[sanity assassin]

New documents released by the Birtish Govermnet show that oil is, and for the most part is the reason for invasion, and domination of nations, not so-called liberation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3333995.stm

[OldManMac]

This can't be true unless it's reported by the major American media; only they know what real news is!

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This can't be true unless it's reported by the major American media; only they know what real news is!

lol, true, what was I thinking. Isn't it funny how how the answers to so many ofour quesyions today, such as the real reason for invsding Iraq, is actually spekt out for us by past deeds? My stomach just curdles when I hear talk of humanitarian, freedom, and ridding the world of evil reasons is used. The basic truth is that it's none of these things; the pieces for such trouble has been laid out years ago, and it's all about natoinal interest cloaked in the rhetoric of peace.

[sanity assassin]

So many truths are put to the side in such times. The media hardly tell us how OPEC wanted to push for hte Euro to be used in the Oil industry, pushing out decades of control via the dollar; the US was shocked at this proposal.
Other reasons, and there are plenty, include France, adn Germany wanting Iraqi sanctions lifted for years, adn especialyl in the lsat few years they were pushing hard. They wanted to help rebuild, adn do business wit hIraq, plus restructure the Iraqi oil industry with them taking a huge cut. The US balked at this too, time for action was called for. SO, a lovely new war disguised as ridding the world of an imminent danger in the guise of Saddam; and yet, where was the threat, where lies(sic) all the reasons that were spouted off from messrs. Bush, Blair? The reasons are so obvious, and plain, and that is domination of certain national assets, and pushing forward new agendas.

Watchign the news tonight, I was listening how Australia, Hong Koing, and ther rest of the world enjoying the New Year; and when it came to the US, I wasfaced with sniper teams perched on rooftops for the New Year, storis of peopel being watched, and spied on as they go out to celebrate. Ah, nothign like creating mass hysteria in a false bogeyman to push forward civil rights erosion, and a big brother agenda.

Prett sad, eh?

[SimeyTheLimey]

1973 is not 2003. Besides, nothing actually happened.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
1973 is not 2003. Besides, nothing actually happened.

BY that reasoning, then 1990 is not the same as 2003. Therefore Iraq's WMD program was no longer relevent, moot point I think.
What this shows is the underlying methodolgy, and thinkig of such Governments, these ideas do not just fade away. They are implemented in various other ways, adn are always a possiblity for various agencies; to say it's not, is to say that these things aren't taken into considreation by governmetns, which would mean they are short-sighted, doubtful. Just look at this latest conflict, oil was, and is still the biggest area of contention amongst those who do not believe that this war was to rid the world of a tyrant; where so much of the reasoning for going to war has been torn apart, and only believed by those who support such a task, the oil issue remains.

[sanity assassin]

ONe thing that people either like to dismiss, or avoid; adn that's the simple fact that the oil issue is a constant, it's been a strong reason for Western foreign policy in the Mid_East for so long, that to dismiss those reasons for invasion, is to be short-sighted, ignorant, or neatly using dis-information to sway people's minds away from it.

US intervention in the Mid-East has more to do with oil than removing tyrants, history proves that, and this latest examples of these documetns jsut goes to show us hwo far back it goes, and how it continues.

[kindbud]

Yup. We spent $80 billion for oil.

It'll really start to pay off in a few decades - if we keep ALL their oil production for ourselves. The break-even point will be sometime in 2033.

Does this pose a problem for your conspiracy theories?

Indeed, it does.

If Iraq's largest industry was sunflower seeds - they would never have the money to buy WMD or pose a threat to the USA. So, yes, oil was the cause of the problem. Oil allowed Saddam to purchase WMD.

Countries without resources almost never have an economy large enough to cause the US problems.


Answer this one...

What does the US stand to gain from spending $15Billion on AIDS in Africa?

Here's a good rule of thumb: The US never spends billions on anything that returns a profit.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by kindbud:
What does the US stand to gain from spending $15Billion on AIDS in Africa?

Oh, OH, I know! I KNOW!! We did it so that when the Hegemony (isn't that some kind of "Bush") spreads all the way to South Africa, the 2008 Powell/Rice ticket can count on all their votes and win by a landslide!

