Gas Prices

[Anton Bruckner]

Saddam didn't need to be taken out. 1800 American soldiers have died, and hundreds if not 1000's of Iraqi citizens. If America didn't invade, and Saddam was still in power those people would not have died. And in actuality, if we consider those road side car bombings in Iraq as terrorism, we can justly say we have suffered more terrorism as a result of this, in addition, since it is our soldiers who are constantly dying, we can justly say also that we are not safe,since they are dying.

A Preemptive defensive war is ridiculous and if there ever was a good one, the Iraq invasion is a pitiful example. Saddam was doing illegal billion dollar business with Russia and France, and could have cared less about invading America. And it isn't by chance that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves either.

The WMD report actually shows it was Saddam who was telling the truth and not G.W Bush.

Oil as an National Security Issue is quite cogent at this point in history, especially when alternative forms of energy aren't being massive exploited. This makes the old adage true, that necessity is the mother of invention. Only when the oil drips its last, then alternative forms will come to the fore. But on a purely ethical philosophical basis, Oil as an NSI is bankrupt, because a monopoly in its truest form cannot exist. A person willingly chooses to purchase the product of a monopoly, not because he cannot do without it, but because he has conditioned himself and his lifestyle around it. This is quite true, since we have history to show that there was a time without cancer medications, pennicilin, oil, cars and internet.

hehehe can you imagine going to God, and saying, "I had to steal the pennicilin"

Now I think the most pertinent thing to consider from a Christian perspective, is whether Government is held to the same standard as an Individual.
I know the government is exempt for using the sword to bring justice, to taxation etc. But none of those exemptions include covetousness, which is basically what attacking another nation for its resources is.

 

[Bladestunner316]

We gave sadam chemical weapons we are no better than anyone else who supported him.

Who is making the record profits from Oil? It definetelly aint us but the big oil compainies.

blade

 

[Texas Aggie]

The mere fact that the invasion of Iraq occurred is a decree of God. There is a divine reason for such an action which will eventually lead to His desired will. We can argue all day concerning politics and history but the fact remains that God is on the throne.

Either this nation engages this war as parents do with children (unified front) or the division will further increase the propaganda and death toll for U.S. troops. Right or wrong, this is still your country and your tax dollars are funding the troops overseas who engage in such death and destruction.

Either you are on board or you are not. The troops are doing what the people of this country have asked them to do. Political correctness is binding their hands and far more carnage would be accomplished via air power (the Iraqi people are aware of this and are subsequently thankful). The 1800 sacrificed for oil sounds pretty good.... but there is much more to the story.

Don't think for a second that U.S. war planners were not aware of the jihadist infiltration into Iraq. The more the better in that environment (they are being killed by the hundreds, some barely get into action). Better Iraq as a major battlefield than the U.S. or worse, Afghanistan. Unfortunately the jihadist and mercenaries from North Africa are heading out of Iraq and into Afghanistan (take a look at the incidents). The tactical advantage may shift to their side because of the environment. Iraq was a blessing.

Saddam needed to be taken out. His open defiance against the U.S. emboldened the Arab world and more and more incidents were sure to follow. It was a guessing game on the WMD´s.... at least now we know plus get their oil (what a great deal). Our support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war has no relevance (you are comparing apples and oranges). Sounds to me like the both of you are drinking the magic Kool-Aid college girls get from their professors.

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Texas Aggie]

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
The mere fact that the invasion of Iraq occurred is a decree of God. There is a divine reason for such an action which will eventually lead to His desired will. We can argue all day concerning politics and history but the fact remains that God is on the throne.

I'm not doubting that the invasion was decreed by God. Everything that comes to pass is decreed by God. But the fact is that even after Babylon was decreed to obliterate Israel, Babylon was likewised judged because she sinned when she obliterated Israel. The decree of God had nothing to do with justifying the actions of a sinner, eventhough the sin was decreed as a means of judgment upon the wicked.

Here is how the Pslamists phrased it in response to Babylon, Psalms 137:9, " Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Even the Pharisees did what was ordained by God in eternity in the killing of Jesus, but yet they suffered a just reward in damnation for what they did with their wicked hands.

I have no doubt that God used America to bring justice to Saddam and his two sons. Uday raped teenage girls with impunity in Bagdad, murdered with impunity, Qusay tortured as if it was eating fast food; dipping in hot oil etc, and Saddam did not curb the behaviors of his sons a la Eli in relation to Hophni and Phineas. I am quite sure, that the imprecatory prayers of the victims, and victims relatives were answered when Saddam's two boys met their grissly, and gory end, and when Saddam was lifted out from that pit, signifying totally degradation and humiliation.

