Kony 2012

[DeletedUser17143]

Firstly, yes there was evidence to suggest that Iraq were in possession of WMDs. But having evidence to "suggest" and actually finding WMDs are two completely different things. No WMDs were ever found. And the evidence that was presented wasn't enough to start a full scale intervention. The only reason the war began is because America seems to think it has the right to police the world without anyone asking it to. And yet the UN still puts them on a pedestal despite them being the biggest war criminals since the third reich. And they think that hunting down any country that has links to Al-Qaeda is up to them. And George Bush even said "They tried kill my dad" when he was asked about Saddam and the Iraq war. So I think it is very obvious that Americas inclusion in the war was more than just for WMDs. That is my opinion of what has happened in Iraq anyway. And seeing as the majority of information isn't shared with the public, I believe I am entitled to interpret it as I see fit. That's not brainwashing, that is me having the ability to think for myself rather than believing everything the government tells me. I hate to break it to you, but governments lie. A lot.

And secondly, when I said "I don't want the US to be involved in Uganda" I meant I do not want them to be involved as they were in the Iraq war. Which judging by the previous comments is something a lot of people seem to think is happening. The point of the campaign is for the people to stand up and let their political leaders know that it matters to us what happens in countries that don't have tons of money. They aren't asking for military intervention. Just support. Hence the US sending people to help by supervising them. They aren't asking for tanks and jets. Just for countries around the world to pledge their support to finding him. No one wants military intervention on a combat scale. Just for our more experienced and better equipped intelligence teams to help by lending them a hand in identifying his location. This is Africa's problem to deal with. But that doesn't mean they need to alone. And I will always pledge my support to that. When I'm older and I have children, I don't want them to grow up in a world that turns a blind eye to atrocities around the world just because they aren't economically beneficial. And if I can play a part in stopping that, then I will. Kony needs to be found and either killed or arrested. And as bad as it sounds, I don't mind if some of the child soldiers die to protect him. Because it would be better for them to die and have him stopped, then for another 26 years to go by when countless more children will be killed and mutilated at his hands. It's quite simply damage limitation at this point. It should have been stopped years ago, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try now. It is never too late to change.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

I don't think its about oil at all.. Other resources maybe, I dunno yet. But as I read your reply, the people behind it was on Andersone cooper talking about it and answering a lot of questions about the money and crap. I dunno if the interview will be on their site or not any time soon.

And frankly, I wasn't paying too much attention to is until I saw your post, It's just on in the background while I plot ways to destroy the world by violating the laws of thermal dynamics. But I heard them asking something about the money and crap and where it goes.

Firstly, yes there was evidence to suggest that Iraq were in possession of WMDs. But having evidence to "suggest" and actually finding WMDs are two completely different things. No WMDs were ever found.

In don't think i disputed whether they were found or not- in fact, I specifically said Bush was Wrong. I said being wrong about what the evidence meant does not make it all or anything made up.

And the evidence that was presented wasn't enough to start a full scale intervention.

That is an opinion shared by others. At the time, I wasn't one of them. In hind sight, I probably would be one of them if I knew everything I know now. Bujsh probably would be one of them too.. But that the great thing about hindsight, thing are more clear.

The only reason the war began is because America seems to think it has the right to police the world without anyone asking it to. And yet the UN still puts them on a pedestal despite them being the biggest war criminals since the third reich. And they think that hunting down any country that has links to Al-Qaeda is up to them. And George Bush even said "They tried kill my dad" when he was asked about Saddam and the Iraq war. So I think it is very obvious that Americas inclusion in the war was more than just for WMDs. That is my opinion of what has happened in Iraq anyway. And seeing as the majority of information isn't shared with the public, I believe I am entitled to interpret it as I see fit. That's not brainwashing, that is me having the ability to think for myself rather than believing everything the government tells me. I hate to break it to you, but governments lie. A lot.

There you are back to showing how ignorant and brainwashed you are. I'll leave it at that unless you want to start another thread and discuss it more.

And secondly, when I said "I don't want the US to be involved in Uganda" I meant I do not want them to be involved as they were in the Iraq war. Which judging by the previous comments is something a lot of people seem to think is happening. The point of the campaign is for the people to stand up and let their political leaders know that it matters to us what happens in countries that don't have tons of money. They aren't asking for military intervention. Just support. Hence the US sending people to help by supervising them. They aren't asking for tanks and jets. Just for countries around the world to pledge their support to finding him. No one wants military intervention on a combat scale. Just for our more experienced and better equipped intelligence teams to help by lending them a hand in identifying his location. This is Africa's problem to deal with. But that doesn't mean they need to alone. And I will always pledge my support to that. When I'm older and I have children, I don't want them to grow up in a world that turns a blind eye to atrocities around the world just because they aren't economically beneficial. And if I can play a part in stopping that, then I will. Kony needs to be found and either killed or arrested. And as bad as it sounds, I don't mind if some of the child soldiers die to protect him. Because it would be better for them to die and have him stopped, then for another 26 years to go by when countless more children will be killed and mutilated at his hands. It's quite simply damage limitation at this point. It should have been stopped years ago, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try now. It is never too late to change.