Damn, me is so smart.

[vmarks]

Is it a war for oil?

No, this is no more a war for oil than WW2 was a war for cheap electronics from Japan. We're not going to gain anything economically by invading Iraq that we couldn't just as easily gain by simply lifting the sanctions. Even if Iraq had no oil, they'd still be our target.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
1973 is not 2003. Besides, nothing actually happened.

Not to mention that this was what the British government in 1973, thought the US might do.

Oil is big, though. There's no denying that.

BTW - here's another article (from the Guardian) that goes into a bt more detail.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Does this pose a problem for your conspiracy theories?

A bigger question: was Richard Nixon a neoconservative?

D'oh!

[Buck_Naked]

80 Billion for oil. I know it sucks and all killing for oil and freedom.
But really, how much oil are we talking about???
It just might be worth it. What is the blood for oil ratio?? Will we enjoy a handsome return on our blood investment??

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Buck_Naked:
80 Billion for oil. I know it sucks and all killing for oil and freedom.
But really, how much oil are we talking about???
It just might be worth it. What is the blood for oil ratio?? Will we enjoy a handsome return on our blood investment??

Wait a minute- let's do some simple math.

Iraq was selling oil already. The oil there is with 40 Billion. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...;notFound=true

Let me see if I follow your logic here. We're going to spend at least 50-100 billion dollars invading Iraq so that American oil companies will get the lion's share of 40 billion dollars worth of oil contracts? That in and of itself doesn't make any sense and that's before we even take into account the negative effect that the possibility of war has had on the stock market and the likely long-term drop in price that increasing Iraqi oil production would cause. Lower oil prices means lower profits for oil companies.

[Buck_Naked]

Originally posted by Buck_Naked:
80 Billion for oil. I know it sucks and all killing for oil and freedom.
But really, how much oil are we talking about???
It just might be worth it. What is the blood for oil ratio?? Will we enjoy a handsome return on our blood investment??

Sarcasm

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
1973 is not 2003. Besides, nothing actually happened.

That doesn't really say much, except to somehow move people's thoughts away from a nation willing to use such tactics for its own gain. If anything, such a scenario is more likely in today's world, given what the US has led us to believe, adn made to be in the Mid-East. After the oil crisis in the early 70's, the US, and Western nations were never going to allow that to happen again, so such plans are most definitely in place; if such a thing was to happen again, that plan would be on the tables of the White house quicker than pouring a drink for yourself.
What strikes me, is how the US actually contemplated breaking international law to a massive degree, invading sovereign nations, purely for self-national interests. The simple fact that they even thought of this, is enough to show us how we cannot trust the words of these leaders, that they are allowed to use such means for their own agendas.
Also, it seems like that scenario has already been played out; the US is in Saudi, Iraq, etc, now. They have, for want of a better term, invaded the Mid-East, adn taken over the oil installations, why do you think so many Muslims and Arabs want the US out of the region? they see it as an unwelcome invasion. It has very little to do with protecting Saudi peoples, but has everything to do with protecting the oil fields and their supply route to the West.

That situation in the 70's was unexpected, by some, it was sprung upon the US, adn drastic illegal measures were contemplated; the US were never goign to allow it to happen ever again, so by way of divide and rule, they have created situations in the Mid-East to ensure they would gain control of the oil fields, and now have troops in these countries. No longer was invasion necessary, they were welcomed in by the Kuwaitis, the Saudies after Kuwait was invaded (the events of which were orchestrated to some degree by the US); and what we have now, is a US presence outstaying its welcome, no intention of leaving, well, that was until they created this latest dram by invading Iraq. The US has no need to be in Saudi anymore, they have Iraq, not Iraq in compliance, by by invading it.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Yup. We spent $80 billion for oil.

It'll really start to pay off in a few decades - if we keep ALL their oil production for ourselves. The break-even point will be sometime in 2033.

Does this pose a problem for your conspiracy theories?

Oh oh, here we go, labelling people as mad by association, conspiracy theorists? get real.

