Score One Point For Osama Bin Laden

From the New York Times from October, 2001 -- Nearly seven years ago:

(Published: October 14, 2001)
''If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he'd turn off the tap,'' said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. ''He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel-- about six times what it sells for now."

Now, seven years later, what is the the price of oil?

Yeah -- $144 a barrel as of today.

So I guess he wins this one battle against the USA.

We have to do better than that. Or can we?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this.

Osama Bin Laden telegraphed the World Trade Center disaster via his first unsuccessful attempt. Perhaps we should take a look at all the various things he has promised to accomplish, do a careful evaluation of his objectives, and take some serious counter-measures against each of them.

That is – if we really are interested in winning the war on terror – that is – if this war on terror actually exists at all, and is not just an excuse to keep energy costs high.

I am really disappointed to read this. Past perspective is always helpful, if sometimes a bit depressing.

go to new proof war on terror to see if the war on terror is real or not.

reply to post by zeusadam

Do you have a link?

I don't doubt the war on terror is real. But how real? What is the full story? It seems to me that Exxon can't be too upset that the USA decided to wage a war.

Edit: Never mind. Here is the link I asked you for:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks Zeusadam. I will take a close look.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Buck Division]

Edit Again: Sorry. That thread is too incomprehensible for me. I don't recommend the click through, but be my guest.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Buck Division]

If you're going to score a point for Osama bin Laden, go ahead and score a couple of pts for Democrats and Enviro-whackos. All three want to keep our dependence on foreign oil, and all three would be would be extremely upset if we used our own resources to become self-reliant.

It's not surprising, just listen to any Al-Queda videos and you would swear they are mimicking Democrat talking points.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by RRconservative]

Originally posted by RRconservative
If you're going to score a point for Osama bin Laden, go ahead and score a couple of pts for Democrats and Enviro-whackos. All three want to keep our dependence on foreign oil, and all three would be would be extremely upset if we used our own resources to become self-reliant.

Interesting answer. I think you're statement above may be right, as horrible as that may seem.

I don't want to believe that Democrats and Environmentalists are in some sort of alliance (casual and unwilling as that alliance may be) but it is strange the way that it all folds together.

These three groups you mentioned are cooperating in a strange way, aren't they?

ya ....right..
and we are supposed to believe
Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company,???

NOT

reply to post by RRconservative

If you're going to score a point for Osama bin Laden, go ahead and score a couple of pts for Democrats and Enviro-whackos. All three want to keep our dependence on foreign oil, and all three would be would be extremely upset if we used our own resources to become self-reliant.

Are you so nearsighted to actually believe that it's all the fault of the Left? In case you didn't know, it's the Right, Bush in particular, who is in bed with the Arabs specifically and big oil in general.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
[
Are you so nearsighted to actually believe that it's all the fault of the Left? In case you didn't know, it's the Right, Bush in particular, who is in bed with the Arabs specifically and big oil in general.

It doesn't take 20/20 vision to see it. Bush is pushing hard for opening areas that are off limits to drilling. It's the Democrats and enviro-whackos who are opposed to it.

As far as OBL's prediction of $144 barrel oil, all he had to do was look at the lefts insistance of staying reliant of foreign (Arab) oil.

How long are we willing to stay dependent on foreign oil?

reply to post by RRconservative

Bush is pushing hard for opening areas that are off limits to drilling.

It's gonna take a lot more than that to bring down oil prices. Besides, all of this happened on his watch.

EDIT to add:

By the way, the Arabs don't set oil prices, the world bank does.



[edit on 7/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox

It's gonna take a lot more than that to bring down oil prices. Besides, all of this happened on his watch.

Really? Like what?

Ever take an Economics class?

The first thing you learn is the law of supply and demand.

Right now we have high demand and low supply, that equals higher prices.

Get more supply and the price lowers.

Let's throw in speculators in the mix. They know that the US's refusal to drill its own resources will lead to higher oil prices in the future. What happens if the US just "announces" that it will drill? Speculators will start to short the oil prices because they know supplies will be higher in the future. That is why they call them "Speculators."

Class dismissed!

Now tell me what you think will bring the price down? You said "alot more", so just go ahead a try to name a couple.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by RRconservative]

Buck, EXCELLENT post mate

This should be a wake up call to the USA but we are too deep in dogmatic slumber to see what is in plain sight.

Originally posted by RRconservative
If you're going to score a point for Osama bin Laden, go ahead and score a couple of pts for Democrats and Enviro-whackos.

All three want to keep our dependence on foreign oil, and all three would be would be extremely upset if we used our own resources to become self-reliant.