Lol. If you meant all that, then you can see why I had to ask if you reread what you wrote. But Uganda is so corrupt, I doubt they will get anything accomplished without an unconnected force doing the job for them. Maybe they can just take the blame for it afterwords and we will be done with it and you can grow up feeling better about yourself and the world.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Ummm did you just infer you disagree that governments Lie A LOT ? or that the war was nothing but an illegal one ? not sanctioned by the UN no WMD to justify it etc etc ? from what i can see its not yidboi thats brainwashed here...

You looked at that Koni addendum yet btw ? and if so you still think its a simple innocent now 75 million hit you tube clip or something more ?

 

[DeletedUser563]

Does more people watching it lend it more legitimacy. Most problems that was pointed out was after the posters watched that video and did a bit of research. My latest info I gathered was a newspaper article that was brought about by the large number of people watching it. The one critical point you are all missing is that more and more troops and governments being involved will lead to more and more child soldiers killed. Its like a spca drive to save animals and your byline afterwards readsh yeah we unfortunately had to put out 70 animals. Or must I say its the one point that is deliberately ignored by those for this campaign.

But ok think I have put my viewpoint forward others can take it up now.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

You looked at that Koni addendum yet btw ? and if so you still think its a simple innocent now 75 million hit you tube clip or something more ?

I did just watch both of the videos. And it is highly worrying. Whilst I have no doubt that the Invisible Children charity is not a scam, I do think it has paved a way for the US to sneak their way into another oil rich country. It's something that always seems to happen around the word. I can't help but think of this picture

Obviously America is the opportunist. Whilst Invisible Children, Uganda and The UN argue over what should be done, I have no doubt that the US government will worm their way in. If you find oil America will come. It has always happened and it continues to do so. I mean right now the UK has found oil in the Falklands. And so Argentina has decided that 30 years after a failed invasion, they are interested in it again. And who is the first country to pipe up and call for both sides to meet and talk this out so that we can all benefit from it? The US government of course.
(Before I go any further I would like to point out that I have no problem with America or Americans. My only problem is with the people who run the country. I don't mean to offend any Americans on here. It is just my opinion. All governments have problems, it's not just the US.)

The whole video actually worries me. We live in a world where the internet has so much power. And that power is commanded by the people. Not the governments. People have experienced freedom online and in many countries, they have decided that they want freedom and democracy everywhere. What they don't realise is there is no such thing as freedom. The internet has become a place for people of the same ideals to congregate and discuss issues. And this scares governments who are built on lies and secrecy. I don't think it is any coincidence that after a few turbulent years that have seen dictatorships overthrown and political allegiances questioned and broken, and all of a sudden SOPA, PIPA and ACTA come into play. And they say it is for us. To protect us from Piracy and to stop all of the illegal sharing on the internet. Even though it has been proven that these acts won't just affect the sharing of illegal material. They will also have a huge impact on the privacy of people on the internet. They way in which we all talk and share things such as the Kony video will become a lot harder. And all of a sudden control is back in the hands of the governments, and they are once again free to manipulate people and tell us how to live. How to talk. Tell us how we should think and act.

The things that all governments will do for power these days is startling. We live in a world where the internet should be used for progress, unity and enlightenment. And instead it is being used as a way to halt our progress and to keep us all in a state of control from which we can't break free. When I really think about it, I look at countries like Libya, Egypt and so on and think that their governments are corrupt and wrong. When in fact the only difference between dictatorship and democracy is that in a dictatorship they pretty much tell you that you have no rights. In a democracy they let you choose who you want to take your rights away ever few years.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I did just watch both of the videos. And it is highly worrying. Whilst I have no doubt that the Invisible Children charity is not a scam, I do think it has paved a way for the US to sneak their way into another oil rich country. It's something that always seems to happen around the word. I can't help but think of this picture

Obviously America is the opportunist. Whilst Invisible Children, Uganda and The UN argue over what should be done, I have no doubt that the US government will worm their way in. If you find oil America will come. It has always happened and it continues to do so. I mean right now the UK has found oil in the Falklands. And so Argentina has decided that 30 years after a failed invasion, they are interested in it again. And who is the first country to pipe up and call for both sides to meet and talk this out so that we can all benefit from it? The US government of course.
(Before I go any further I would like to point out that I have no problem with America or Americans. My only problem is with the people who run the country. I don't mean to offend any Americans on here. It is just my opinion. All governments have problems, it's not just the US.)