Tell me, if that plan, which is fact now, was to be implemented in the 70's, hoe many lives would have been lost? how much would it have cost? Billions? And for what? oil, just oil, not national security, or anythign else, but oil. SO if the US was able to, and willing to invade these nations purely for oil, and waste billions, then what makes you so sure that anythgin has changed in 30 years? You do realise that oil sources are dwindling, that the US is scrapping as much control over the S.Russian oil fields as we speak, that the pipeline via Afghanistan is a major priority.

My friend, to not think oil is worth billions of your tax dollars to save, then fair game for being blind, it is very much a reason for invasion; and since the US has akready made it clear they are willing to invade, cost lives, and money, then I 'm pretty sure they still are. You do know that the major contractors for Iraq are using American tax dollars for rebuilding Iraq, and yet the profits will go straight back to those few who own the companies, Bush et al.

Funny how you right wingers will deny what is right in front of your faces, and as usual, the usual faces are here to defend something that is in-defencable. Good luck.

[sanity assassin]

Oh, and let's look at what the main priority was when both Gulf wars were ended; to ensure the oil fields were saved, not people, not the civilians, not the infrastructrue, but the pipelines, and oilfields./ So tell me, if oil isn't such a major thing, then why was that the first priority?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Wait a minute- let's do some simple math.

Iraq was selling oil already. The oil there is with 40 Billion. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...;notFound=true

Let me see if I follow your logic here. We're going to spend at least 50-100 billion dollars invading Iraq so that American oil companies will get the lion's share of 40 billion dollars worth of oil contracts? That in and of itself doesn't make any sense and that's before we even take into account the negative effect that the possibility of war has had on the stock market and the likely long-term drop in price that increasing Iraqi oil production would cause. Lower oil prices means lower profits for oil companies.

Yes, we (the tax paying people) are going to spend 50 - 100 billion dollars for $40 billion worth of oil. The government will finance the operation so the oil companies can profit from it, because the government is owned by large corporations. You can't look at this from a supply/demand viewpoint, because that model doesn't exist anymore.

There is also no likely long-term drop in price, because oil is a product whose value will only go up, as some countries (specifically the U. S.) continue to use more and more of it, to feed our insatiable appetities. This is a win for the oil companies, and, in the end, that's all that matters. The Bush family doesn't care about the consequences of their actions; they're in the oil business and they also have enough political power to see that they stay in the oil business.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Wait a minute- let's do some simple math.

Iraq was selling oil already. The oil there is with 40 Billion. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...;notFound=true

Read my other replies, and what you pointed to was the oil for food program. You don't see it, do you? It's about maintaining the flow of oil, those resources. Look, if oil is not a reason for war, then why the hell was such a drastic plan even dreamt of in the 70's oil crisis? of course it's a reason for invasion. Once your tax money is spent, the profits from oil will last decades, they need to ensure they are in control of those for years to come, not the short term. So while you pay for the initial costs of war, and rebuilding Iraq, big business (owned by those in power) will gain those initial rewards, plus, in years to come, still be making a profit out of it due to them controling it.

[kindbud]

OK, if you insist.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Read my other replies, and what you pointed to was the oil for food program. You don't see it, do you? It's about maintaining the flow of oil, those resources. Look, if oil is not a reason for war, then why the hell was such a drastic plan even dreamt of in the 70's oil crisis? of course it's a reason for invasion. Once your tax money is spent, the profits from oil will last decades, they need to ensure they are in control of those for years to come, not the short term. So while you pay for the initial costs of war, and rebuilding Iraq, big business (owned by those in power) will gain those initial rewards, plus, in years to come, still be making a profit out of it due to them controling it.

We'd like friendly regimes everywhere, why is the fact that Iraq has the world's 2nd largest oil reserve supposed to be important?

Because Iraq will probably still be pumping oil when every other reserve has run out?

That might be a decent argument if there were any sort of extreme oil shortage, but most estimates I've seen suggest that we have somewhere between 40 to 95 years worth of oil left. Furthermore, we'll actually never run out of oil. That's because as oil gets more expensive and scarce, alternative energy sources will become more attractive. As Sheik Yamani said, "The oil age will come to an end, but not for lack of oil, just like the Stone Age came to an end, but not for lack of stone."