But that being said, America invaded Iraq under false pretense for oil. It Thus keeping in tune with God's unremitting arm of Justice, God will judge the unrepentent for their acts. Because just as how imprecatory prayers went up for the wickedness of Saddam, so too are imprecatory prayers going up for America based on those who were wronged without cause.

And the above in no way should diminish one's love for country. One should always love and honor their country, but keep in mind a Biblical perspective, that only the children of the heavenly Jerusalem have their sins purged away by the blood of the Lamb. No one else.

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Slippery]

 

[Texas Aggie]

Keon,

What inside information do you have concerning America invaded Iraq under false pretense for oil?

 

[Bladestunner316]

texis,
Lets see apples and oranges. So supporting bin laden and sadaam and Iran has no bearing on the conflict we are in now. Wrong. It has all the bearing.

The reason we invaded Iraq was so that he would not be able to sell Iraq's oil in Euros instead of dollars.

To think that were there because we want to spread freedom and stop terorrism is benign.

Let me ask you this if you think that this war is a God given right.

How does killing innocent people for oil and money advancing the kingdom?

How is having a long history of inhmane intervention advancing the kingdom?

How is having a Islamic run Iraq advancing the kingdom?

How is having a christian president(s) alliancing themselves with islamic leaders advancing the kingdom?

how is wasting time,money, lives, over killing for a natural resource advanicng the kingdom? Especially in light of having alternative methods in our grasp but not doing anything about it because the current administration and previous have their hands so deep in big oil they only see what benefits them.

Blade

 

[Bladestunner316]

Ok Im going to end this right here we can argue elsewhere the finer points of foreign policy. This should just be about 'your' gas prices. So without furthur adu.

Has anyone noticed a dramatic increase in their local gas stations?

I noticed some on the way back home from a friends who went up 20 cents. From 271-273ish to 281.

Blade

 

[Texas Aggie]

Blade,

Ok I will also end this right here and we can argue elswhere on the finer points of foreign policy. This is all about gas prices.

The national average price of gasoline (per gallon) in 1985 was $1.30. From 1985 to 2005 we have had a national inflation rate of 80.75%. If you have not budgeted for gas in this day and age then go buy a bicycle. Funny how it is OK for everything else to inflate, but placing the blame on Bush for high gas prices is typical alligator talk.

The support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan was essential to "œcontainment." As opposed to sending U.S. forces into Afghanistan in the 1980´s, the administration supplied the Mujahideen with advisors, weapons and financing to expel the Soviets. This is an example of the Truman Doctrine at use (political response to communist aggression). The direct application of the Truman Doctrine in Afghanistan contributed to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine allowed U.S. intervention (covert or overt operations) to enforce a containment policy via CIA, financing, military and special operations abroad. Support for Bid Laden in the 1980s has no relevance to the case. Hence "œapples & oranges." Two different times, two different scenarios, two distinctly different combatants.

The U.S. became more involved in the Iran/Iraq war (1980-1988) after the Iranian revolution. Both Iran and Iraq began to attack neutral tankers in the gulf and we started protecting our own flag carriers. The Iranians continued to mine the gulf and one of our frigates was damaged by a mine. In response we bombed multiple Iranian oil platforms as well as destroyed two Iranian warships.

At the time, Saddam was the "œlesser of two evils" and we provided Iraq with both biological and chemical technology (as well as precursors to nuke technology). U.S. and western support for Iraq continued all the way until Saddam invaded Kuwait. Now we had to deal with a separate issue (hence "œapples and oranges).

The U.S. was well aware of what Saddam had been supplied with by western nations. We knew his capabilities as well as his duel-use technology (civil and military use). The Ba´ath party and Saddam wanted much more. They couldn´t have what they wanted from Iran, so they invaded Kuwait.

U.S. and western interests were now affected and Saddam turned on his original helpers. New animal, new time, new combatant (hence apples and oranges). The only bearing this has on the Iraq war is our knowledge of his capabilities and technology. We are fighting against some of our own outdated manufactured weaponry and we know what WMD technology he had. Believe it or not, not all of his manufactured chemical weapons were used against Iran, nor disposed of, after kicked out of Kuwait).

