Motortrend Blog: VW Wants a Share of U.S. Government Loans to Automakers

[IROCNROL1]

Originally Posted by samkung

Nah first invasion of Iraq is to secure a stable oil supply for US and further tighten the control over oil supply by the US.

Nope Money could be better spent on investing in education, health care, scientific research into newer energy source....(Fusion my love), by doing so US can lead this energy hungry age, exporting the fusion technology all over the world, well I could only imagine what a trillion can do.

Please explain how securing a stable oil supply for the US doesn't benefit every other country in the world that uses oil. You know, the ones who don't help protect their own interests. As HoosierRon pointed out, China is benefiting from US blood being shed there without losing a drop of their own. Also, please explain this mysterious US control of the oil supply. Are we getting a hidden tax on middle east oil sold to other countries? Are we taking Iraqi oil to help defray the cost of the war? Are we trying to deny this oil to any country?

We spend tons of money on education, health care and research already. If I didn't know better I'd suspect you of thinking the US has unlimited funds. Here's an idea, how about everyone else chipping in to help solve the world's energy problems rather than just expecting us to spend ourselves bankrupt doing so and then giving it all away? China has lots of cash, why not harp on them a while?

[IROCNROL1]

Originally Posted by zabraden

I agree with much of what you said, but let's keep the politics out of this.

I understand where you're coming from, but it was just too good an opportunity to pass up. Sorry.

[marinerbc]

Originally Posted by baloo

Neither of those countries are comparable to Canada.

Why not? Why is our oil any different than Iraq's to samkung?

Originally Posted by baloo

It's a simple list of resolutions, not an op-ed. Extremely easy to verify. And why would a jewish organization be biased against Israel?

Once again, I do not accept that source,

[baloo]

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Once again, I do not accept that source,

Now you're just being ignorant.

[samkung]

Originally Posted by marinerbc

If the UN treated all member nations in the same manner, I would agree with you, but they do not, so I won't. As the UN is right now, I as a Canadian am better off without them.

Well why not give it a chance and let to have a reform

Originally Posted by marinerbc

I think you should go look up who actually exports oil to the US, and not go by what you "hear". And I won't post that list, because you wouldn't believe me and I'm lazy anyway.

Well i didnt use what i "Hear" US import a fair amount of oil from the gulf anyway, beside there is no excuse for an American invasion of Canada, Canada is basically living under the shadow of America

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Again, you ignored my point; if the US wanted to control world oil supply, invading Canada is far easier and more effective than conducting a war thousands of kilometers away. Answer that one, and we can move on. Oh and your joke about invading us once before? They don't like talking about how we burnt the White House for burning our Parliament Buildings, so don't go there.

I dont see the reason and the need of invading Canada, First there is no legitimate reason/excuse, secondly if US did eventually invade Canada, it wont change much, since most of the Canadian oil is exporting to America, finally i would like to say the idea of "invading Canada" doesnt make sense.

Oh so would you be able to tell me why did America invade Iraq then? Anyway i think we are on the same page in against the war

PS: Cool i wont go there, but you cant ignore the history

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Unbelievable that you actually have faith in this idea. What veto to protect Israel? I googled that because I never heard of it, and got squat. So you're making poop up as you go along? Lame, very lame.

Lame, very in saying i make up poop, which i did not, ok here is a Link i found with a quick google, might be a biased site, i am not too sure, but resolution is FACT so you can always check them on UN site (presumed)

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Ok so it's ok to kill them then? Because they're second class citizens of nowhere? And the US DID do something to help them, they invaded Iraq and stopped Saddam from more genocide against them. I guess since you are prejudiced against them, you think it's ok to murder them, and we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, murder is wrong, and yes

Excuse me! Where did i say it's ok to kill them?? I was simply asking What should US do in those situation.

Kurdish people were being kill during the Iraq-Iran war, but what did US do at that time, they support Iraq and Saddam in the war effort against Iran, so please dont tell me USA invade Iraq to help the Kurds (20 or so years late), and beside after the 1990s Gulf War, the non-flying zone already protect the Kurdish in the north, they were like a semi-independent state.

"I have prejudice against them?" Might i ask why would i? I pity them for living under different oppressive regime, and i pity them being used as tools, neglected by the world/US when they have no strategic value.

Originally Posted by marinerbc

I do realize that you are a product of a different culture than mine, so I'll leave my revuslion at your comments and move on.

How do you know i am a product of a different culture?? Please read my comments carefully before leaving your revulsion there If you have read most of my previous post, you would know i value of all human lives, so i am upset by your statement.

Originally Posted by marinerbc

It CAN be triggered by LASER, but uses 250% more energy than it produces, so the whole point is moot.

As for science in schools, the last big push was during the Apollo era, when North America was turning out science degrees like there WOULD be a better tomorrow; now we have Oprah.

thanks Oprah

[samkung]

Originally Posted by IROCNROL1

Please explain how securing a stable oil supply for the US doesn't benefit every other country in the world that uses oil. You know, the ones who don't help protect their own interests. As HoosierRon pointed out, China is benefiting from US blood being shed there without losing a drop of their own. Also, please explain this mysterious US control of the oil supply. Are we getting a hidden tax on middle east oil sold to other countries? Are we taking Iraqi oil to help defray the cost of the war? Are we trying to deny this oil to any country?

Yes US is not denying any nation from importing iraqi oil, but who knows what will she do in times of war, maybe she will wave her muscle and influence the decision making in Iraqi government

China nor any other nation benefit from the 2003 invasion, they were free to deal with the former Iraqi government before the invasion, so your argument doesn't stand.

