So. Is it about oil or NOT?

[akarunway 1]

Talk about flip flopping>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html?referrer=email>AndClinton got a blowjob and Tony Blair is an asshole too!

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[billvon 3,120]

Oh, I think even the smarter conservatives realized it was at least partly about control of oil in that region. They just couldn't sell the war that way, so they lied about it. At this point they need reasons to garner support for the war more than they need to be seen as honest, so expect more and more war supporters to start using the oil angle. "You really want to pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas? Then vote for the democrats!"

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Oh, I think even the smarter conservatives realized it was at least partly about control of oil in that region. They just couldn't sell the war that way, so they lied about it. At this point they need reasons to garner support for the war more than they need to be seen as honest, so expect more and more war supporters to start using the oil angle. "You really want to pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas? Then vote for the democrats!"

I already did. Straight demo ticket. Like it's gonna make a difference. And if my vote evn gets counted

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[StreetScooby 5]

If it was about the oil, we would own the oil. QED.

We are all engines of karma

[sundevil777 102]

As StreetScooby indicated, the assertion that "it is about oil" implies that the US would own the oil, operate the wells, collect the revenue. I don't know of any countries where that is the case. So, in that sense, it is definitely not about the oil.

However, our enemies have explicitly stated their desire to ruin the economies of the free world. I think it appropriate for the president to prevent that. The statements in the article you linked are consistent with that. I favor a policy to plan for a date certain where the US would no longer buy oil from certain countries. Take away their weapon before they use it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If it was about the oil, we would own the oil. QED.

The goal is not to own the oil; the goal is to see to it that the oil is traded for US dollars. If we do not artificially prop up the international demand for dollars we cannot sustain our trade deficit. We have a tendency to dislike any oil exporting country that doesn't want to trade oil for dollars. Iraq was one of those countries. Iran is another.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The goal is not to own the oil; the goal is to see to it that the oil is traded for US dollars. If we do not artificially prop up the international demand for dollars we cannot sustain our trade deficit. We have a tendency to dislike any oil exporting country that doesn't want to trade oil for dollars. Iraq was one of those countries. Iran is another.

You're still a student. The world markets are much deeper than your reply connotes. Even if oil started to trade in Euros, the FX rates would change appropriately.

Do you have any idea why the US Govt Bond is the benchmark for riskless securites? Because we have more aircraft carriers, etc., than anyone. The only thing that can possibly change that is an aggressive invasion from outer space. And even then, US Govt Bonds would still be the benchmark for the rest of our lives.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

> If it was about the oil, we would own the oil. QED.

That's like saying "if we wanted canadian lumber, we would own canada." We don't want canada, just their lumber. Likewise, we don't want the oil wells; our government doesn't currently own _any_ oil wells. We just want US companies to have access to those wells - and now they do.

[billvon 3,120]

>Because we have more aircraft carriers, etc., than anyone. The only thing
>that can possibly change that is an aggressive invasion from outer space.

I imagine Rome thought the same thing. Who could possibly conquer the Roman Empire? Martians?

Everything works in cycles. The US is currently on a high part of its power swing. But there was a time before the US was a world power, and there will be a time that the US is no longer a world power. And it won't be the end of the world, just the same sort of change that we've seen in our civilization for the past 4000 years.

[StreetScooby 5]

What's your point, right here and now? BTW, if you're using the Romans as a basis for comparison we have at least another 700 years to go, and probably more. We have lots of room to increase whatever "nastiness" the world perceives in us. I personally think we should start exploring that space.

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

The goal is not to own the oil; the goal is to see to it that the oil is traded for US dollars. If we do not artificially prop up the international demand for dollars we cannot sustain our trade deficit. We have a tendency to dislike any oil exporting country that doesn't want to trade oil for dollars. Iraq was one of those countries. Iran is another.

You're still a student. The world markets are much deeper than your reply connotes. Even if oil started to trade in Euros, the FX rates would change appropriately.

.

Oh, the old "appeal to authority" argument.

He may be a student, but a lot of more senior economists think the same thing.

One example out of very many, chosen fairly at random.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>BTW, if you're using the Romans as a basis for comparison we have
>at least another 700 years to go . . .