Also, what makes you think we're even going to have a friendly regime in Iraq long-term? Relationships between nations change all the time. Think about the relationship the US had with Iran in the seventies, Iraq in the eighties, with the Russians in the eighties, Saudi Arabia before 9/11, Afghanistan before 9/11, etc, and compare those relationships to how things are today. To claim that we're invading Iraq so we may have access to their oil supply 40 years in the future seems ludicrous when you look at it in that light.

[Krusty]

The pro-Bush arguments in this thread are nuts.

You (appropriately) point out that the cost/benefit of this war makes no sense .. IT DOESN'T : "why would we spend 80bil to secure 40 ?", and "what sense does it make when there isn't a critical oil shortage ?".

The people paying for this operation aren't the ones intended to reap the "return". Whatever future oil comes out of Iraq into the US will be SOLD to us, for profit, by big oil companies. I'm sure that the ones who will profit from this don't really give a flying f##k what the cost to taxpayers ends up being. What WE end up paying for this war is NOT part of their cost/benefit equation. For them, the cost is ZERO and the benefit is however much profit they make.

[adamk]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Wait a minute- let's do some simple math.

Iraq was selling oil already. The oil there is with 40 Billion. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...;notFound=true

i want to do some simple math too! but first let's do some reading comprehension!

... But Putin tends carefully to Russian economic interests, and his government has confirmed that it will soon sign a long-term, $40 billion economic cooperation agreement with Iraq covering such areas as energy and transportation.

hmm. doesn't say anywhere there that there is only 40 billion dollars of oil there, does it?

Iraq Country Analysis Brief (DOE)

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada). Estimates of Iraq's oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only 10% or so of the country has been explored. Some analysts (the Baker Institute, Center for Global Energy Studies, the Federation of American Scientists, etc.) believe, for instance, that deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels or more), but have not been explored. Other analysts, such as the US Geological Survey, are not as optimistic, with median estimates for additional oil reserves closer to 45 billion barrels.

so. back to math.

let's be conservative and say that only with the 112 billion barrels proven reserves, at current market prices, ~$30/barrel.

112,000,000,000.00 barrels x $30/barrels = $360,000,000,000.00

$360 billion!

that's a pretty good return for $80 billion. and when american oil company's explore the other 90% of iraq, that has yet to be explored, that total could increase by 50%-100%. not bad, huh?

[kindbud]

yup. and everybody involved in this scandal will be cold and dead before the first $80 billion worth of oil comes out of Iraqi soil.

[adamk]

Originally posted by kindbud:
yup. and everybody involved in this scandal will be cold and dead before the first $80 billion worth of oil comes out of Iraqi soil.

cold and dead but not poor. still doesn't change the fact that some people will be getting paid handsomely.

scandal? this is business.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by kindbud:
yup. and everybody involved in this scandal will be cold and dead before the first $80 billion worth of oil comes out of Iraqi soil.

So what ?? WE are the ones paying for the war. The oil companies that benefit from the war aren't paying for it. Even if they only extract $5 billion ... its PURE PROFIT from their perspective.

BTW, this link shows some pretty high hopes for what will be coming out of the ground in Iraq in < 10 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...iraq-oil_x.htm

[kindbud]

Honestly, don't you think there are easier ways to make money? Big oil is owned by shareholders...average everyday citizens for the most part. The same folks that "paid for the war" will profit from the oil, from that perspective.

You're wanting me to believe that the liberation of Iraq was a scheme orchestrated by the nameless, faceless "big oil" executives that are friends of Bush or neocons or whatever. No wait, big oil got Dubya elected in the first place. I forgot about that. Dubya's brother was in on that scheme, too. And FOX news was responsible for brainwashing fully half of the voting public into believing that Dubya was OK. Wait. Big oil owns FOX and the other major networks. The rest are owned by neocons.

I dunno. It seems to make a lot more sense to believe what Dubya says.