Your assertion that we invaded Iraq was so that Saddam could not sell his resource in Euros as opposed to the U.S. is a great point and I believe is in fact very true. Two of the many credible reasons for invading Iraq involved oil. These are:

1. Control over the resource itself
2. Preservation of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Lets just focus on oil for the moment (since this is the sticky point of this whole Iraq thing).

Our buddy Saddam controlled a country with an estimated 1/4th of the world´s oil production. Iraq alone is estimated to contain at least 60% of the world´s reserves (upon continued exploration). Iraq is #2 in capacity to Saudi. We are the largest net importer of the resource (imports of oil were projected to be 70% of the domestic demand by 2025).

Our invasion of Iraq gives us direct control over their oil fields. The idea now is to pump out their oil as much as possible in order to compete with the OPEC oil-pricing gougers. Direct control over Iraq´s oil fields will improve/guarantee future supplies to the U.S. and U.K. All the previous exploration contracts with China, France, Russia, Indonesia and India are voided. What a fantastic strategic benefit from the invasion (a reward to the U.S. & U.K., so to speak for our valiant bloodshed). Control over the oil is a form of international power projection (another great benefit of invading Iraq).

The U.S. and U.K. military presence in Iraq has many, many roles. Just one of these roles is to provide oil field, drilling & piping protection from the foreign insurgency (mainly mercenaries and jihadist from North Africa, Iran, Syria and Saudi).

The euro thing is an excellent point as well. In the late 1990´s Iran made the change. Subsequently in early 2000 Saddam followed the idea. Naturally Bush was going to categorize this as bad (and it is bad... bad for us). This was just one (not the only reason) why the Bush administration developed the Axis of Evil. Notice how the rest of all the OPEC countries did not make the change.

Without a doubt, the oil and the U.S. dollar were two of the many reasons to invade Iraq (we reap tremendous benefits from the spilt blood). With that said, they are not the only two reasons, there are many more in this justified war. The oil and dollar preservation are really just added benefits (or entitlements of the cost for the regime change).

The fact that Saddam needed to be taken out is without question. Containment of Saddam was attempted (but he was openly defiant). The mere fact that Saddam, and Saddam alone, initiated two wars in the region during the past twenty years as evidence that he is "œnot aggressive" is like saying Germany was not aggressive prior to 1945. Look at how many lampshades and soap bars the Nazis were able to make out of those they hated. Bill Clinton, on three separate occasions came very close to taking out Saddam. Instead he attempted to please the Islamic world via U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

Clinton´s administration did absolutely nothing to combat the ever growing Anti-Americanism fervor in the middle-east region. The boldness escalated and attacks from Iraq on U.S. pilots continued daily. Islamic extremist were building a rapidly growing army of unlawful-combatants in Sudan and Afghanistan to commit the murder of U.S. citizens. The Bush Whitehouse was tired of "œswatting flies." A major overhaul was needed post 9/11, hence the doctrine of preemptive strike. You are either for us or against us. If you are against us, then it sucks to be you. Don´t even let us think you are up to no good.... because you might be wiped out of existence. Talk about advancing the Kingdom. Protection of this nation is a major advancement of the Kingdom. Who else is going to do it?.... Europe? Asia?

Your right Blade, the spread of democracy is in fact benign (but it will be a great benefit if it holds). Who really cares anyway? I don´t. Initially the regime change will be a democracy because that is our will and that is our mode of government. Would you like for us to set them up as little socialists or communists?... I know, let´s make them Nazis since most of them are all Jew haters anyway.

With a democracy, the people may very well choose to be reigned over by an Islamic republic... that´s not our problem as long as the established republic behaves. This is not really what the people over there want anyway. Even the young people in Iran are sick of the Mullahs (we may see internal change from Tehran within the next twenty years). Go read up on it and stop listening to your professors.

For the short term, we are not necessarily there to stop terrorists but to kill as many as possible. Iraq as a strategic battlefield was ideal for encouraging young like-minded jihadist and mercenaries to come to the killing fields. Killing the jihadist is the idea, not stopping them (the more that come over to Iraq, the better.). It´s like a spider waiting for its prey to come to the web. It´s a strategic plan thought out brilliantly by our war-planers. Bring the young jihadist to Iraq with hopes they wont logistically and operationally mobilize in the rugged battlefield of Afghanistan. You can even see how hard it is to get Bin laden and some of his lieutenants out of Afghanistan (although they are all probably in Iran).

