| Anti-war for Oil |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Martin ® 02/21/2003, 06:34:12 Author Profile Mail author |
France's despicable president, Jacques Chirac, has made it abundantly clear that he and his government are not acting to any significant extent out of high moral principle in their opposition to the U.S. position on Iraq. Chirac's hateful squelching of dissent and free speech (vaguely akin to what rdl and Ramona are attempting here) for anyone who doesn't agree with his arrogant, bullying threats against any and all dissenters and his patently disingenuous posturing has clearly revealed the shameful opportunism and lack of principles of his disgraceful leadership. As the Chicago Tribune noted: "There was no mistaking the message delivered by French President Jacques Chirac in Brussels this week. Those that agree with France may speak; those that don't should remain silent if they know what's good for them." Chirac, who has been quite justifiably called a "thug" and a "bully" by normally reticent U.N. diplomats, openly threatened and insulted Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and other European governments for their principled stand against Iraq, which they expressed in a recent letter to the U.N. To make his crime even more repellant, Chirac -- along with his craven German accomplices -- FORBADE those countries presence in the chamber as he attacked them and threatened severe economic sanctions against them for daring to disagree with him! What a brave man! As an editorial put it: It is worth recalling that while French soldiers were throwing down their rifles in 1940 as the Germans advanced, the flower of Polish manhood charged into the invading Nazi tanks on horseback in the last and most gallant cavalry charge in history... How dare the French attempt to blackmail the Poles — of all peoples. (And the Czechs and Slovaks who they helped to sell out at Munich.)Some of my Polish ancestors and relatives died in that incredibly valiant, if hopeless, effort. While such a hopeless cause prompted the rest of the world to invent Polack jokes, I deeply admire their supreme courage!
. . . And today we've learned that both France and Russia are still more contemptibly disingenuous in their cheap and hollow anti-war propaganda. Several highly respected authorities in the field of petroleum production and distribution have revealed that France and Russia and several companies which have an especially "cozy" relationship with their governments and administrations are facing HUGE financial losses if Saddam loses power! Karen Matusic of the trade journal Oil Daily reports: "In the whole oil arena, Russia is Iraq's number one partner. They've signed billions of dollars in deals to develop fields. They are also their biggest trade partner by far." Thane Gustafson, an analyst at Cambridge Energy Research, reports: "The Iraq business is very important to some players, including some Russian companies that are close to the Kremlin... And if Russia is Saddam's favorite, the French are right behind." In fact, the French are up to their rolling eyeballs in major oil contracts with Saddam. And it doesn't stop with their pretentious and loathsomely disingenuous "anti-war for oil" compaign. France is Iraq's third largest trading partner, and stands to lose scores of billions of dollars across the board should Saddam fall. Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading, a futures investment company, said: "They [France] definitely have a vested interest in this financially. Who knows what's gonna happen in a post war Iraq. They stand to lose billions of dollars in future revenues." BUT... only if Saddam loses power! As long as he stays in control, France's and Russia's huge revenue from Iraq in oil and other goods keeps flowing. But if Saddam should fall, those contracts will almost certainly become null and void! That is not only because those enormous contracts were negotiated with a government that is no longer in power, but also because a liberated Iraq would be free of the economic sanctions placed on it by the U.N. and would once again be able to control and sell its own oil itself! That's the last thing France and Russia wants to have happen! Regarding Russia, Thane Gustafson states: "If the price of oil goes down, then it's the whole Russian government that takes a big hit. That's 60 percent of their revenues directly and indirectly that start to head downhill." The bottom line is that, contrary to the vapid claims of most of the world's mostly shallow-minded anti-war protestors who ignorantly allege that the U.S. is intent on "war for oil", the fact is that the French and Russian governments' rhetoric is largely dedicated to "anti-war for oil". - Martin |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Anti-war for Oil Re: Anti-war for Oil -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
02/21/2003, 11:35:50
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Iraq Oil and where it goes Re: Anti-war for Oil -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/21/2003, 21:49:16
Author Profile Mail author
Modified by Jenny at Fri, Feb 21, 2003, 23:56:52
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes -- Jenny Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/22/2003, 08:05:50
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for bringing these facts to our attention!
As I'm sure you're aware, I am not suggesting that there aren't many people who are taking a principled stand against military action in Iraq, just as there are many people who are taking a principled stand for taking such action.
- Martin© 2003 Martin. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes Re: Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/22/2003, 18:00:32
Author Profile Mail author
I was actually agreeing with you somewhat. It is so complicated. And if Saddam's government isn't in power "we" won't be getting Iraqi oil any cheaper, just without going through Russia. BUT, once Iraq's government is approved for free trade, Russia and France both have a lot too loose, especially Russia. I was adding to what you said, putting some numbers on it. California is by far the most gluttonous of places when it comes to oil consumption, and that such a hefty portion of the oil consumed comes from Iraq helps (at least helps me) to formulate an understanding of how vast the Iraqi oil deposits are.