[adamk]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Honestly, don't you think there are easier ways to make money? Big oil is owned by shareholders...average everyday citizens for the most part. The same folks that "paid for the war" will profit from the oil, from that perspective.

easier ways to make money? oil is a necessity in the US. it drives (heh) the economy more than anything else. no matter what kind of economy we have - industrial, commerical, service-oriented - millions of people rely on cars, trucks and planes to do their business whether it be moving products or getting people to work. to answer your question, there may be easier ways to make money (TV - media maybe) but oil is, by no means, a lousy business. if you're interested in raking in the dough.

yeah. you are right, people who own stock will make money. it all depends on how much they've bought into the company. as well as CEO's and high-level executives as well.

coorporations are beholden to stock-owners no? and what do stock-holders want - a good return on their investment. so whether some one holds 10 shares or a thousand, they still want the same thing right?

Originally posted by kindbud:
You're wanting me to believe that the liberation of Iraq was a scheme orchestrated by the nameless, faceless "big oil" executives that are friends of Bush or neocons or whatever. No wait, big oil got Dubya elected in the first place. I forgot about that. Dubya's brother was in on that scheme, too. And FOX news was responsible for brainwashing fully half of the voting public into believing that Dubya was OK. Wait. Big oil owns FOX and the other major networks. The rest are owned by neocons.

where that came from, i'm not sure. but i agree about the media - amazing to think that they brain-washed the other half of the voting public to think that gore was OK!

big business doesn't reach into the pockets of republicans solely.

Originally posted by kindbud:
I dunno. It seems to make a lot more sense to believe what Dubya says.

that's too bad. i don't accept anything that anybody says at face value - especially from politicians and businessman. but it's a free country i guess.

[confucious slam]

It is better to gamble
with the house's money
Than to lose
with your own

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A bigger question: was Richard Nixon a neoconservative?

He was, for at least 18 minutes, 30 seconds...but there is no proof.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
He was, for at least 18 minutes, 30 seconds...but there is no proof.

LOL!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
He was, for at least 18 minutes, 30 seconds...but there is no proof.

[moki]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
New documents released by the Birtish Govermnet show that oil is, and for the most part is the reason for invasion, and domination of nations, not so-called liberation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3333995.stm

The document clearly states that this is the OPINION of some people in the British Government of what the US MIGHT do. It is not an insight into the minds of the US government, it is an insight into the mind of some people in the British government, and moreover, into your mind.

In addition, you speak of US government as if it is a collective mind, and as if it doesn't change every 4 years or so. Both are incredibly naive if you believe it to be true. I mean really, your picking this story, and your twisted interpretation of it is utterly ridiculous.

Finally, the intel was simply wrong. The US did not go to war or attempt to seize oil fields the way this report thought they would. As the article says: "In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement"

I await with bated breath your posting of more wildly speculative (and ultimately wrong) British Intelligence dossiers on what the US MIGHT do... and please, by all means, continue passing them off as fact.

Governments always draw up contingency plans based on what MIGHT happen; they are in the business of being prepared for such things. It isn't often that someone takes a speculative contingency plan from one country's government (which turned out to be wrong), and tries to pass it off as being an "insight" into the mind of the government that was being speculated about, though.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
The document clearly states that this is the OPINION of some people in the British Government of what the US MIGHT do. It is not an insight into the minds of the US government, it is an insight into the mind of some people in the British government, and moreover, into your mind.

In addition, you speak of US government as if it is a collective mind, and as if it doesn't change every 4 years or so. Both are incredibly naive if you believe it to be true. I mean really, your picking this story, and your twisted interpretation of it is utterly ridiculous.

Finally, the intel was simply wrong. The US did not go to war or attempt to seize oil fields the way this report thought they would. As the article says: "In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement"

I await with bated breath your posting of more wildly speculative (and ultimately wrong) British Intelligence dossiers on what the US MIGHT do... and please, by all means, continue passing them off as fact.

Governments always draw up contingency plans based on what MIGHT happen; they are in the business of being prepared for such things. It isn't often that someone takes a speculative contingency plan from one country's government (which turned out to be wrong), and tries to pass it off as being an "insight" into the mind of the government that was being speculated about, though.

although you make some valid points in the above post, I don't think not following through on a plan of action means there was no plan in the first place. You seem to be using that as an argument for why you think the intel was wrong on american intentions...but then, oddly, you follow up with the correct assessment that governments draw up contingency plans. However, you are applying that to the British, but not the americans.
How is it reasonable to assume that the British have various contingency plans based on what they perceive as american contigency plans, but then outright dismiss that america had such plans in the first place?