The whole video actually worries me. We live in a world where the internet has so much power. And that power is commanded by the people. Not the governments. People have experienced freedom online and in many countries, they have decided that they want freedom and democracy everywhere. What they don't realise is there is no such thing as freedom. The internet has become a place for people of the same ideals to congregate and discuss issues. And this scares governments who are built on lies and secrecy. I don't think it is any coincidence that after a few turbulent years that have seen dictatorships overthrown and political allegiances questioned and broken, and all of a sudden SOPA, PIPA and ACTA come into play. And they say it is for us. To protect us from Piracy and to stop all of the illegal sharing on the internet. Even though it has been proven that these acts won't just affect the sharing of illegal material. They will also have a huge impact on the privacy of people on the internet. They way in which we all talk and share things such as the Kony video will become a lot harder. And all of a sudden control is back in the hands of the governments, and they are once again free to manipulate people and tell us how to live. How to talk. Tell us how we should think and act.

The things that all governments will do for power these days is startling. We live in a world where the internet should be used for progress, unity and enlightenment. And instead it is being used as a way to halt our progress and to keep us all in a state of control from which we can't break free. When I really think about it, I look at countries like Libya, Egypt and so on and think that their governments are corrupt and wrong. When in fact the only difference between dictatorship and democracy is that in a dictatorship they pretty much tell you that you have no rights. In a democracy they let you choose who you want to take your rights away ever few years.

On the button... +1

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Ummm did you just infer you disagree that governments Lie A LOT ? or that the war was nothing but an illegal one ? not sanctioned by the UN no WMD to justify it etc etc ? from what i can see its not yidboi thats brainwashed here.../QUOTE]

Sigh.. I infered that the poster doesn't know what he is talking about and I was trying to be short and simplistic in an effort not to derail the topic. But since that apparently left some with an impression not intended and the topic seems to have derailed into an America Bashing goober fest, I will go ahead and expand on your concerns. Government do not always lie, most lies thought to be made by government is pure ignorance and the inability to grasp a concept by the accusers and the lack of critical thinking on the part of the cheer leaders roaring the concept of a lie on.

The war in Iraq was not an illegal war, a sovereign nation does not need to get permision from any other entity to act in its defense. The armistice that ended the first Iraq war with the US was in violation and that alone gave us a right to return to war with them. You are right, the UN did not sanction the actual invasion of Iraq, but they did pass several ambiguous resolutions laying claim to if X conditions were not met, unspecified consequences would occur so it can be claimed to have sanctioned it from that if pressed.

As for the WMDs, no one in power actually believed Iraq had no WMDs at the time of the invasion. The claim was that the suspicion of them existing was not sound enough to warrant an invasion and that Iraq was contained and not a threat to anyone. Bush said that after 9/11 with countries backing, harboring, and supplying terrorist organizations, containment was not enough.

Now it is true that the WMDs were not found. However, that does nothing to claim it was a lie or that someone couldn't realistically believe they were there. The failure to find them means he was wrong, not that he was lieing. This is no different from someone doing a complex math problem and getting the final answer wrong because of incomplete information- it doe not mean they lied about the answer. A lie implies an attempt to deceive.

You looked at that Koni addendum yet btw ? and if so you still think its a simple innocent now 75 million hit you tube clip or something more ?

Yes, I looked at both the videos. They are mostly crap using the same faulty liberal thinking that makes Iraq about lies. Except it is mostly them being wrong. The oil in Uganda has been known about since before 2006, it has been developed by a UK company tallow or something like that and it was broken into 3 blocks with 2 of them auctioned off to France and China. This has already happened and is fact. If the Kony video was about oil, the three players involved in exploiting the oil have more then enough of a military to more then take Kony out, to defend against any invasion from the neighboring countries, or deal with just about anything else that would go that way.

It makes a comment about Gadafi and Libya being about oil- ignoring the fact that the only reason the US became friendly with him in the first place was because they turned all their chemical WMDs over and opened their entire WMD programs to international monitoring in exchange to lifting sanctions. Since the 1980's the US and international community has had sanctions on Libya because it sanctioned terrorism. It also ignored that the US did not support getting involved in Libya outside of a small faction and the President ended up using the same authorization for use of force that Bush used to invade Iraq in order to send air power into the area under the control of NATO.

The video goes on to make an out of context claim about the US and Iraq and draws the wrong conclusions about it while attempting to show Rumsfield shaking Saddam's hand as some sort of proof. I can go into that portion too if you want.