Another thing that I have great concern about is the ecological devastation of the oil harvest in the middle east (not to mention other places - Venezuala, Argentina, Brazil). I talked to an old oil rig guy from Texas last night who told me some ecological horror stories from Texas. My concern is that in places where there is less governmental interference in corporate procedures the rape of the earth for oil is causing irreparable harm, at least for generations and generations.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes Re: Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes -- Jenny Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/22/2003, 19:31:57
Author Profile Mail author
Your points of concern are quite valid and well considered.
Previously, I commented on some points you make in the editorial style structure here.
Consider some facts on the Bush Administration in some points here:
Despite well-known ties to Big Oil, Bush Administration officials have managed to keep a straight face as they insist that the drive to war against Iraq is motivated only by an effort to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and establish democracy. It is not credible that there would be such a strong push for war if there were no oil in Iraq. Oil is power and this is in significant measure a struggle over that power.
The connections between the Bush administration and the oil industry are clear and pervasive. A remarkable 41 members of the administration have ties to the industry, and both the President and the Vice President are both former oil executives. National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice is a former director of Chevron. President Bush took more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries in the 2000 election. The Bush people and the oil moguls do agree with one another in part because they are one another.
With influence like that, it's no surprise that big oil corporations like ExxonMobil
(with an annual lobbying budget of nearly $12 million) and Halliburton (the Vice President's former employer) have had an unprecedented role in determining the nation's energy policies. What we don't yet know is whether Vice President Cheney and members of the American Petroleum Institute specifically discussed Iraq in the secretive meetings of the national energy task force, since he absolutely refuses Congressional demands to release many of the task force documents. But we do know that the Vice President's energy strategy casts a growing dependency on oil as an inevitability, recommending "that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy."The energy situation we have now is precarious. The United States currently consumes 19.5 million barrels a day, or 26% of daily global oil consumption. With just 2% of the world's proven reserves, the U.S. imports 9.8 million barrels a day, or more than half the oil we consume. Instead of remedying this dangerous dependence with increased fuel efficiency standards and other efficiency measures, the Vice President's national energy strategy propels the country down an even more perilous road that it says will require 17 million barrels of imports a day by 2020, lining the pockets of multinational oil companies while polluting the environment and committing the United States military to continued international hostilities.
The surest way for the U.S. to sustain its overwhelming dependence upon oil is to control the sixty-seven percent of the world's proven oil reserves that lie below the sands of the Persian Gulf. Iraq alone has proven reserves of 112.5 barrels, or 11% of the world's remaining supply, with possible reserves of almost twice that. Only Saudi Arabia has more.
U.S. oil multinationals have been banned from Iraqi oil fields for more than a decade. While French, Russian and Chinese companies are lined up to profitably tap into Iraq's reserves, Bush Administration officials incredulously claim that Iraqi officials installed by the U.S. will independently choose who produces the oil after a war. It is an absurd claim.
Plans are already being laid. As long ago as January 16th, The Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Shlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war oil bonanza.
The American people have a right to know what is being discussed in these meetings about the oil industry's designs on this gigantic pool of petroleum and what, if any, assurances they are being given by what is supposed to be our government.
Clearly, there is a better means of achieving U.S. energy security. Instead of relying on costly military ventures in unstable countries to ensure a steady source of oil, we need a national energy security strategy that is expeditious, self-sufficient and environmentally sustainable.
Forty percent of all U.S. petroleum demand goes to fuel the country's cars and light trucks. The average fuel efficiency of the nation's passenger vehicles is at its lowest level since 1980.
President Bush's much-vaunted hydrogen-vehicle initiative will do virtually nothing to improve the efficiency of the 17 million passenger vehicles that will roll off the assembly lines each year between now and 2020, when some hydrogen vehicles may be viable. Besides, we already knew about this. In addition, Bush is assuming renewable energy is available to generate the hydrogen in the first place.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, conventional technological improvements are currently available which could boost average fuel efficiency standards to more than 40 miles per gallon, including direct fuel injection, variable valve control engines, high-strength lightweight materials, and low rolling resistance tires. In addition, hybrid electric vehicles that achieve 55 mpg are already selling in the tens of thousands in our country. This technology is operational now. But instead of forcing Detroit to adopt these immediately available improvements to today's gas-guzzling fleet, the President is promising Detroit $1.7 billion in corporate welfare gifts to daydream about next-generation hydrogen-based vehicles while doing virtually nothing to make improvements next year and the years after.