(assuming I'm reading you correctly...if not, please clarify).

Hell, "Three Days of the Condor" did a better job of explaining the justifications for securing the worlds' oil resources in american control. And that's a very old movie.
Life is not a movie, but motivations are often logical and predictable.
It would be logical and predictable to conceive that american intelligence might plan to find some way to secure reserves of oil in their control. I don't see why admitting that is so difficult.

[insha]

Originally posted by moki:
The document clearly states that this is the OPINION of some people in the British Government of what the US MIGHT do. It is not an insight into the minds of the US government, it is an insight into the mind of some people in the British government, and moreover, into your mind.

In addition, you speak of US government as if it is a collective mind, and as if it doesn't change every 4 years or so. Both are incredibly naive if you believe it to be true. I mean really, your picking this story, and your twisted interpretation of it is utterly ridiculous.

Finally, the intel was simply wrong. The US did not go to war or attempt to seize oil fields the way this report thought they would. As the article says: "In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement"

I await with bated breath your posting of more wildly speculative (and ultimately wrong) British Intelligence dossiers on what the US MIGHT do... and please, by all means, continue passing them off as fact.

Governments always draw up contingency plans based on what MIGHT happen; they are in the business of being prepared for such things. It isn't often that someone takes a speculative contingency plan from one country's government (which turned out to be wrong), and tries to pass it off as being an "insight" into the mind of the government that was being speculated about, though.

The US govenment does change the main puppets every four/eight years or so; but do you not see that those that are in power today (Bush & Co.) have been in the government for more than four years and thus more things change the more they stay the same.

[kindbud]

Strangely, a few days ago I almost started a thread about how I believe Hollywood movies are the basis for most of the conspiracy theories about America.

Most of the conspiracy theorists just happen to like those sort of movies, too.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Strangely, a few days ago I almost started a thread about how I believe Hollywood movies are the basis for most of the conspiracy theories about America.

Most of the conspiracy theorists just happen to like those sort of movies, too.

I think I explained my use of that reference adequately. You're just trying to recharacterize it in a negative light to make your own negative points against me personally...but hey, I expected no less from you.

at any rate: Three Days of the Condor is a movie a great many people have watched, including yourself, I imagine. Does that make you a conspiracy theorist?

I was only using it as an example of how its conceivable that american intel would speculate or work up scenarios for garnering control of oil. If it was in that movie, and a very old movie, why is it difficult to accept that as a possibility? The concept is already in the public domain, its not like its an outrageous notion.

That was the point of using that example.

[kindbud]

I honestly wasn't trying to belittle your opinion - I was merely pointing out the parallels between Hollywood's portrayal of our government as all-knowing-planned-perfection, alongside the observation that people who enjoy this type of storyline are the very same sort of people that tend to believe there is some truth to similar scenarios in real life.

I can't speak for everyone, but I only enjoy movies that are believeable. Imagining our government as not being inept when there's so much proof to the contrary is something I can't believe.

That, I think, is the difference between me and conspiracy theorists.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
That, I think, is the difference between me and conspiracy theorists.

do you consider the media to be liberal-controlled? If so, that's a conspiracy theory.

What makes something a conspiracy theory vs. a point of view is which side you're standing on.

[RooneyX]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Lounge!

[thunderous_funker]

There is no escaping the fundamental fact that the only reason that the US considers the middle east a vital national interest is oil.

Period.

The global economy runs on cheap, stable oil prices. Everything from electricity production to major manufacturing relies on it. And "petro-dollars" and "electro-dollars" are both cornerstones of world financial markets.

The Bush family never made much money in the oil business. Their family fortune is and always has been in the financial markets.

So securing oil is so much more than gas supply or even some profits for big US companies. Its basically the engine of the entire global economy--first because of the fundamental use of oil and pretroleum, and secondly because of the massive amount of money tied up in the financial markets associated with oil, petroleum, electricity, manufacturing, etc.