Yes, I have a serious problem taking something that makes absurdly incorrect assumptions about two things that are so well documented as a legitimate and insightful video response to anything. If anything, it is little more then a campaign by stupid people to remain stupid and pull anyone who is gullible along with them. And Truthfully, that saddens me, not because I think what they are doing it doing harm or anything, but because I do not like the pretentious modern day hippie idiots pushing the Stop Kony video who use emotions and exploit children themselves to extract money from the gullible and incompetent and attempt to take the entire US to yet again another police action where soldiers will die trying to get permission to shoot back at the people killing them. I really wanted to get behind the video the anti invisible kid videos hoping they had something insightful to offer. It is a big disappointment to find they are simply spouting un-researched rhetoric and opinions created by their lack of understanding or the real world around them.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

The videos were actually very good. You said I have been brainwashed but frankly, it seems like you have. And it seems pretty clear that your knowledge is probably coming from wikipedia.

Gaddafi and Libya was about oil. From almost the every perspective. In fact the only other reason that the US and the UK supported it was because of the Lockerbie bombing. And if you think otherwise, you probably need to sit and think about it very carefully. The US wanted Gaddafi dead until he had oil. And then they shook his hand and pretended like nothing had ever happened. In fact the only reason that Gaddafi would have given up his WMD materials was most likely so that he could sell his countries oil to the US and the UK. When the Libya protest began the price of oil spiked in the UK. It went up by like 8p per litre which is like 14 cents or something. I don't know what effect it had on oil prices in the US. But all of a sudden oil prices go up, and the UK and US along with most of the EU intervene. And why? Because our oil is in danger of course. And that is the only reason we went. And the reason we won't intervene in Syria. Because it isn't economically beneficial. And all of our countries lied and pretend it's because we care about what happens to the people. But as soon as Gaddafi is gone, we leave the country. And the only time we send anyone there is to talk to the new government to build relations AKA to let us buy their oil.

War always follows oil. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya more recently the possibility of war in Iran and the Falklands Islands. Where there is oil. I think it is worrying that the Kony 2012 campaign could give the US a reason to have a military presence in Uganda, where there is once again OIL. Because although Invisible Children only wants more advisers. How long until the US decides "Well we don't want our advisors on there without some protection." so they send in the soldiers and the tanks and set up base. And all of a sudden you have America in your country and they won't leave until "International relations are strengthened and the US believes that the people of Uganda are safe." Safe from who? Safe from America? Most likely. I have no doubt that not only would America kill off an entire country for oil. But so would most countries. The world is running out of oil pretty fast. And there is no more. When it's gone, it's gone. And then we will see the true nature of all of our countries.

Like they said at the end of the video, "it gives me the feeling that something big is coming." And I agree. Something big is coming. And no one knows what. But it seems like the whole world is deluding its self into thinking we are making progress, when in reality the whole world seems to be falling apart, brick by brick.

the topic seems to have derailed into an America Bashing goober fest

It hasn't really derailed. We're just discussing things that have happened in the past, and using that to try and understand what may happen in the future.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Yidboi where is your evidence that in the particular areas we are discussing the woods of Uganda or the rainforest areas , there is oil. . Please provide information backing this up or links. Furthermore I am not liking the way in which this debate is progressing. It seems it is turning into another us centric debate. As an African I would appreciate not discussing African issues from an american viewpoint.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

I'm not American. I'm discussing both countries from an outsiders view point. I'm from England

But as for the oil, I personally don't know the exact location of it. However the internet is filled with pages debating this.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207370.html

I did say before that I don't mean to cause offense to any Americans on here. But I should also add that I do not wish to offend any Africans either. Having said that, I am entitled to my own opinion and I will share it with people. I'm sorry if that causes offense, but I won't change my opinion because it hurts a few feelings.

Obviously the video above doesn't just talk about the oil. But it talks about whether the US involvement in Uganda is solely for the purpose of finding Joseph Kony. Or whether they will use what is in my mind a very good cause, to get "boots on the ground" as the men in the video said. I personally feel as though the US involvement may not be all it seems. It may not be for oil. It could indeed be for completely different reasons. I mean many places in Africa are already standing up against corrupt governments, so perhaps the US forces feel as though they need some sort of base to police the country from to make sure it does not become as unstable as places in the Middle East. I personally believe the African people have the right to police themselves. There is no need for any foreign meddling unless the African people ask for it. Africa is a strong country that has always coped with it's own problems. In fact I'd say that a huge number of the problems in Africa were actually caused by interference from the western world, and by constantly trying to fix things, we are in fact making them worse. Africa is not incapable, you would most likely agree with this. So I see no reason why any of our countries from the western governments should feel the need to meddle in the political affairs. And by this I do not mean all of the charities should leave, because they do good work to help those who need it. And I believe Invisible Children is one of the good ones. The early warning systems that they have helped to build are fantastic for those living in the affected areas. I am however not so supportive of the military intervention that seems like it could be coming if the people call for it. I think advisers are fine, as long as they are advisers and not just a scouting party to test out whether US forces would be welcome.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Ok but still its from an american point of view. Anyway can you provide links to this.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

I just did, sorry I pressed post before I had even finished the text. My bad.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

The videos were actually very good. You said I have been brainwashed but frankly, it seems like you have. And it seems pretty clear that your knowledge is probably coming from wikipedia.

