Are there WMD's in Iraq?

[JUGGERNAUT]

For the record I was against the war.

I knew it would cost in excess of 300 billion before shock & awe.

But I never bought into the ridiculous argument that Iraq did not have WMD's given that there was clear evidence that they did in the 80's & 90's. The UN inspections did not uncover enough supplies to lead to the logical conclusion that they got it all.

 

What the war has shown us is that our intelligence is crap.

Why would you expect it to be any better in the hunt for WMD's?

 

Applying logic to the facts at hand leads to one common sense conclusion:

there are left-over WMDs in Iraq & Bush was stupid for not going in sooner to prevent them from going to Syria. It is not difficult to move chem&bio WMDs to Syria in a 3 month time period. That's the time Bush gave Saddam when he started putting the real pressure on.

 

This also illustrates the fallacy of coalition bldg & the need for UN support. Every day you spend in publicly acknowledging your desire to remove a tyrant gives that tryant

a day to prepare for your attack. The more prepared the enemy the more casualties

you will have.

 

But before you take one step towards war ALWAYS know the WORST case scenario of what it will cost. Either the Bush admin was too stupid in that assessment or too wicked in their desire to ignore it or a little bit of both. To this day I do not believe the benefits to America were worth the cost of the war. There is absolutely no excuse that gas prices are exceeding GW1 prices when Saddam set the wells on fire.

Bush's failure to act on this clear exploitation by American oil companies might cost him the election.

[kapkomet]

  There is absolutely no excuse that gas prices are exceeding GW1 prices when Saddam set the wells on fire.

Bush's failure to act on this clear exploitation by American oil companies might cost him the election.

Not a part of your poll, but to raise a point regarding this issue.

 

Oil prices are at an all time high, yes, that's true. But tell me when the last refineries were built in this country. There have been ZERO refineries built in the last 11 or 12 years. The demand for gasoline is at an all time high in this country because we have huge amounts of cars on the road as compared to 12 years ago. And, there's more SUV's, etc out there then ever before.

 

Why are there no refineries being built? This is largely due to environmental concerns. When a refinery permit is applied for, the environmental groups are on it like flies on doo doo, and the appropriate permits cannot be obtained to build anymore refineries in the US. This leads to little supply and high demand.

 

This is a classic supply vs. demand issue, not (all) "profiteering", although when supplies are this tight, there is a TON of room for profits (and yes, that's disgusting, but the way it is).

[JUGGERNAUT]

Update: It is indeed become major. In the month of May there have been two mortar attacks with chemical agents. One was mustard gas (May 2nd) & the other Sarin nerve gas. It's been confirmed that at least 3 litres we're found in the mortar shells. Call it devine intervention or radical stupidity but we we're lucky that the agents did not mix.

If that had happened this could have killed 1000's. I think an attack of that nature upgrades this from minor to major.

 

======================

 

With respect to refineries you have a point but that point still doesn't explain why prices are higher when supply has not been threatened. I do not recall any of the refineries in the Gulf (which supply over 50% of the gas supply to the US) being under attack. On the contrary those refineries have been modernized over the years to where they now can produce outputs that are twice of that during GW1. Part of the output supply is the expansion & growth of off-shore drilling in the Gulf. The Gulf of Mexico that is.

 

After the GoM the next biggest refinery pot in America is the midwest around Chicago. When you mention the environmentalists I am a moderate one. I believe govt as an obligation to protect the environment but I realize that progress is the best way to get there. So I am not in favor of banning much needed refineries but the real issue is slowing gasoline usage. The best way to do that is to implement a progressive tax system based on usage. There are two ways to pay for gas for the avg consumer: cash or credit. A progressive tax on credit purchases is easy to implement. For every 50 dollar increment of gas purchases an additional tax would be assessed. Even if this leads to more cash purchases stations are not designed to handle such an increased load so that will likely lead to delays & still slow consumption of gas.

 

Why $50? Because cars with good HP can be bought with a 25 mpg. This includes Minivans. At $2 a gal that provides 625 mi per month. If you need to drive more than 625 mi per month & you're not a trucker then car pool.

[Queen Prawn]

Why $50?  Because cars with good HP can be bought with a 25 mpg.  This includes Minivans.  At $2 a gal that provides 625 mi per month.  If you need to drive more than 625 mi per month & you're not a trucker then car pool.

I drive appx 40 miles to and 40 back for work. I wish I could carpool (financial and stress relief) but everyone I work with lives in either Skokie or Wrigleyville. Public transportation isn't even a choice for me either because the easiest way would take between 2-3 hours to and the same back because there isn't a direct (or anything close to direct) way to take. It would require taking 2 trains, and about 2-3 buses. I would love to be closer to work, but no one around me has been hiring electrical engineers either.