Cutting off oil supply would send the entire planet spiralling into the freaking 19th century. Doubling or tripling its market value might do the exact same thing.

And families like the Bush's don't take a keen interest in such matters merely from a personal gain standpoint, We're talking about taking steps that guarantee a "way of life". Capitalism is a religion to some people and protecting, preserving and propogating it are fundamental to the psyche of many many people. Not just for yourself and your own family, but for everyone you associate with and everyone you think matters.

Oil and capitalism are in deep symbioses in our current development. Eventually capitalism will need to evolve a way out of that dependence but it won't happen any time soon. And it can't happen suddenly. Any major disruption of the oil culture could bring capitalism to a complete and shuddering halt.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[...] Any major disruption of the oil culture could bring capitalism to a complete and shuddering halt.

... Which wouldn't be all that bad, if there's something better than capitalism to replace it. Today, that doesn't seem to be the case, but maybe tomorrow - who knows...

Anyway, an oil-based capitalism is something environmentally (and also from a common sense point of view!) very, very primitive, so to say: so I really hope capitalism will eventually be superseded by something that maintains the good things we already have (such as evolved technology, used for the common good) and - by not posing greedy profit as the ultimate motivation! - substantially democraticizes the whole world, in a "free", non-forced, non-violent way.

When one thinks of how we could live in a reasonably clean and technologically and socially advanced world, the nonsense of capitalistic greediness seems even more absurd, as also the fact that a few, "powerful" families can control the world as pleases them, without anyone essentially saying anything!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
There is no escaping the fundamental fact that the only reason that the US considers the middle east a vital national interest is oil.

Period.

The global economy runs on cheap, stable oil prices. Everything from electricity production to major manufacturing relies on it. And "petro-dollars" and "electro-dollars" are both cornerstones of world financial markets.

The Bush family never made much money in the oil business. Their family fortune is and always has been in the financial markets.

So securing oil is so much more than gas supply or even some profits for big US companies. Its basically the engine of the entire global economy--first because of the fundamental use of oil and pretroleum, and secondly because of the massive amount of money tied up in the financial markets associated with oil, petroleum, electricity, manufacturing, etc.

Cutting off oil supply would send the entire planet spiralling into the freaking 19th century. Doubling or tripling its market value might do the exact same thing.

And families like the Bush's don't take a keen interest in such matters merely from a personal gain standpoint, We're talking about taking steps that guarantee a "way of life". Capitalism is a religion to some people and protecting, preserving and propogating it are fundamental to the psyche of many many people. Not just for yourself and your own family, but for everyone you associate with and everyone you think matters.

Oil and capitalism are in deep symbioses in our current development. Eventually capitalism will need to evolve a way out of that dependence but it won't happen any time soon. And it can't happen suddenly. Any major disruption of the oil culture could bring capitalism to a complete and shuddering halt.

Fine. But why did Haliburton overcharge the army for gas and from the oil they are currently 'stealing' (while receiving protection from the taxpayer's army that they are overcharging), how much of that oil money has gone to building democracy in Iraq?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Fine. But why did Haliburton overcharge the army for gas and from the oil they are currently 'stealing' (while receiving protection from the taxpayer's army that they are overcharging), how much of that oil money has gone to building democracy in Iraq?

oh, I think there will be money that does go where its supposed to go. Making a profit right now is not the goal, although I'm sure they'll not pass up the opportunity to gouge....the goal is to set up the infrastructure in their control. That's a bigger basket.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the goal is to set up the infrastructure in their control. That's a bigger basket.

Please provide proof of that statement.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Please provide proof of that statement.

read my sig and the beginning of the post.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
read my sig and the beginning of the post.

Ah, so when I write "I think it is likely that. . . " you can't give me the same grace?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, so when I write "I think it is likely that. . . " you can't give me the same grace?

enjoying your little hissy fit?



two different situations. Now, put on your thinking cap and see if you can figure out why?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
two different situations. Now, put on your thinking cap and see if you can figure out why?

Sorry, my tinfoil hat is in the way. I've been meaning to ask you, how do you deal with the scratchyness?

Oh, and ixnay on the hissy fit stuff. Not good when you know the person you are directing it at is gay. Apt to be misinterpreted.