Yeah, those videos are really good. Almost like they were profesionally made in order to sway the minds of the gullible. I'm also not sure what wikipedia has to do with it, but if it agrees with me, then I would say that is one more thing against you.

Gaddafi and Libya was about oil. From almost the every perspective. In fact the only other reason that the US and the UK supported it was because of the Lockerbie bombing. And if you think otherwise, you probably need to sit and think about it very carefully. The US wanted Gaddafi dead until he had oil. And then they shook his hand and pretended like nothing had ever happened. In fact the only reason that Gaddafi would have given up his WMD materials was most likely so that he could sell his countries oil to the US and the UK.

You are misguided and obviously not well thought out opinion as if it were fact. None of the sanctions against Libya was loosened or removed until such time he turned his WMDs over and opened them for inspection. IF we wanted him dead, we would have just killed him plain and simple. We dropped bombs on his military compounds in the 1980s and nothing in their arsenal stopped us from doing it again. In fact, that is why NATO wanted to use US air power- they knew we could get in with very little chance of loosing a fighter plane or bomber.

As for Lybia's oil, it was already being sold to Europe. It isn't some new find or anything. Stop being a Tool.

When the Libya protest began the price of oil spiked in the UK. It went up by like 8p per litre which is like 14 cents or something. I don't know what effect it had on oil prices in the US. But all of a sudden oil prices go up, and the UK and US along with most of the EU intervene. And why? Because our oil is in danger of course. And that is the only reason we went. And the reason we won't intervene in Syria. Because it isn't economically beneficial. And all of our countries lied and pretend it's because we care about what happens to the people. But as soon as Gaddafi is gone, we leave the country. And the only time we send anyone there is to talk to the new government to build relations AKA to let us buy their oil.

The amount of oil in Libya is insignificant to the US. The reason it spiked in Europe is because they purchased it but it found a new supply source almost overnight. The same can be said for Syria although libiya's exports are almost 10 times as much as Syria's. In fact, the biggest argument against the US involvement made by US politicians which surprisingly they were not partisan over it, was that the US has no self interest in Libya or Syria. So say what you want about Europe, you are probably wrong there too, but don't speak for the US in crap you know nothing about.

War always follows oil. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya more recently the possibility of war in Iran and the Falklands Islands. Where there is oil.

You forgot Korea, panama, and Vietnam. But of course your oil conspiracy doesn't look as well laid out when you add those significant situations to the mix.

I think it is worrying that the Kony 2012 campaign could give the US a reason to have a military presence in Uganda, where there is once again OIL. Because although Invisible Children only wants more advisers. How long until the US decides "Well we don't want our advisors on there without some protection." so they send in the soldiers and the tanks and set up base.

And this is what makes you appear batcrap crazy pushing your ill thought out ideology. All the oil in uganda is already spoken for by the UK, France, and China. Do you really see the US going into Uganda and risking a war with England, France, and China? IF you can in some way in order to force your thinking, then please tell me why the US doesn't just attack china or France or England and get it over with? Your entire logic breaks down there because if it is as you say, then every reason you give for the US not attacking any of those countries directly can be applied to them willingly risking war with them by going to Uganda and take the oil they already purchased rights to.

And all of a sudden you have America in your country and they won't leave until "International relations are strengthened and the US believes that the people of Uganda are safe." Safe from who? Safe from America? Most likely. I have no doubt that not only would America kill off an entire country for oil. But so would most countries. The world is running out of oil pretty fast. And there is no more. When it's gone, it's gone. And then we will see the true nature of all of our countries.

More garbage out based on garbage in reasoning.

Like they said at the end of the video, "it gives me the feeling that something big is coming." And I agree. Something big is coming. And no one knows what. But it seems like the whole world is deluding its self into thinking we are making progress, when in reality the whole world seems to be falling apart, brick by brick.

Yeah, the sky is falling. The sky is falling. the sky is falling and it will fall faster if a bad person it taken off the streets. Maybe you and Newton should get together and stand under an apply tree. At least something productive and reproducible came from him drawing conclusions. Perhaps he will give you some lessons.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Mr Sumdum.