Each day, more and more Americans are realizing that the perverse priorities of the Bush/Cheney oiligarchy are driving the war against Iraq. That's why thousands of concerned citizens are demonstrating around the country and in other parts of the world. And that's why, as has been reported, many retired generals, admirals and other retired officers are arguing that this pending war diverts, distracts and is likely to produce "blowbacks" against the safety and security of the United States, not to mention informed internal dissent among military and intelligence agencies in the Bush government that is now being muted.
The U.N. continues to state that it needs more time to search for WMD in Iraq a country at least the size of CA. Bush says they are out of time. They say otherwise. And what have they found to date of major significance? Very little of major consequence. They may yet find it. If they do, it would give greater credibility that Iraq must be disarmed. That could be done absent war. It might be possible.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
JAK's resorting again to bogus propaganda Re: Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/22/2003, 21:13:41
Author Profile Mail author
Let's look at some more of JAK's propagandistic "war for oil" assertions, which he holds to be certainties without objective, persuasive evidence:
"It is not credible that there would be such a strong push for war if there were no oil in Iraq."
"The Bush people and the oil moguls do agree with one another in part because they are one another."
"Bush Administration officials incredulously claim that Iraqi officials installed by the U.S. will independently choose who produces the oil after a war. It is an absurd claim."
"The energy situation we have now is precarious."
"Instead of relying on costly military ventures in unstable countries to ensure a steady source of oil..."
"Each day, more and more Americans are realizing that the perverse priorities of the Bush/Cheney oiligarchy are driving the war against Iraq. That's why thousands of concerned citizens are demonstrating around the country and in other parts of the world."
. . .
Where is your compelling evidence for those assertions, JAK?
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Feb 22, 2003, 21:37:12
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
H-Cars Re: Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/22/2003, 21:44:06
Author Profile Mail author
These cars use hydrogen as fuel. Practically speaking
H. is made from water using electricity. Electricity
is in practical terms generated by fossil fuel. Since
none of these operations are 100% efficient, we'll be
using more fossil fuel in H-cars than in present
gasoline cars. What gives???
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: H-Cars Re: H-Cars -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/22/2003, 21:52:25
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Science, Not Bush! Re: Re: H-Cars -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/22/2003, 23:03:49
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Not necessarily Re: H-Cars -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/22/2003, 22:00:01
Author Profile Mail author
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Not necessarily Re: Not necessarily -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/22/2003, 22:59:17
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Not necessarily Re: Re: Not necessarily -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/22/2003, 23:07:23
Author Profile Mail author
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Forget Bush! Re: Re: Not necessarily -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/22/2003, 23:43:54
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Another point... Re: H-Cars -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/22/2003, 23:16:29
Author Profile Mail author
-Dan
Modified by nofaith at Sat, Feb 22, 2003, 23:17:56
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Efficiency Re: Another point... -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/22/2003, 23:38:39
Author Profile Mail author
It is true what you say about efficiency, but let's analyze it further. First, if everything were ideal, i.e. all efficiencies were 100%, then any direction we go we'll get the same result. But, what we have in practice is this:1) Converting fossil fuel to motion in gaosline engines, with less efficiency than in power plants; but it only takes one step.
2) Converting fossil fuel to electricity in power plants, converting electricity to H, converting H to electricity in fuel cells, converting this electricity to motion. It takes four steps, each with less than 100% efficiency.
In the absence of any factual data, I'd argue that the second route can't be more efficient than the first one. What do you think?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Efficiency Re: Efficiency -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/23/2003, 01:22:19
Author Profile Mail author
This efficiency is around 33%-35%
> converting electricity to H
Electrolysis (creating hydrogen from water) is a process with an efficiency close to 100%, so this is negligible.
> converting H to electricity in fuel cells, converting this
> electricity to motion.Fuel cells in cars can make use 40%-60% of the energy, and this number could improve with time.
Optimistically speaking, we could get 21% efficiency out of our fossil fuels with current technology, through this route. This is still worse than an internal combustion engine, which typically has about 25% efficiency.
Additionally, with a reformer (a device that converts fossil fuels such as methanol, ethanol, gasoline, or diesel to hydrogen), a fuel-cell car can run on gasoline. This conversion is substantially more efficient than that of combustion engines. Theoretically, a fuel-cell based vehicle with a reformer would be more efficient on the same amount of fuel than a regular vehicle (the pollution is also reduced significantly).
The fact is, we aren't ready to convert to fuel-cell cars yet. But as our technology improves, we hopefully will be. The best case scenario would be to have solar plants creating the hydrogen. But until then, there are many other alternatives. I imagine the most attractive thing about fuel cell vehicles is options. We can use fossil fuels to create hydrogen, but we can also use many other methods (nuclear, solar, renewables). This reduces our reliance on oil.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Efficiency & Bahman's concerns Re: Re: Efficiency -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/23/2003, 10:58:50
Author Profile Mail author
I appreciated all the material you presented here. Without addressing the particulars, one of the most important points which you make is in the last paragraph.
