Have we forgotten about fuel prices?

[Christ]

Semantics.

The use of the word "For" doesn't strictly imply that something is done solely in tune with a specific purpose, rather that it was done with that purpose in mind, and could have been precluded with other goals as well.

The fact that you've openly admitted that oil may have been a factor in determining whether or not at least two wars throughout history would have occurred basically says that you understand this, but are overlooking it in an attempt to prove that you know something on the subject.

[MadisonMPG]

**** man, it's all teh aliens man.
9/11 was an inside job.
Ron Burgundy shot Hitler.
Michael Jackson wasn't even at Neverland ranch.
Abe Lincoln is still hiding in the theatre.
Kennedy dodged the bullet.

[Christ]

And Elvis just went home...

[Wonderboy]

O.J. Killed Elvis.

[99metro]

I figure I'm paying the equivalent of $1.47 for gasoline so the prices don't mean a whole lot to me. But I have noticed people acting like they need to be first to cross the finish line. Not a whole lot of conserving going on. A lot of rich people, I suppose.

[zjrog]

Originally Posted by Christ

So.. umm.. what was Desert Storm (burning oil fields...) and the first Iraqi war... (burning oil fields...) and...

You can't honestly say that none of these battles, or others through history, had anything to do with oil or the control of resources without making yourself look a fool in the eyes of the entire world.

While speaking of making a fool, Desert Storm WAS the first Iraqi war...

[zjrog]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That was due to Saddam Hussein's desire for conquest. Now he might not have been blind to the fact tha Kuwait had those oil wells, and that (if his conquest had been successful) he could use the revenue from them to fund further conquests, but the war wasn't FOR the oil.

There's a big difference between saying that oil is not a factor at all, and saying that the war is FOR the oil, or primarily about oil. Claiming that it is makes you look as though you're ignorant of fourteen centuries of history, Middle Eastern politics of the last half century, and the tenets of one of the world's major religions.

Saddam was acutely aware of the oil in Kuwait, control of those oil fields was the express reason for crossing into Kuwait...

And I'll choose to exclude myself from the second quote, other than to agree with your quote.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by 99metro

But I have noticed people acting like they need to be first to cross the finish line. Not a whole lot of conserving going on. A lot of rich people, I suppose.

They may or may not be rich, but I'll go with Frank Lee and call them stoopid. That's probably the best word for someone who does not want to understand or obey the laws of nature. Pity.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Christ

Semantics.

The use of the word "For" doesn't strictly imply that something is done solely in tune with a specific purpose...

Yes, semantics. Semantics - the study of words and their meanings - is a very important subject, you know. Indeed, what could be more important, in any conversation, than to try to convey your intended meaning accurately?

Now no doubt the two of us could (in some more appropriate forum) have a reasoned discussion about the nuances of oil's involvement in various wars, but what the "This war's for oil!" brigade means (semantically!) by that statement is that it's all about evil capitalistic American corporate interests starting wars for the sole & exclusive purpose of stealing oil resources from the completely virtuous & innocent peasants of some distant land - and never mind about those fourteen centuries of history, because that's "so fifteen minutes ago" :-)

[zjrog]

X2^^^ Dare I venture even, a little chuckle?