Everything for the last 20 years or more and going forward has been and will be about resources and the securing of. A nation ungoverned by such as Gaddaffi will not nationalise their resources. So yes it was about the oil and more importantly Libya's intention to start a gold for oil trading platform, coincidently the same thing as Hussain was intending in Iraq just before invasion... the petrodollar is a large part of the heart of the american reserve currency status.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.

“The US have denied self-determination to Africans inside the US, so we are not surprised by anything the US would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former US Congresswoman.

The UK’s gold is kept in a secure vault somewhere in the depths of the Bank of England. As in most developed countries, there is not enough to go around.

But that is not the case in countries like Libya and many of the Gulf States.
A gold dinar would have given oil-rich African and Middle Eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy-hungry customers and say: “Sorry, the price has gone up, and we want gold.”

Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.Well we got the Libyan gold under lock and key and posession is 9/10 ths of the law. I doubt Libya will be seeing their gold anytime soon.

This is a huge problem regarding resources and population growth....

If you have the time please get acquainted with this video below to understand simple arithmetic and the coming problems it reveals... this class was done back in the late 90's and it simply puts what is happening into perspective. You cannot ignore the facts and this is the very best ive found explaining how and why positioning for resources is all that really matters now. There are 8 parts so ive only posted the first. If you are someone who likes knowledge and facts you will love this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[DeletedUser17143]

Yeah, those videos are really good. Almost like they were profesionally made in order to sway the minds of the gullible. I'm also not sure what wikipedia has to do with it, but if it agrees with me, then I would say that is one more thing against you.

It means that wikipedia is an unreliable source, and if you are basing your knowledge only on what you find there, then you should probably take a little longer to browse the web and actually search for the places that this information comes from. It's amazing how many public biased reports actually make up the bulk of the information.

As for Lybia's oil, it was already being sold to Europe. It isn't some new find or anything. Stop being a Tool.

The amount of oil in Libya is insignificant to the US. The reason it spiked in Europe is because they purchased it but it found a new supply source almost overnight. The same can be said for Syria although libiya's exports are almost 10 times as much as Syria's. In fact, the biggest argument against the US involvement made by US politicians which surprisingly they were not partisan over it, was that the US has no self interest in Libya or Syria. So say what you want about Europe, you are probably wrong there too, but don't speak for the US in crap you know nothing about.

As it happens, it was not. In fact before Gaddafi was even found all of the countries around the world knew that the table was open to fresh bids for the oil. Because of the nature in which the government was unhinged, there was nothing to say that a new government of Libya would need to honour the arrangements of the past. Fortunately for Europe they have, and so we can begin to rely more on them again once the oil has returned to the same output as it was before the war.

You forgot Korea, panama, and Vietnam. But of course your oil conspiracy doesn't look as well laid out when you add those significant situations to the mix.

Seeing as Korea and Vietnam were both part of the Cold War it is obvious that they had nothing to do with oil. And Panama was more to do with the potential risk to American life. But none of these are relevant as they occurred way before oil began to peak. around 30 years at minimum in fact. So I see no reason as to why they would apply in a conversation about modern military history which has been dominated by only protecting countries who impact us (not US, us) economically.

And this is what makes you appear batcrap crazy pushing your ill thought out ideology. All the oil in uganda is already spoken for by the UK, France, and China. Do you really see the US going into Uganda and risking a war with England, France, and China? IF you can in some way in order to force your thinking, then please tell me why the US doesn't just attack china or France or England and get it over with? Your entire logic breaks down there because if it is as you say, then every reason you give for the US not attacking any of those countries directly can be applied to them willingly risking war with them by going to Uganda and take the oil they already purchased rights to.

The US won't attack any of these countries because they would never win. Not in a million years. The only way they could possibly win is through nuclear weapons. And seeing as Europe and China have nuclear weapons of their own, American would never risk it. So that would be what is stopping them attacking. Also if you read one of my previous posts to Jakkals you will see that I just said the US involvement could be for something other than oil. And that I just highly doubt that they are willing to send advisers for Kony alone. I really hope they have. But I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if there were other motives.

Yeah, the sky is falling. The sky is falling. the sky is falling and it will fall faster if a bad person it taken off the streets. Maybe you and Newton should get together and stand under an apply tree. At least something productive and reproducible came from him drawing conclusions. Perhaps he will give you some lessons.

Have you been sleeping in a cave for the last 10 years or so. Everything about the world is slowly caving in. Governments are trying to control people in way that we shouldn't be controlled. Many countries in the world are starving and becoming unable to support themselves financially. There are conflicts all over the globe in countries that are unstable enough as it is. More countries want access to nuclear weapons and the west is trying its best to control them. There is an obvious divide developing between the east and the west and a lot of countries are at each others throats for a whole host of different reasons. Not to mention the fact that the numbers of natural resources on the planet are falling quicker than ever whilst the consumption rises dramatically every year. We are even running out of Helium. Yes the element. Scientist believe we will actually run out in 25 to 30 years. I could also go on to add that global warming is quickly destroying the world. We have built a world that is unsustainable if we continue to live as we do. So I think I am justified in saying that the world is falling apart brick by brick.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

It means that wikipedia is an unreliable source, and if you are basing your knowledge only on what you find there, then you should probably take a little longer to browse the web and actually search for the places that this information comes from. It's amazing how many public biased reports actually make up the bulk of the information.