If you had read Ron's article, it state that the 3 billions deal is a renewal/re-negotiate of an old contract dated back to 1997

Originally Posted by IROCNROL1

We spend tons of money on education, health care and research already. If I didn't know better I'd suspect you of thinking the US has unlimited funds. Here's an idea, how about everyone else chipping in to help solve the world's energy problems rather than just expecting us to spend ourselves bankrupt doing so and then giving it all away? China has lots of cash, why not harp on them a while?

Yeah US did spent tons on education, but i mean does the no child left behind act actually helping kids to learn, i think it's actually letting kids behind.

PS: Even with tons of money spent, US student is still lagging behind on international ranking in terms of education

The fact is i know US does not have unlimited money, so why start a war at the first place, i am sure the money could be better spent elsewhere.......

PS: How do you know China has lots of cash? maybe the government is loaded but not its people

PPS: I dont think the world will be relying America to solve the world's energy crisis/climate challenge, since America dont even want to sign the kyoto protocol.

Originally Posted by IROCNROL1

I understand where you're coming from, but it was just too good an opportunity to pass up. Sorry.

Finally something to agree on

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Why not? Why is our oil any different than Iraq's to samkung?

Canadian oil is higher in sulfur content. Sulfur dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it creates acid rain. Also, getting oil from tar sands generates more CO2 than does getting oil from drilling.

That is why I hope that our Leader will support legislation to ban the importation of Canadian oil. He will not be lured into pushing environmentally damaging oil for social-ethnic reasons.

[Extreme4x4]

Originally Posted by samkung

PPS: I dont think the world will be relying America to solve the world's energy crisis/climate challenge, since America dont even want to sign the kyoto protocol.

Thank God.

Why on earth, would any leading nation want to sign something that punishes you for being successful............... and rewards 3rd world nations for being 3rd world.

That you obviously think we should sign it, shows your true colors.

[marinerbc]

Originally Posted by samkung

Well why not give it a chance and let to have a reform

63 years of "giving it a chance" is enough for me.

Originally Posted by samkung

Well i didnt use what i "Hear" US import a fair amount of oil from the gulf anyway, beside there is no excuse for an American invasion of Canada, Canada is basically living under the shadow of America

Is this another slur on your part? If you want to insult us or me, come out and say it.

Originally Posted by samkung

I dont see the reason and the need of invading Canada, First there is no legitimate reason/excuse, secondly if US did eventually invade Canada, it wont change much, since most of the Canadian oil is exporting to America, finally i would like to say the idea of "invading Canada" doesnt make sense.

You said the US was all about securing a stable oil supply under US control; if Canada is selling oil to the US, the US isn't controlling it. There is ONE way for the US to do that, and only one.

Originally Posted by samkung

Oh so would you be able to tell me why did America invade Iraq then? Anyway i think we are on the same page in against the war

PS: Cool i wont go there, but you cant ignore the history

What history? Not everything is a conspiracy. Perhaps Iraq was invaded for the reasons that were given by the administration.

Originally Posted by samkung

Excuse me! Where did i say it's ok to kill them?? I was simply asking What should US do in those situation.

You intimated that the Kurds were second class citizens with no rights, and that the US had no business trying to protect them. I called you on it fair and square. To me, equality is more than just a word.

Originally Posted by samkung

How do you know i am a product of a different culture?? Please read my comments carefully before leaving your revulsion there If you have read most of my previous post, you would know i value of all human lives, so i am upset by your statement.

Presuming that I am an idiot makes you LOOK like one. Neither of us are, so stop playing games. If you were upset by my calling you on the Kurdish issue, then I accomplished something, and made you look at your own biases more closely.

[samkung]

Originally Posted by marinerbc

63 years of "giving it a chance" is enough for me.

Everyone holds a different opinion, so i will give it a couple more years.

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Is this another slur on your part? If you want to insult us or me, come out and say it.

Sleeping with the Elephant

"Living next to you," Trudeau told an American audience in a speech to the National Press Club in 1969, "is like sleeping with an elephant; no matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

I am not trying to insult you or your country, but i mean living next to America is basically like what your Prime Minister said: "sleeping with an elephant", you cant escape American influence.

Originally Posted by marinerbc

You said the US was all about securing a stable oil supply under US control; if Canada is selling oil to the US, the US isn't controlling it. There is ONE way for the US to do that, and only one.

What is the one way

Originally Posted by marinerbc

What history? Not everything is a conspiracy. Perhaps Iraq was invaded for the reasons that were given by the administration.

Because Saddam has Weapon of Mass Destroying?

Originally Posted by marinerbc

You intimated that the Kurds were second class citizens with no rights, and that the US had no business trying to protect them. I called you on it fair and square. To me, equality is more than just a word.

If equality is more than word, so are you angry that your government didnt do enough to protect the Kurdish people during the Iraq-Iran war.

I dont understand where you are coming from, i am not saying US should not protect the Kurdish people, but they should have done it 20 or so years ago, so why weren't they helping them in the 80s huh??

Originally Posted by marinerbc

Presuming that I am an idiot makes you LOOK like one. Neither of us are, so stop playing games. If you were upset by my calling you on the Kurdish issue, then I accomplished something, and made you look at your own biases more closely.

My own biases? Where? Ok maybe i am all for UN and climate change, but how am i being bias on the Kurdish issue?

All i am trying to say is: If US had the intention of help the kurdish people, they could have done it 20 years ago, but they did not, so it will be hypocritical to use "Protecting Kurds" as the excuse for the invasion

Playing games? So what kind of culture do you think i grew up with This is a straight question, not a game