 

It really sucked having to pay 28.10 for a fill-up yesterday, but I didn't exactly have a choice either...

[kapkomet]

With respect to refineries you have a point but that point still doesn't explain why prices are higher when supply has not been threatened.  I do not recall any of the refineries in the Gulf (which supply over 50% of the gas supply to the US) being under attack.  On the contrary those refineries have been modernized over the years to where they now can produce outputs that are twice of that during GW1. Part of the output supply is the expansion & growth of off-shore drilling in the Gulf. The Gulf of Mexico that is.

 

After the GoM the next biggest refinery pot in America is the midwest around Chicago.  When you mention the environmentalists I am a moderate one.  I believe govt as an obligation to protect the environment but I realize that progress is the best way to get there. So I am not in favor of banning much needed refineries but the real issue is slowing gasoline usage.  The best way to do that is to implement a progressive tax system based on usage.  There are two ways to pay for gas for the avg consumer: cash or credit. A progressive tax on credit purchases is easy to implement. For every 50 dollar increment of gas purchases an additional tax would be assessed.  Even if this leads to more cash purchases stations are not designed to handle such an increased load so that will likely lead to delays & still slow consumption of gas.

 

Why $50?  Because cars with good HP can be bought with a 25 mpg.  This includes Minivans.  At $2 a gal that provides 625 mi per month.  If you need to drive more than 625 mi per month & you're not a trucker then car pool.

Do some research on the demand of gasoline from 10 years ago to now.

 

It costs more to ship it across the ocean then it did to make it here.

 

Does this equate to $42. bbl for oil? No. But gasoline and oil are two different products.

[BrandoFan]

For the record I was against the war.

I knew it would cost in excess of 300 billion before shock & awe

 

ss2k4, bridgeport_joe, PA, LSD and boug_alou and others will attest to the fact that you were very much Pro-Invasion circa early 2002. In fact, you were giddy as a school-girl when Baghdad was getting shelled during S&A and received a lot of flak for it from the ESPN posters.

 

[/setting the record straight]

[JUGGERNAUT]

ss2k4, bridgeport_joe, PA, LSD and boug_alou and others will attest to the fact that you were very much Pro-Invasion circa early 2002. In fact, you were giddy as a school-girl when Baghdad was getting shelled during S&A and received a lot of flak for it from the ESPN posters.

 

[/setting the record straight]

You hear what you want to hear. But being proud of shock & awe & being in favor of the war are two entirely different things. If you search back to my earliest post on the subject I clearly objected to the war on the basis of cost. My estimate was near 300 billion at the time. Though I was not considering a 10 yr effort. God only knows what the final figure will be now at an avg cost of 25 billion a month.

 

Further more I wrote many posts clearly depicting the admin estimates as being two low. Look them up if you are in doubt. This is a clear case where maybe you can distinguish supporting the troops (their execution of shock & awe) & supporting the war.

 

Today I advocate a position that differs from both admin: pull back & re-inforce the Kurdish rebellion. Let the Shias, Shiites, & Kurds (all Iraqis) decide on their own terms the direction of Iraq. Back the one that is most friendly to the US (Kurds). Neither the GOP nor the Dems are willing to do that.

 

Finally it's not just a matter of your misunderstanding or distorting facts on this issue, but why is it so important to you to fabricate the past? Why is it more important for you to imagine what someone said than what someone is saying? I'll never understand why such petty matters are so important to you & people I've known like you. It's like all you care about is pettiness.

[southsider2k5]

Do some research on the demand of gasoline from 10 years ago to now.

 

It costs more to ship it across the ocean then it did to make it here.

 

Does this equate to $42. bbl for oil?  No.  But gasoline and oil are two different products.

An estimated $5-$13 per barrel is just basically terrorism insurance. Translated to the pumps that is somewhere between 25 and 75 cents a gallon.

[kapkomet]

An estimated $5-$13 per barrel is just basically terrorism insurance.  Translated to the pumps that is somewhere between 25 and 75 cents a gallon.

Yea, but again, these two are not one and the same, they are different commodities. Why is it that they have heating oil (jet a) futures, gas futures, oil futures? They are like products but not one and the same. And the demand is higher on gasoline as a whole then the other products I mention. Yes, there's a correlation, but not a direct, comparison.

[southsider2k5]

Yea, but again, these two are not one and the same, they are different commodities.  Why is it that they have heating oil (jet a) futures, gas futures, oil futures?  They are like products but not one and the same.  And the demand is higher on gasoline as a whole then the other products I mention.  Yes, there's a correlation, but not a direct, comparison.

Correlation between Crude Oil and Gas futures is right about 50%. The last half is all of the transporation, refinery, storage, distribution costs etc. (Sorry I watched a real good special on this stuff last week.)