Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]a) it's not about 'taking it' which would be politically disastrous, but about placing it in friendly hands. b) about 1/5 of US fossil fuels are sourced from the ME, but the effect of recent Venezuelan instability on oil prices only highlights how vulnerable the US is to supply side fluctuation. In fact, as far as I can tell, the single largest external supplier of crude to the US is Canada. Let's not go into the implications of that... On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Greg J. Lorenzo wrote: > Johnny Deadman wrote in part: > >> >> The double standard that is used to judge N Korea and Iraq is >> blazingly obvious to those on the outside. The equation is >> devastatingly simple. Iraq: lots of oil, no smoking gun. N Korea: no >> oil, lots of smoking guns. >> >> Feel free to shoot the messenger. >> >> JB >> >> Since all firearms in Canada must by now be registered I can't shoot >> anybody, but the "oil" argument is often quoted. I suspect mostly by >> people who conveniently or otherwise forget that the US had in excess >> of 500,000 combat and support personnel touring Kuwait and Iraq in >> 1991. If the US really wanted the oil... I think they probably would >> have taken it. > > > The majority of the US's fossil fuel needs are sourced from elsewhere > in the world other than the Middle East. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html