Posturing as Rescuers...Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning is At Hand

[sirs]

Have someone provide you with a really cold washrag, and take deep breaths....in thru the nose, out thru pursed lips.  Find a soft cushy chair to put behind you, just in case. 

[Plane]

  Even in totalitarian states, there are very few citizens who would remain loyal to their government or even their country, if they came to believe that their government was engaged in criminal actions.

Nice that you answered your first question for me.

Let me ask you another question:  If George Bush had come clean with you, had told the American people, "folks, ain't nuthin wrong with Saddam Hussein, he's been our friend for a long time, but God-damn it people, we are runnin out of oil and I just don't trust that sumbitch to sell it to us as cheap as we'd like it.  Y'all know how much it's bin costin to fill up yer tank lately.  So I think we better send our armed forces over there to grab his fucking oil wells, kill him and his family and anyone else who resists us, and take over those wells ASAP so we kin start gettin some good cheap gas for a change."

Would you be willing to support that?  Would you want to vote for Bush again?  Would you want to vote for any Representative or Senator who voted for the war after Bush had given his reasons for it?

You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?

[Xavier_Onassis]

You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?

Now it's odbvious I defy you to pronounce that.  O B V I O U S. a word derived from Latin, unrelated to O D D, a word derived from Old Norse.

The goal of Juniorbush was never to make oil cheaper. Bushed HATE cheap oil. When the price dripped to $15 a barrel in the late 1980's, Olebush sent James Baker to BEG the Saudis to raise the price.

No, the goal is to make sure that the oil you pay $5 a gallon for is sold to you by Texaco, Exxon, Shell, and not by Petrobras, Gazprom, Total, or Petroven. That is so they, the members of the oilgarchy that supports the Bushes, will get paid.

They could give a sh*t about what you or I pay.

[Michael Tee]

<<You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?>>

XO beat me to it and answered your question before I could.

However I'd like to add to XO's answer, that it was not only to control WHO sold you the oil, but who would not, when supplies became scarce, have to do without.

[Plane]

<<You can admit that oil is not cheaper now , and perhaps you can grasp the theroy that there was no potential for makeing oil cheap in this way , but you will stil insist that this odbvious impossibility was the cheif reason for the war?>>

XO beat me to it and answered your question before I could.

However I'd like to add to XO's answer, that it was not only to control WHO sold you the oil, but who would not, when supplies became scarce, have to do without.

And how would this war have that effect?

There is no potential for that either.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And how would this war have that effect?

There is no potential for that either.

No potential for what?
============================
Before the war, Saddam would sell his oil to whoever he chose. He was restricted from selling much of it because of the limits placed on him by the US (through the UN). This kept the price higher than it would have been otherwise due to a lower supply.

It was foreseen that India and China would soon greatly increase their oil needs, because both were building auto pants like crazy. So the Oligarchy decided that (a) Iraq had to sell more oil and (b) Saddam was unreliable, didn;t like the US and was less likely to give them their usual better price, so he had to go.

1200 dead Americans and he was gone, but then Iraq was in a state of anarchy because of Rummy's incompetence, so they had to keep fighting. Now we have nearly 4000 dead, who knows how many maimed, and about a fourth if all Iraqis have been forced to move out of their homes.

But th oil can now be purchased by American companies, who can sell it at a reraly high profit, because it is easier to get it our of the ground than nearly anywhere else.


Most important, Exxon Mobil and Texaco  Conoco and others can purchase it without having to bribe Saddam.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . and (b) Saddam was unreliable, didn;t like the US and was less likely to give them their usual better price, so he had to go.>>

The U.S. saw times of oil scarcity coming, when the Middle East would not be able to satisfy every buyer.  They did not want to have to get into a bidding war with the Chinese, which would be the result if Saddam were in power at such times.  They needed a puppet government to do their bidding and sell lower to them and higher to their competitors, or even turn off the tap for countries which incurred their displeasure.

There was also the issue of control of the production volume.  OPEC can use cutbacks in production to maintain high oil prices or conversely increase the flow to lower the upward pressure on prices if so desired.  That power to control prices by controlling production is also important, and Americans wanted more of a voice in the process.

Whether oil is cheaper now or not is beside the point.  The point is that whatever oil is, the ability to control its price is enhanced by control over the wells.  The ability to control or direct its distribution is enhanced by control over the wells.  The ability to participate in the profits of oil production is enhanced by control over the wells. 

[Plane]

<< . . . and (b) Saddam was unreliable, didn;t like the US and was less likely to give them their usual better price, so he had to go.>>

The U.S. saw times of oil scarcity coming, when the Middle East would not be able to satisfy every buyer.  They did not want to have to get into a bidding war with the Chinese, which would be the result if Saddam were in power at such times.  They needed a puppet government to do their bidding and sell lower to them and higher to their competitors, or even turn off the tap for countries which incurred their displeasure.

There was also the issue of control of the production volume.  OPEC can use cutbacks in production to maintain high oil prices or conversely increase the flow to lower the upward pressure on prices if so desired.  That power to control prices by controlling production is also important, and Americans wanted more of a voice in the process.

Whether oil is cheaper now or not is beside the point.  The point is that whatever oil is, the ability to control its price is enhanced by control over the wells.  The ability to control or direct its distribution is enhanced by control over the wells.  The ability to participate in the profits of oil production is enhanced by control over the wells. 