As far as "œGod given right...." The Iraqi people are very happy air power has not decimated all their towns and villages while destroying insurgents. Like I said before, this is a war being fought under the rules of political correctness. We unfortunately sacrifice our troops in order to protect (and limit) the number of civilian casualties. It could be much, much worse. If you look at the numbers Blade, you will see that the insurgency is killing far more civilians than UK & US forces. At any rate, civilian casualties are a repercussion of proximity to the battle. Feel fortunate this is not occurring in Kirkland, Washington. Since when is the life of an Iraqi civilian or combatant worth equal to or more than a U.S. soldier? Although our western philosophy towards the sanctity of life is valued, a U.S. combatant´s life is a higher priority than those scurrying about the battlefield.

God will advance His Kingdom as fit. I´m sorry you view our actions as inhumane. I didn´t know we had the "œhate America crowd" on this forum. Western values are generally regulated by a code. Inhumane is getting your head sawed off with a large bread knife and having the video sent to your spouse. Give me a break about being inhumane.

Alternative fuel methods.... ha! Who´s going to fund that now Blade?... you? Texas (the big oil state) tried with the super-conducting super-collider south of Dallas Fort Worth. This was a huge facility promoting the research of atomic dissection as well as nuclear fusion as an alternative source. Government funding got axed with the Clinton White House. The fact of the matter is oil is relatively inexpensive and there is plenty of it for now as well as projected into the future. Alternative fuel research is not a demand of the American taxpayer (research and development is not what the majority are willing to pay for).

If you are going to blame anybody, blame the far left-wing nut-jobs for the gas prices. After all, they are the ones who forced the mandatory environmental controls on the energy corporations. All their wacko, environmental disaster scares and save the whale campaigns have made a fantastic influence. Their actions are now coming to fruition via government regulation. I don´t think California has had a new refinery since 1977. Who wants such an abomination in their backyard?.... nobody (but they want all the benefits).

You also have 4.5 billion Chinese coming a little out from under the clutches of poverty-stricken communism. You think oil and gas prices are high now? Just wait until the Chinese markets make more of a demand for the resource. Look at their massive industrialization over the past ten years alone. They are actually building cars now. Look out.

The Iraq war is completely justified. Oil is just a benefit and entitlement for the sacrifice made. Bush and Blair will go down in history for their brilliant forethought.

Gas prices are just fine. If you can't budget for it, scale back on your standard of living with everything else.

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Texas Aggie]

 

[Bladestunner316]

My gas just went up to 2.79 this morning.

 

[Bladestunner316]

I cant stress enough if you can stock up on gas do so now before it gets higher especially if you need it for generators.

blade

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
My gas just went up to 2.79 this morning.

Yeah, ours bounced up 15 cents today to $2.64.
Call it the Hurricane Hop I guess. I have always found
it "interesting" that gas prices go bounding upward
at the slightest change in the oil supply (of course
they never go down very quickly after such changes
are rectified)

Todd

 

[Bladestunner316]

I have a feeling that this bump was going to happen anyway but did so sooner than thought because of the storm I would expect a more dramtic increase within the week. The only way prices will go down is if the oil flow recovers or Bush lets into the reserves which I highly doubt.

Blade

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

News updates fron CNN (8/31/05):

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the White House will tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help ease concerns about the disaster's effect on the nation's fuel supplies. Katrina on U.S. oil production and refinery capabilities may be worse than initial reports estimated and could lead to a national gas crisis in the short-term, analysts warned Tuesday.

and

Consumers can expect retail gas prices to rise to $4 a gallon in the near future, Ben Brockwell, director of pricing at the Oil Price Information Service, said Wednesday. "There's no question gas will hit $4 a gallon," he said. "The question is how high will it go and how long will it last?"

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[LarryCook]

2 Kings 6:24-29

24Afterward Ben-hadad king of Syria mustered his entire army and went up and besieged Samaria. 25And there was a great famine in Samaria, as they besieged it, until a donkey's head was sold for eighty shekels of silver, and the fourth part of a kab[a] of dove's dung for five shekels of silver. 26Now as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried out to him, saying, "Help, my lord, O king!" 27And he said, "If the LORD will not help you, how shall I help you? From the threshing floor, or from the winepress?" 28And the king asked her, "What is your trouble?" She answered, "This woman said to me, 'Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.' 29So we boiled my son and ate him.