Then it would also mean you are wrong and perhaps wikipedia is right. I did not base my comments on wikipedia at all. Your finding a connection to them only means that a one more set of people think you are wrong too.

As it happens, it was not. In fact before Gaddafi was even found all of the countries around the world knew that the table was open to fresh bids for the oil. Because of the nature in which the government was unhinged, there was nothing to say that a new government of Libya would need to honour the arrangements of the past. Fortunately for Europe they have, and so we can begin to rely more on them again once the oil has returned to the same output as it was before the war.

You can say the sun comes up in the morning because people use oil. some people might think they need to continue using oil so the sun will always rise in the morning. It does not make it true though. If you are going to argue that Europe got involved because of oil, go right ahead, but the US petroleum imports from libya were never more then 3% of Libya's total exports. And that even dropped in 2010 before the entire uprising.

Seeing as Korea and Vietnam were both part of the Cold War it is obvious that they had nothing to do with oil. And Panama was more to do with the potential risk to American life. But none of these are relevant as they occurred way before oil began to peak. around 30 years at minimum in fact. So I see no reason as to why they would apply in a conversation about modern military history which has been dominated by only protecting countries who impact us (not US, us) economically.

oil has not peaked. I can see this is going to be another one of those "we are running out" conversations based on false logic. Sigh, I have already wasted more time on you then it is worth, and you bring this up making me feel like it is wasted so much more. But yes, economic stabilization is a valid reason to invade a country.

The US won't attack any of these countries because they would never win. Not in a million years. The only way they could possibly win is through nuclear weapons. And seeing as Europe and China have nuclear weapons of their own, American would never risk it. So that would be what is stopping them attacking. Also if you read one of my previous posts to Jakkals you will see that I just said the US involvement could be for something other than oil. And that I just highly doubt that they are willing to send advisers for Kony alone. I really hope they have. But I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if there were other motives.

Well golly gee.. the US wouldn't risk attacking one of those countries but is willing to risk war with them by getting involved in politicking in the internal discourse of a nation in an effort to screw those other countries out of their oil. Then after how many posts trying to get you to see how silly that is, you admit to someone else that the US might not be following your evil fallacy.

Have you been sleeping in a cave for the last 10 years or so. Everything about the world is slowly caving in. Governments are trying to control people in way that we shouldn't be controlled. Many countries in the world are starving and becoming unable to support themselves financially. There are conflicts all over the globe in countries that are unstable enough as it is. More countries want access to nuclear weapons and the west is trying its best to control them. There is an obvious divide developing between the east and the west and a lot of countries are at each others throats for a whole host of different reasons. Not to mention the fact that the numbers of natural resources on the planet are falling quicker than ever whilst the consumption rises dramatically every year. We are even running out of Helium. Yes the element. Scientist believe we will actually run out in 25 to 30 years. I could also go on to add that global warming is quickly destroying the world. We have built a world that is unsustainable if we continue to live as we do. So I think I am justified in saying that the world is falling apart brick by brick.

lol.. I have not been ignoring it. But it is nice of your to point out a lot of reasons other then oil that countries might be doing something. In the case of the US and Kony, it is pandering for votes. As long as "the people" pretend to support it, the politicians will think it is necessary to do something in order to save their cushy job next election. The people behind the video seem to be the ultra sponge type who are planning on keeping this going forever so they will have a nice salary and get to travel a lot. They might have been emotionally tricked in much the same way Nigerian scamers are still effective but I do not think it has anything at all to do with Uganda's oil. Nothing presented so far comes close to saying it is outside of someone's wild imagination.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

oil has not peaked. I can see this is going to be another one of those "we are running out" conversations based on false logic. Sigh, I have already wasted more time on you then it is worth, and you bring this up making me feel like it is wasted so much more. But yes, economic stabilization is a valid reason to invade a country.

General Concepts

Production and historical production are facts.
Reserves are an opinion.
Undiscovered resources are a fantasy.

Fact: World oil production was at an all-time high in 2005.

The following countries' oil production was at an all-time high in 2005:

China (3.63 million BOPD)
United Arab Emirates (2.45 million BOPD)
Nigeria (2.41 million BOPD)
Angola (1.24 million BOPD)
Qatar (798,000 BOPD)
Canada (2.37 million BOPD in 2005) and Kazakhstan (994,000 BOPD in 2005) were slighly down from 2004, but are expected to increase in 2006.

