Again, no other group can claim this.
So it's as incomprehensible to me why you won't support Israel's right to exist, as it is for you to not understand why I take the stance I do. To me, it's so obvious that Israel and the Jews are the rightful owners of that land, and that nothing they concede (other than their complete extermination) will make the arabs happy and that the palis are nothing more than cannon fodder for the arab world.
You seem to think that giving the palis all they ask for will bring peace and tranquility between the arab world and everyone else. That is not true. Let me say it again...you are thinking like a secular Westerner. You cannot understand the Middle East until you start to think like a Middle Easterner. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction if I thought you were the least bit open to trying to understand, but every time you post a comment, it is filled with the most liberal, biased information you can lay your hands on.
Every publication you invite me to read is written by secular, revisionist, who are active in the anti-Jewish arena. These authors are so one sided it's pathetic.
Now with that said, are the Jews always right? NO. They are not. They are described in the Bible as "stiffed necked". But none the less, these "character flaws" do not eliminate the fact that God gave them the land they currently reside3 on and they do have a right to exist.
By the way...we have really digressed from the original post, don’t ya think?
Points you should consider: 1. Being against the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not make one anti-Semitic. In fact there is more criticism of the occupation by Jews in Israel than in our press. 2. Israelis have killed many more innocent civilians, including women and children, than have the Arabs. 3. The reason the world hates the US is because of our support of the Israeli OCCUPATION, which we then copounded by occupying Iraq (on behalf of Israel which hoped for a civil war there). 4. Palestine had a majority Arab population for 1300 years, until Jewish immigrant terrorists drove 750,000 Arab villagers out in 1948. 5. Like most of the world, I support a 2-state solution: as our President said, two states Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. Obviously you prefer war so that greedy Israel can have all of Palestine. Indeed, this is why we were attacked on 9/11 (See "The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147...hardly a leftist propaganda piece.) The reason I mention patriotism is that our country is going bankrupt to support all your war-mongering. Inflation is resulting from all our country's borrowing (which our grandchildren will have to pay for in terms of exhorbitant taxes and no social programs). Thanks a bunch.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. No point in my wasting any more time here.
Take care and God Bless.
Post a Comment
<< Home