Let's pray that we trust in the Lord to provide in the forthcoming days of scarcity. Rember, there is a chapter 7.

Larry

 

[Bladestunner316]

2.82

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

$3.09 this morning and we are usually lower than the national average.

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Blade,

Ok I will also end this right here and we can argue elswhere on the finer points of foreign policy. This is all about gas prices.

The national average price of gasoline (per gallon) in 1985 was $1.30. From 1985 to 2005 we have had a national inflation rate of 80.75%. If you have not budgeted for gas in this day and age then go buy a bicycle. Funny how it is OK for everything else to inflate, but placing the blame on Bush for high gas prices is typical alligator talk.

The support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan was essential to "œcontainment." As opposed to sending U.S. forces into Afghanistan in the 1980´s, the administration supplied the Mujahideen with advisors, weapons and financing to expel the Soviets. This is an example of the Truman Doctrine at use (political response to communist aggression). The direct application of the Truman Doctrine in Afghanistan contributed to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine allowed U.S. intervention (covert or overt operations) to enforce a containment policy via CIA, financing, military and special operations abroad. Support for Bid Laden in the 1980s has no relevance to the case. Hence "œapples & oranges." Two different times, two different scenarios, two distinctly different combatants.

The U.S. became more involved in the Iran/Iraq war (1980-1988) after the Iranian revolution. Both Iran and Iraq began to attack neutral tankers in the gulf and we started protecting our own flag carriers. The Iranians continued to mine the gulf and one of our frigates was damaged by a mine. In response we bombed multiple Iranian oil platforms as well as destroyed two Iranian warships.

At the time, Saddam was the "œlesser of two evils" and we provided Iraq with both biological and chemical technology (as well as precursors to nuke technology). U.S. and western support for Iraq continued all the way until Saddam invaded Kuwait. Now we had to deal with a separate issue (hence "œapples and oranges).

The U.S. was well aware of what Saddam had been supplied with by western nations. We knew his capabilities as well as his duel-use technology (civil and military use). The Ba´ath party and Saddam wanted much more. They couldn´t have what they wanted from Iran, so they invaded Kuwait.

U.S. and western interests were now affected and Saddam turned on his original helpers. New animal, new time, new combatant (hence apples and oranges). The only bearing this has on the Iraq war is our knowledge of his capabilities and technology. We are fighting against some of our own outdated manufactured weaponry and we know what WMD technology he had. Believe it or not, not all of his manufactured chemical weapons were used against Iran, nor disposed of, after kicked out of Kuwait).

Your assertion that we invaded Iraq was so that Saddam could not sell his resource in Euros as opposed to the U.S. is a great point and I believe is in fact very true. Two of the many credible reasons for invading Iraq involved oil. These are:

1. Control over the resource itself
2. Preservation of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Lets just focus on oil for the moment (since this is the sticky point of this whole Iraq thing).

Our buddy Saddam controlled a country with an estimated 1/4th of the world´s oil production. Iraq alone is estimated to contain at least 60% of the world´s reserves (upon continued exploration). Iraq is #2 in capacity to Saudi. We are the largest net importer of the resource (imports of oil were projected to be 70% of the domestic demand by 2025).

Our invasion of Iraq gives us direct control over their oil fields. The idea now is to pump out their oil as much as possible in order to compete with the OPEC oil-pricing gougers. Direct control over Iraq´s oil fields will improve/guarantee future supplies to the U.S. and U.K. All the previous exploration contracts with China, France, Russia, Indonesia and India are voided. What a fantastic strategic benefit from the invasion (a reward to the U.S. & U.K., so to speak for our valiant bloodshed). Control over the oil is a form of international power projection (another great benefit of invading Iraq).

The U.S. and U.K. military presence in Iraq has many, many roles. Just one of these roles is to provide oil field, drilling & piping protection from the foreign insurgency (mainly mercenaries and jihadist from North Africa, Iran, Syria and Saudi).

The euro thing is an excellent point as well. In the late 1990´s Iran made the change. Subsequently in early 2000 Saddam followed the idea. Naturally Bush was going to categorize this as bad (and it is bad... bad for us). This was just one (not the only reason) why the Bush administration developed the Axis of Evil. Notice how the rest of all the OPEC countries did not make the change.

Without a doubt, the oil and the U.S. dollar were two of the many reasons to invade Iraq (we reap tremendous benefits from the spilt blood). With that said, they are not the only two reasons, there are many more in this justified war. The oil and dollar preservation are really just added benefits (or entitlements of the cost for the regime change).