A brief history of oil production peaks

Fact: Nearly all of the world's largest oilfields are in decline.

Oklahoma peaked in 1927 at about 700,000 BOPD; now it is 173,000 BOPD.
The US peaked in 1970 at 9.66 million BOPD; in 2005 it was 5.18 million BOPD.
Libya peaked in 1970 at 3.32 million BOPD; in 2005 it was 1.64 million BOPD.
Kuwait peaked in 1972 at 3.28 million BOPD; in 2005 it was 2.13 million BOPD.
Iran peaked in 1974 at 6.03 million BOPD; in 2005 it was 3.89 million BOPD.
Saudi Arabia peaked in 1981 at 9.64 million BOPD; in 2005 it was 9.06 million BOPD.
Russia peaked in 1983 at about 11.5 million BOPD; in 2005 it was 9.19 million BOPD.
Alaska peaked in 1988 at 2.14 million BOPD; now it is 803,000 BOPD.
Mexico peaked in 2004 at 3.38 million BOPD; in 2005 it produced 3.33 million BOPD
Malaysia peaked in 2004 at 859,000 BOPD; in 2005 it produced 770,000 BOPD

Only one supergiant (>5 billion barrels recoverable) field has been found since 1980.
That field (Kashagan) is located on a geologic structure that was identified prior to 1980, but was not drilled until 2000 because of sea ice conditions.
The prospects for finding any more are limited, and mostly in the Arctic offshore.

By any statistical measure, the geographical concentration of oil production is decreasing.
The proportion of world oil production coming from the Middle East peaked in 1974.
World production growth has come from a growing number of smaller fields.
Many new countries, such as Mauritania, Chad and Equatorial Guinea have become oil producers. As can be seen in the graph above

I can see you don't understand what "peak" means. Primary recovery "peaks" have been reached. Primary recovery usually draws about 10 percent of the oil in a reservoir. Secondary recovery can remove an additional 20 to 40 percent of the oil. In this process, water or gases are pumped into the reservoir to repressurize the oil. So after these two methods of drilling oil are exhausted, there is still as much as 50 percent of the oil left in the reservoir.After the first two stages are spent, oil companies generally cap the reservoir, leaving the remaining oil in reserve. But why don't they just recover it all ? The answer is simple economics.

Tertiary recovery is expensive. With oil at its current price, it's simply not economically wise for oil companies to tap these harder-to-exploit resources. The price for oil hasn't reached the level where companies will make enough money exploiting resources in places like the Arctic and deep ocean, or to roll out the more expensive technology for enhanced oil recovery.
But when easily accessed oil dries up, the price of oil will increase, since there will be less of it.

All this with current demand if there is a 0% increase in demand. And thats not taking into account population growth and resulting demand from industry.

Exponential is the word you need to understand because that's what we have been practising and it is 100% unsustainable from an non-renewable resource.

The US military warned late 2010 that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world.

Which just goes to show people would rather believe a convenient lie than an uncomfortable truth.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

I'm so glad you took this one because I really couldn't be bothered to waste my breath on sumdumass any longer.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

The most striking thing on the BP graph is the bright blue band in consumption - Asia Pacific... little production and very fast growing consumption... in fact the gap is so wide the consumption back at the 1970s is barely the production right now.... thats 40 years Asia has been consuming vastly more than she produces. Given that India and China have only really come "online" for demand in the last 15 years or so it should give you an idea of what the next 10 year graph will look like.

Its definitely a problem.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

It really is. Until either Hydrogen power or Fission power become well developed enough to be used on a mass scale, we are pretty much screwed. Our whole world has been built to function on the things we have so little of, and no way of recreating. I suppose it's only now that we see this, before it seemed like the greatest idea ever. Kind of like in that video you posted. Growth always looks good and harmless. But that steady growth has come back to bite us in the ass again. Whilst all of these countries have found oil, they have slowly become more reliant on it. Unfortunately as we use it, the reserves actually decrease. Which isn't ideal.

The only clear way forward in my opinion is Fission and Hydrogen power at the moment. Hopefully before we run out of oil. It would be nice if in the future things like Hydrogen power could do for oil what oil did for the horse. Render it less necessary, but it will still stick around for the odd spot of work and a lot of recreation such as Motorsport. Obviously there is enough oil there to last a very long time if we can reduce how much we use it. But all the countries around the world seem to be doing is saying "Well how about we aim to reduce out use of oil to a rise of 3% per year for the next 10 years". And we both know what happens when you start adding up those little raises of 3% per year. They all of a sudden aren't so little.

So in conclusion, I guess you could say we're well and truly in deep trouble.