It's not surprising, just listen to any Al-Queda videos and you would swear they are mimicking Democrat talking points.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by RRconservative]

First off I am going to call you on poor form for making a comparison between terrorists and Environmentalists / Democrats. It is simple, ignorant slander and has no place in political discussions.

I can assure you that you are dead wrong about environmentalists wanting to KEEP us Dependant on oil. I can not even begin to understand where you are coming from or what you base this assertion on.

Democrats I wish I could say the same thing of, but they are a mixed bag of mostly bad nuts.

I would love for you to compile a list of democratic talking points that are so similar to terrorist talking points. I hope you can supply this soon.

You claims that Democrats are preventing Bush from drilling here so they are in essence keeping us dependent on foreign oil has been proven, to you directly in threads I have seen, to be a farce. Yet you hold to this claim as if it were the ONLY talking point you could easily memorize and attempt to defend as Rush 'gas bag' Limbaugh spewed at you via the radio.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Animal]

reply to post by RRconservative

Now tell me what you think will bring the price down? You said "alot more", so just go ahead a try to name a couple.

Opening up resources that are already available.

Ending the artificial crisis that is being generated by the very people you are supporting.

Try not to mix politics and economics.

To Animal and Jackinthebox:

Spewing Democrat talking points is all you are doing.

"We're not drilling on the 68 million acres the oil companies have already leased"

This is a mandatory statement to be spewed over and over again. It doesn't matter if it isn't true, and illrelevent. Even if the oil companies wanted to drill on land they hold leases on, they are sometimes blocked by enviro-whackos. This is unproven acreage.

"Even if we started drilling tomorrow we won't see result for 10-30 years."

Well let's just forget about raising CAFE standards then...since the results won't be seen for years. Thinking about becoming a Doctor or Lawyer?...well forget it, you won't see the results for years. Thinking about saving for retirement? Well forget it, you won't see the results for years. We need to invest in alternative fuels and alternatives to oil.....Why? We won't see the results for years.

Does anyone else see the hipocracy?

Originally posted by RRconservative
To Animal and Jackinthebox:

Spewing Democrat talking points is all you are doing.

"We're not drilling on the 68 million acres the oil companies have already leased"

This is a mandatory statement to be spewed over and over again. It doesn't matter if it isn't true, and illrelevent. Even if the oil companies wanted to drill on land they hold leases on, they are sometimes blocked by enviro-whackos. This is unproven acreage.

Prove it. For once answer my challenge with facts rather than your critique and opinion.

PROVE the leases are "unproven acreage".

Explain with facts how "SOMETIMES blocked by enviro-wackos" is true and relivant.

For one PROVE it rather than simply talking.

Originally posted by Animal

Prove it. For once answer my challenge with facts rather than your critique and opinion.

PROVE the leases are "unproven acreage".

Explain with facts how "SOMETIMES blocked by enviro-wackos" is true and relivant.

For one PROVE it rather than simply talking.

What if I came up with a source of proof you didn't believe? Like RushLimbaugh.com, or WorldNetDaily. Then what?

But I know that oil is trading at $146 per barrel. Common sense says that if the acreage was drillable, and profitable, the oil companies would be all over it. The oil companies are always accused of being "greedy." Then why aren't they taking advantage of the acreage? My guess is because their is nothing to take advantage of. (NO, I am not a rocket scientist!)

Your source is the Democrat Party, and I surely don't believe them. Your source could be some envirowhacko group, I wouldn't beleive them either.

Sometimes common sense can be your friend.

reply to post by RRconservative


You are mistaking me for a Democrat talking head, when in reality, I am light years beyond your quaint notion of a two-party system here in the US.

I'll bet you still waste your time voting in national elections.

[edit on 7/4/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by RRconservative


you know what else isnt hard to see?

The fact that IF they drill domestically

they still have to invest billiions for the drilling equipment, training, permits, extraction, processing, cleaning, insurance, etc

they cant just march out the this 'fresh land' and stick a tapper in it and *POOF* we have gasoline


you think the oil companies are going to eat the cost of all that so we can have cheaper gas?

please.

It'll either go up or stay the same.

It will not make it go down.

Want to lower the cost of Gasoline?

Stop the god *snip* war and quit pissing off other countries for no reason other than the late George Carlins philosophy of the "bigger "penis" theory"

it goes a little somtehing like this

what? They have bigger (penises?)
BOMB THEM

symbolically, this is very true.

This is how the Bush administration has handled everything


Bush to the terrorists: BRING IT ON!



are you serious?

[edit on 7/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 7/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]