The fact that Saddam needed to be taken out is without question. Containment of Saddam was attempted (but he was openly defiant). The mere fact that Saddam, and Saddam alone, initiated two wars in the region during the past twenty years as evidence that he is "œnot aggressive" is like saying Germany was not aggressive prior to 1945. Look at how many lampshades and soap bars the Nazis were able to make out of those they hated. Bill Clinton, on three separate occasions came very close to taking out Saddam. Instead he attempted to please the Islamic world via U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

Clinton´s administration did absolutely nothing to combat the ever growing Anti-Americanism fervor in the middle-east region. The boldness escalated and attacks from Iraq on U.S. pilots continued daily. Islamic extremist were building a rapidly growing army of non-combatants in Sudan and Afghanistan to commit the murder of U.S. citizens. The Bush Whitehouse was tired of "œswatting flies." A major overhaul was needed post 9/11, hence the doctrine of preemptive strike. You are either for us or against us. If you are against us, then it sucks to be you. Don´t even let us think you are up to no good.... because you might be wiped out of existence. Talk about advancing the Kingdom. Protection of this nation is a major advancement of the Kingdom. Who else is going to do it?.... Europe? Asia?

Your right Blade, the spread of democracy is in fact benign (but it will be a great benefit if it holds). Who really cares anyway? I don´t. Initially the regime change will be a democracy because that is our will and that is our mode of government. Would you like for us to set them up as little socialists or communists?... I know, let´s make them Nazis since most of them are all Jew haters anyway.

With a democracy, the people may very well choose to be reigned over by an Islamic republic... that´s not our problem as long as the established republic behaves. This is not really what the people over there want anyway. Even the young people in Iran are sick of the Mullahs (we may see internal change from Tehran within the next twenty years). Go read up on it and stop listening to your professors.

For the short term, we are not necessarily there to stop terrorists but to kill as many as possible. Iraq as a strategic battlefield was ideal for encouraging young like-minded jihadist and mercenaries to come to the killing fields. Killing the jihadist is the idea, not stopping them (the more that come over to Iraq, the better.). It´s like a spider waiting for its prey to come to the web. It´s a strategic plan thought out brilliantly by our war-planers. Bring the young jihadist to Iraq with hopes they wont logistically and operationally mobilize in the rugged battlefield of Afghanistan. You can even see how hard it is to get Bin laden and some of his lieutenants out of Afghanistan (although they are all probably in Iran).

As far as "œGod given right...." The Iraqi people are very happy air power has not decimated all their towns and villages while destroying insurgents. Like I said before, this is a war being fought under the rules of political correctness. We unfortunately sacrifice our troops in order to protect (and limit) the number of civilian casualties. It could be much, much worse. If you look at the numbers Blade, you will see that the insurgency is killing far more civilians than UK & US forces. At any rate, civilian casualties are a repercussion of proximity to the battle. Feel fortunate this is not occurring in Kirkland, Washington. Since when is the life of an Iraqi civilian or combatant worth equal to or more than a U.S. soldier? Although our western philosophy towards the sanctity of life is valued, a U.S. combatant´s life is a higher priority than those scurrying about the battlefield.

God will advance His Kingdom as fit. I´m sorry you view our actions as inhumane. I didn´t know we had the "œhate America crowd" on this forum. Western values are generally regulated by a code. Inhumane is getting your head sawed off with a large bread knife and having the video sent to your spouse. Give me a break about being inhumane.

Alternative fuel methods.... ha! Who´s going to fund that now Blade?... you? Texas (the big oil state) tried with the super-conducting super-collider south of Dallas Fort Worth. This was a huge facility promoting the research of atomic dissection as well as nuclear fusion as an alternative source. Government funding got axed with the Clinton White House. The fact of the matter is oil is relatively inexpensive and there is plenty of it for now as well as projected into the future. Alternative fuel research is not a demand of the American taxpayer (research and development is not what the majority are willing to pay for).

If you are going to blame anybody, blame the far left-wing nut-jobs for the gas prices. After all, they are the ones who forced the mandatory environmental controls on the energy corporations. All their wacko, environmental disaster scares and save the whale campaigns have made a fantastic influence. Their actions are now coming to fruition via government regulation. I don´t think California has had a new refinery since 1977. Who wants such an abomination in their backyard?.... nobody (but they want all the benefits).

