Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Oil Should Cost $144 a Barrel »
Posted By bubba2 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsIn a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden said the real price of a barrel of oil should be $144 a barrel (10 years ago, a barrel of oil was $11). Also, One month after 9/11, the New York Times warned that among the misguided decisions that would put oil supplies at risk would be that the United States attacks Iraq.
Read Full Story at thinkprogress.org »
554 Views Share Story 30 Comments Report
Submitted By:
bubba2
I AM OUTTA here! The new format STILL S-U-C-K-S! Propeller has NO idea what "spam" is (or is not) and I am tired of dealing ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 94 (view all)
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer27 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are so deluded and such a loser, because you really have absolutely NO CLUE what is really going on.
The PRIMARY REASON that oil prices are so high is Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq! The fact that you don't even get that speaks VOLUMES about your level of ignorance.
Just for starters, the REPUBLICANS controlled Congress during Clinton's administration, and the REPUBLICANS controlled Congress until January of 2007 - but the Democratic majority is VERY slim.
In fact, the Filibuster -- something that the REPUBLICANS railed against during their tenure in the majority and something THEY threatened to do away with ("nuclear option") -- has been used by the REPUBLICANS at least 72 TIMES since January 2007.
Republicans - the poster children for HYPOCRISY and for our current economic disasters.
If there will be any "ire" at the polls in November, it will be the 78% that disapprove of Bush and will thus vote in Obama as the next President.
Reply-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republicans have actually set a record for the most use of the filibuster in this year and the year isn't even over. It was just a few years ago when they where railing against Democrats for using filibusters but I guess it's ok now.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
nunzio19461 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve)covers an area of over 19,000,000 acres. The proposed area for drilling in ANWR is a tiny, little area of less than 2,000 acres. The 2,000 acres is located in an unvisited, area far from the scenic vistas one usually shows people when trying to convince everyone that drilling is not the solution. To say drilling is not solution to a lack of oil is like saying eating is not the answer to hunger.
Reply-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 4 months ago
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"To say drilling is not solution to a lack of oil is like saying eating is not the answer to hunger."
horrible analogy since we're adicted to oil but we don't NEED it, like we need food.
the answer to an addiction that's destructive in the long run on many levels is NOT to find a new source to feed the addiction, especailly if that new source to feed our addiction will take many years and give us next to nothing.
developing alternatives is the answer. get used to it. its inevitable. you can't escape it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
nunzio19461 year, 4 months ago
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am all for ANWR drilling, and the sooner the better. However, it would only add 200,000 gallons/day - a drop in the bucket (pardon the pun).
But it would be American oil, which would mean less foreign oil. That would be a good thing.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Does this mean that Bin Laden would like to see oil kept at $144/barrel where it should be and not allowed to go up further? Ny Times predicted wrong. High oil prices has to do with supply and demand, with countries that 10 years ago didn't consume much oil now demanding huge amounts of it, and supply peaked out, and commodities speculation based on that. If the U.S. announced an all out green light to drill offshore and ANWR, build new refineries, shale oil, gas from coal, nuclear power plants and other alternatives the price of oil would plummet immediately. That would happen despite the lead time necessary to develop these huge projects.
Reply -
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good Post Bubba2. I haven't seen any comment about all the oil wells that are capped off. There are more in the United States capped off ( my guess ) than there are producing.
Are all the shallow wells up and running now? I'll bet they are not> You see the actual price of oil is not $144.
Try ro actually sell oil for that. You would get laughed out of the office.
South Africa has been living off coal since the 30's.
American has enough coal in reserve to supply today's energy consumption for the next 1000 years.
Know who owns the coal that is not being mined?
If you guessed Oil companies you would be right.
But for options there is Natural Gas, Wind, Solar, Goethermal,Nuclear, and tidal to go with Coal, Oil, and don't forget the synthetics.
Reply -
Neutral
fsev411 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reduced consumption may not do the trick either. Just read that gas consumption in Louisiana has dropped 10% in the past year causing budget problems for their Transportation Dept. Likewise in Mississippi and in Florida toll roads are in the red because of reduced usage. Read last week about millions of miles less highway travel in Calif recently. Haven't seen any drop in gas prices lately. And I certainly haven't read where oil companies are expecting any drop in their record profits. Our prices just spiked at 4.19 and up just before the holiday weekend. Imagine that!
Reply -
-
Neutral
bamababy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since WE supposedly DO NOT KNOW where Bin Laden is,why assume he's running around in a dark cave?Perhaps he's holed up in some nice cushi digs compliments of GWB &CO. the easily distracted Mr. Bush looked away from the prize long enough for him to make his escape,or perhaps that was the whole point of looking away.So much deception in this administration it's hard to say what is real and what isn't.If any of it was even real to sart with.Yes,I KNOW 9/11 actually happened, why? Another point,alternative fuels are very viable and corn is NOT the answer. Octane can be made from other fossil fuels such as coal, and there is enough of that around to sustain us for a long while. Sugar Cane is also a cleaner and efficient alternative especially to corn.We have enough natural resources of our own including oil,our dependency upon all the foreign resources has to stop.Shock and Awe, yeah right,let me know when it happens coz I'm still waiting along with the rest of the world.Revolution!!
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
TimWall1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This jerk, our President, George W. Bush, is supported by a foolish chorus chanting, "We can have all the oil we want. Just drill for it." They've forgotten that this jerk of theirs, our President, George W. Bush lost $350 million drilling for oil. "It's so easy, any fool can do it!" Makes me SO proud of us, and of our democratic achievements. How did we come so to abuse a system of government designed so carefully by men of such education, intelligence and character? We did it by devaluing education, deriding intelligence and redefining character as pietism.
Reply -
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Subaru WRX (another great car)
1992 - 2579 lbs
2006 - 3140 lbs
Had enough yet? Every car I've researched I've posted upon finding the information. I've posted them in the order I found information; none are omitted. Every car has gained weight!
Reply-
Neutral
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At least in the case of the Subaru WRX you're jumping from specs about the Japanese model for 1992to specs of the US model in 2006. This provides an inaccurate weight gain as the American WRX always weighed more. In 2002 the Japanese WRX weighed 2976lbs., while the American WRX weighed 3085 lbs.
The WRX was not sold in America until March of 2001 when it's initial weight was 3085 lbs.
The weight went up in 2006 to 3140 lbs. with the introduction of a 2.5 liter engine, replacing the original 2.0 liter engine and providing greater horsepower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Impreza_WRX...
Reply -
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't like new cars? Get an old one. My 1967 Ford Mustang weighs 2900lbs., has no safety features, can get 21mpg, and can hit 140 mph. A 1965 Ford Mustang weighs 2600 lbs. Forget listening to the radio, forget about power seats, power windows, and insurance. If you get in a wreck you are dead.
Reply -
-
-
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Healthcare bill clears parliamentary hurdle in House
Afghanistan government accuses foreign officials of interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.