No ,this isn't a possibility.

A country that sells surplus oil for less than it is worth is being foolish ,being free will not make the Iriquis foolish.

This would actually be a better argument for supporting Saddam , Saddam's Iraq had the worst record for obeying OPEC of any member , he even broke the 73 boycot on the US .

Oil is sold at auction , the tiny exceptions are subsidies mostly internal to the countrys that produce it , and Hugo Chavez who trys to make a gift of some of his oil to his political favoriates. It works so poorly for Hugo that it demonstrates how well the market corrects for artificial manipulation. If it is given for free to a customer , that customers bid is absent at the auction and the price drops for all , Hugo Chaves is doing without the income and the US benefits no less than all the rest of the world from Hugos subsidisd sale.

How indeed would controll of Iraq oil be enforced?  You are speaking of an impossibility a goal never beleived by any of the wars proponents.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oh, bullshit. You do not know how oil is sold.

The Saudis give discounts to their pals all the time. After all, the only person who actually knows how much oil is going through that pipeline or into that tanker ship is the guy who adjusts the meter. He can be bribed.

YOu do not know that Saddam broke OPEC's quotas more of the time, you only know that he was ACCUSED of this.

Countries only theoretically set prices, wangle deals and sell the oil. It is humans who control the flow. All you have to do is to move this little wheel one quarter of an inch to the right, and we will see to it that there is a new Escalade waiting for you in Sharjah. Or your kids get into this prestigious school and it won;t cost you a cent. No one will ever know. There is enough oil for centuries.

That recent film "There will be Blood" is entirely typical of the way oil deals are made. For every dollar the Oklahoma Indians made from their oil, back when they sold it for a dollar a barrel or so, they were swindled out of another dollar or more.

[sirs]

LOL....leave it to Xo to claim hollywood as being how things are realistically represented. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

LOL....leave it to Xo to claim hollywood as being how things are realistically represented. 



NO, you ignoramus. "There will Be Blood" was almost completely from Upton Sinclair's novel; of the same name, and THAT was extensively researched.

Some day you will come to the realization that damn near everything you know just isn't true. Or even renting on the fringes of the same neighborhood as the truth.

[sirs]

I hear LOTR was extensively researched as well, along with Tombstone          Point being the difference between reality <--> a novel <--> and hollywood are tremendous.  Hollywood, by design, takes liberty on both reality and history, in the effort to be dramatic.  For you to lay claim to a movie as being how things really were demonstrates just how void your arguement is in substance

So good to see those classes for self control on name calling is paying off, as well

[Michael Tee]

<<A country that sells surplus oil for less than it is worth is being foolish ,being free will not make the Iriquis foolish.>>

That's like saying that a man who would hand over his wallet to a total stranger is being foolish.  Of course it's not so foolish if the stranger has a gun pointed at the man.  A puppet Iraqi government will sell oil to whomever and at whatever prices the puppet-master dictates.

<<Oil is sold at auction  . . . >>

Oil is sold any way the seller chooses to sell it.  Right now a lot of it is stolen and sold at whatever price the vendors choose to extract and the buyers are willing to pay.  The point you are missing is WHO SELLS the oil at auction?  The Iraqi government, as under Saddam Hussein, or the Iraqi government in partnership with whoever the puppet government chooses to give partnerships to?  (Hint: usually the decision on which partners the puppet government will admit to partnership and how much of a cut they get is not made by the puppets, but by the guy with the gun pressed into the puppets' backs.)

I find your understanding of the mechanics of invasion, occupation and theft of resources by the occupier to be incredibly childish and naive, particularly your contention that such control is impossible to achieve.  Do you think that during the Russian occupation of Hungary, Hungary was free to auction off its uranium to whichever buyer was willing to bid the highest price for it? 

<<How indeed would controll of Iraq oil be enforced? >>

How about at the point of a gun?  That's usually a pretty good way of enforcing control of anything, till a bigger guy with a more powerful weapon comes onto the scene.  Contracts both for production and sale are signed by the Petroleum Ministry or one of its corporations as dictated by the occupying power.  Anyone who objects will have a very bad accident happen to him or maybe just vanish overnight in a "sectarian" abduction. Police and soldiers at the ports check what goes into the ships that pull up.   Was it really necessary to even ask such a question?

 <<You are speaking of an impossibility a goal never beleived by any of the wars proponents.>>

Oh, please.  Stop it already.  Do you really believe this crap?  WHY?

[sirs]

<<A country that sells surplus oil for less than it is worth is being foolish ,being free will not make the Iriquis foolish.>>

That's like saying that a man who would hand over his wallet to a total stranger is being foolish.  Of course it's not so foolish if the stranger has a gun pointed at the man.  A puppet Iraqi government will sell oil to whomever and at whatever prices the puppet-master dictates.

All the while no proof or evidence of said strings or gun.  But hey, it sure sounds good.  Maybe Hollywood can work something out

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

While threatening an entire country is possible, it is a lot easier just to bribe that one guy that sets the meters at the pipeline or at the well header. Bribery was impossible when Saddam was in power,because he and his family skimmed so much off the top.

Sirs won't believe there is a crime unless they let him see them commit it. I think that is more naive than automatically disbelieving everything in a film.