You also have 4.5 billion Chinese coming a little out from under the clutches of poverty-stricken communism. You think oil and gas prices are high now? Just wait until the Chinese markets make more of a demand for the resource. Look at their massive industrialization over the past ten years alone. They are actually building cars now. Look out.

The Iraq war is completely justified. Oil is just a benefit and entitlement for the sacrifice made. Bush and Blair will go down in history for their brilliant forethought.

Gas prices are just fine. If you can't budget for it, scale back on your standard of living with everything else.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13037

 

[Craig]

$3.14 around my area...I did see it for $3.49 about 30 miles east of Kalamazoo.

 

[Bladestunner316]

5.57 in atlanta. stock up or fill up its gona be a long haul.

blade

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Craig
$3.14 around my area...I did see it for $3.49 about 30 miles east of Kalamazoo.

$3.00 for regular around my area (Raleigh, NC). That is an increase of about 25 cents overnight.

 

[Puddleglum]

The Safeways near where I live increased their prices by 12 cents between when I went to work this morning, and came back this afternoon. Regular is getting close to $3 - premium & diesel are over $3 by now.

 

[toddpedlar]

Ours went from $2.49 on Monday, to $2.64 on Tuesday, to $2.79 today...

 

[matt01]

3.29 for Regular. The owner of the corner gas station said that she believed it would hit $5 by the weekend. At that point I will be wondering on whether it is even worth the 2o minute drive to work...

 

[Craig]

Originally posted by matthew
3.29 for Regular. The owner of the corner gas station said that she believed it would hit $5 by the weekend. At that point I will be wondering on whether it is even worth the 2o minute drive to work...

I hear you. I commute an hour one way...I was spending around $250-$265 in gas per month...if gas goes up to $3.50, I'll be paying between $315-$330 per month as I work mon-fri, and 2-3 sat per month. I can't buy a different car, and getting 5 miles more per gallon isn't that big of a help anyway.

So, if this continues, does this mean our economy is going to crash? I mean, pretty much everything relies on oil and with the added cost, I assume other costs will go up to compensate. We have a lot of outsourced jobs and fewer jobs available that offer high pay. The economy has been difficult enough as it is, how will we be able to afford this? The Europeans have public transportation that makes sense, and far less commutes as everything is jammed together...we're paying over $3 in gas and have fewer alternatives for transportation.

 

[Herald]

$3.09 for 87 octane

 

[matt01]

Originally posted by Craig
The Europeans have public transportation that makes sense, and far less commutes as everything is jammed together...we're paying over $3 in gas and have fewer alternatives for transportation.

Exactly, I try not to listen to the arguments about the poor Europeans paying so much for their gas. The difference that needs to be remembered is the mass transit systems that exist throughout Europe. If I had the means to take a subway or even a bus to work I would, unfortunately, the nearest bus line is at least 12 miles away from my place of employment

 

[LarryCook]

Katrina Gulf Oil-Rig Wreckage Sparks Fear of $100-Barrel Crude

Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) -- As Hurricane Katrina slammed through the Gulf of Mexico, energy companies evacuated offshore workers and shut about 91 percent of the region's oil production, or 1.37 million barrels daily.

``There isn't the global spare capacity out there to replace this loss if it continues for a prolonged period,'' says Bart Melek, a senior economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto. ``Already the market is tight as a drum, and if anything else happens, say instability in the Middle East, I wouldn't preclude $100 oil at all.''

Good thing the middle east is a fairly stable place...

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by LarryCook
Katrina Gulf Oil-Rig Wreckage Sparks Fear of $100-Barrel Crude

Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) -- As Hurricane Katrina slammed through the Gulf of Mexico, energy companies evacuated offshore workers and shut about 91 percent of the region's oil production, or 1.37 million barrels daily.

``There isn't the global spare capacity out there to replace this loss if it continues for a prolonged period,'' says Bart Melek, a senior economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto. ``Already the market is tight as a drum, and if anything else happens, say instability in the Middle East, I wouldn't preclude $100 oil at all.''

Good thing the middle east is a fairly stable place...

From the Washington Times, 9/1/05, regarding international reaction to Hurricane Katrina:

Islamic extremists found a cause for celebration, giving the storm the military rank "private" and suggesting in Internet chatter that Katrina had joined their jihad, or holy war. They also prayed that oil prices hit $100 a barrel this year.