That may well be true - if we don't screw it up. Rome ended for many reasons; chief among them was over-extension of their military, an economy based on dilution of currency to create new currency, an ignorance of the effects of pollution and a feeling of invincibility that led them to discount the need to defend their cities. Good thing we're not making any of those mistakes!

> We have lots of room to increase whatever "nastiness" the world
>perceives in us. I personally think we should start exploring that space. '

That would fall neatly under the heading of "screwing it up." The world has shown it can take care of countries who start excelling at nastiness.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

One example out of very many, chosen fairly at random.

I'll say it again...

Quote

The world markets are much deeper than your reply connotes. Even if oil started to trade in Euros, the FX rates would change appropriately.

Did you read it this time?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>BTW, if you're using the Romans as a basis for comparison we have
>at least another 700 years to go . . .

That may well be true - if we don't screw it up. Rome ended for many reasons; chief among them was over-extension of their military, an economy based on dilution of currency to create new currency, an ignorance of the effects of pollution and a feeling of invincibility that led them to discount the need to defend their cities. Good thing we're not making any of those mistakes!

So, based upon your reply, we have a long way to go. And you're right, we shouldn't blow it, especially by giving it away. Bottom line, the world is not a nice place full of rational people. I'm not sure you realize that.

Quote

> We have lots of room to increase whatever "nastiness" the world
>perceives in us. I personally think we should start exploring that space. '

That would fall neatly under the heading of "screwing it up." The world has shown it can take care of countries who start excelling at nastiness.

I agree with you here. But, there's room for us to wiggle here, at least for the next several hundred years, if we have to. It's just a question of will.

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

One example out of very many, chosen fairly at random.

I'll say it again...

Quote

The world markets are much deeper than your reply connotes. Even if oil started to trade in Euros, the FX rates would change appropriately.

Did you read it this time?

I think you missed the point. Well, I know you missed the point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I thik you missed the point. Well, I know you missed the point.

You're the professor, the one who supposedly has the communication skills. I personally think you didn't clearly communicate your point.

I'll give you another try - exactly what was your point?

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,151]

My first point was that appeal to authority is never a good argument.

My 2nd point was illustrated in the link I posted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

My first point was that appeal to authority is never a good argument

What authority was being appealed to? I have never done that. Still have my "Question Authority" button in my sock drawer.

Quote

My 2nd point was illustrated in the link I posted.

I read your link. That's old news, and it's wrong. You and your kindred spirits should spend some time in the real world. Our financial markets are MUCH deeper than that.

So, I'm still missing your point. I think you're throwing data out to just stir the pot. Maybe that's the best you can do. www.weather.com

My point is - it's NOT about the oil. If it was about the oil, we'd own the oil. QED.

We are all engines of karma

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Do you have any idea why the US Govt Bond is the benchmark for riskless securites? Because we have more aircraft carriers, etc., than anyone.

And what do we do with those aircraft carriers?

We make sure we have an oil backed currency.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Pubwoof 0]

How about this for an argument; if it was not about the oil, Bush wouldn't have just said that it was.

The point about oil isn't what the going wholesale price is going to be at any given time, but rather who gets to be the middle-men (read profit makers) and who gets to control the oil in such an arrangement. Under Saddam, the Iraqi oil system was entirely nationalized. Part of what was dictated to the Iraqis by the Paul Bremer provisional authority was a Saudi-style arrangement whereby the oilfields themselves remained Iraqi, but only under what were called "production sharing agreements" where everything was to be run by international oil companies (all the big names you've heard of) who all get to take a fat cut of the profits that used to stay with Iraq and their business partners. For those of you who never understood why Russia in particular, and also China, seemed to be so unthrilled with our invasion, it has a lot to do with the above.

This doesn't only extend to oil, which happens to be the biggest chunk of booty being looted by Bush and friends, but to virtually all Iraqi industries. The port facilities in Um Qasr initially went to a British corporation (at least until it was re-no-bidded to another corporate supporter of Bush), and some smaller bits and pieces went to some of our less involved coalition partners (part of their payoff for being amongst the "willing"). Of course, these new custodians of Iraqi wealth insisted on doing so to line their own pockets, which led to US-style "cost cutting" firings across the country which further added to the numbers of pissed-off Iraqis with nothing better to do than to learn the ways of the IED. I don't mean to blaspheme by suggesting that our being greedy bastards has anything to do with our current suffering, but all of these Iraqis trying to kill us once had jobs under Saddam whether you like hearing that or not.

Bush himself has repeatedly said that one of our main goals in the rebuilding of Iraq was to turn it into a "free-market" economy, which pretty much means corporations calling all the shots. If you don't believe this, look up CPA order #39. In violation of international and US law, it required the following: full privatization of all that which used to be owned/ran by the Iraqi government, 100% foreign ownership of virtually everything aside from the underlying mineral rights of Iraqi oil, that none of the profits made by these foreign corporations could be taxed (ie. at all shared with Iraq), AND that this arrangement would last for forty years unless these corporations decided to "renew" their interests. If you add it all together, it is nothing other than neo-colonial pillaging for the benefit of rich foreign corporations (mostly US supporters of Bush). Is this at all moral? Why does Bush think we have the right to do this?

To insist that we have to own the underlying oil for this to be anything about oil is laughably fallacious, as was calling another poster a student. To say "you're just a student" commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial, which means to claim that a certain argument is either valid or not valid based upon who advances the argument. The validity of any argument entirely rests upon the premises and construction found within said argument, never who makes it. If only Bush had been a better student of Islam, Iraq, the limitations of military might, or really almost anything for that matter, we might not be so shit out of luck right now.

I was also amused (thanks Scoob) by your protest about another poster referring to something as nefarious as "data" to support his point of view. Do all the right-wing supermen around here get so upset when a non neo con shows up to the conversation with some factynite? Or am I too not in the real world?

The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

My first point was that appeal to authority is never a good argument

What authority was being appealed to? I never have done that. Still have my "Question Authority" button in my sock drawer.

"You're still a student" is what you wrote to jcd in an attempt to dismiss his views

Your analysis is simplistic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quack 0]

Quote

Quote

>BTW, if you're using the Romans as a basis for comparison we have
>at least another 700 years to go . . .

That may well be true - if we don't screw it up. Rome ended for many reasons; chief among them was over-extension of their military, an economy based on dilution of currency to create new currency, an ignorance of the effects of pollution and a feeling of invincibility that led them to discount the need to defend their cities. Good thing we're not making any of those mistakes!

So, based upon your reply, we have a long way to go. And you're right, we shouldn't blow it, especially by giving it away. Bottom line, the world is not a nice place full of rational people. I'm not sure you realize that.

Quote

> We have lots of room to increase whatever "nastiness" the world
>perceives in us. I personally think we should start exploring that space. '

That would fall neatly under the heading of "screwing it up." The world has shown it can take care of countries who start excelling at nastiness.

I agree with you here. But, there's room for us to wiggle here, at least for the next several hundred years, if we have to. It's just a question of will.

I doubt that the US superpower will last even a couple of hundred years. The oil to run all of those aircraft carriers, etc. that power the machine will no longer be.

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> If it was about the oil, we would own the oil. QED.

That's like saying "if we wanted canadian lumber, we would own canada." We don't want canada, just their lumber. Likewise, we don't want the oil wells; our government doesn't currently own _any_ oil wells. We just want US companies to have access to those wells - and now they do.

Which US Oil companies are currently drilling in Iraq? Did I miss a news flash or something?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Rome ended for many reasons; chief among them was over-extension of their military,

Rome in its later centuries had a problem.

FEW Roman citizens would serve in the military. Most of the actual Roman Army was made up of conquered peoples who saw service as a road to roman citizenship.

Sounds a lot like today when if you are a foreign national...and want to be an american citizen.. you can join the military and serve .
Americans are staying away from serving their country in droves.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

"You're still a student" is what you wrote to jcd in an attempt to dismiss his views

Your analysis is simplistic.

He is a student. Read his profile.

Your replies are simplistic, and there is no analysis required to reach that conclusion.

kallend, I keep expecting more from you, and clearly that's my issue. Guess my expectations are too high.

We are all engines of karma