It is reducing our dependency or reliance on oil. As your statistics suggest, our methods of powering have been in a fluid state for a long time. Gaining more efficiency is the direction in which we are moving. I would just add that testing, experimentation, and application are part of the process.
While I am confident you know that, Bahman’s questions prompt me to make this observation for his consideration.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Feb 23, 2003, 11:00:14
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Low Efficiency for H-cars Re: Efficiency & Bahman's concerns -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/23/2003, 11:55:40
Author Profile Mail author
Right. But as nofaith demonstrated, H-cars are less efficient than the present cars.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Still wondering! Re: Re: Efficiency -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/23/2003, 11:48:52
Author Profile Mail author
Options are good if they are also competative. H-cars don't seem to come anywhere near other options.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The Time Factor for Development Re: Still wondering! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/23/2003, 12:49:28
Author Profile Mail author
How long have we had the combustion engine? Keep in mine that the hydrogen car as a concept is relatively new. And even if the efficiency is not good at present, comparatively little has been done to perfect such technology.
So before arguing strongly against the development of such technology, we have to give it some time to develop. Assuming the validity of Dan’s percentages, 25% vs. 21% is not very great. Also, it is important simply to recognize that the oil industry has done everything it can to stifle the development of energy resources which would threaten it. And the oil industry has far deeper pockets and greater influence than any on the outside of that industry can really appreciate.
So given the mere 4% difference (assuming Dan’s figures to be correct), it appears to me that there is potential here for exploration.
If I understand your position correctly, you oppose the development of the hydrogen powered car...yes?? on the grounds that it is no better and even worse than the present 25% efficiency.
How do you feel about SUV’s which get 12 mpg or less? Should there be restrictions on the number produced? Should their mpg be included in the pooled number for “average mpg” for all GM “cars” (as well as Chrysler and Ford)?
How do you feel about the Bush tax write-off for SUV’s used in business. Some years ago, my neighbor (furniture store owner) got a new Lincoln Town Car about every six months. It was his “business car.” He never used if for business. His wife drove it. He drove it to play golf. But he deducted it as a business expense and bought it wholesale under “an agreement” with the dealership for which HE supplied carpet in their showroom. His own car was a Honda Civic which was driven by his daughter (in high school).
Today, he wants the Bush tax write-off for SUV’s. He intends to have a Lincoln Navigator (cost nearly $60,000 equipped) which he can deduct the full price for in one year.
I think we should have some empathy for the development of the hydrogen-fueled car. Maybe it will not be viable. But, further work on it should be encourage.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
We need top experts! Re: The Time Factor for Development -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/23/2003, 14:12:19
Author Profile Mail author
"If I understand your position correctly, you oppose the development of the hydrogen powered car...yes??"
Tactically yes, stragetically, no!!!
Let me explain. At this level of expertise (i.e., you, nofaith, and me) I don't see how H-cars can be viable. However, the FACT remains that they have been researching, designing, and making prototypes of H-cars for a while now. They MUST KNOW something we don't. Now, who can find that out?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Wait a minute... Re: Still wondering! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/23/2003, 14:31:20
Author Profile Mail author
My point was that, with increased efficiency, a hydro-car could be even more efficient than a gasoline powered car, even when the fossil fuel power plant is taken into account. Currently, that is not the case. However, the efficiency problem is NOT in the hydro-car! It is in fossil fuel power plants. Thus, an improvement to power plants (or a change to nuclear/solar ones) would have a direct effect on the vehicles, were we using hydro-cars. Right now, improvements to the power plants doesn't help with vehicles.
Additionally, as I stated, we do not have to get the power from a power plant at all. A reformer (built into the car, or located at gas stations) can turn fossil fuels into hydrogen with very high efficiency (possibly, these could be implemented at the power plant level). According to this article, the Ztek reformer is 85% efficient (I can't verify this). Even in a worst case scenario (40%), a fuel cell car would then be 34% efficient, even from gasoline (best case: 51%).
H-cars are and will be very competetive. When dependent on fossil fuel power plants, they are not (yet, at least). When dependent on nuclear or solar plants, or reformers, they are. I hope this helps.
-Dan
Modified by nofaith at Sun, Feb 23, 2003, 14:36:24
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Wait a minute... Re: Wait a minute... -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/23/2003, 15:32:37
Author Profile Mail author
1) I thought we'd come to an agreement that alternative fuels like nuclear, solar, wind, etc. are not available for H-cars. If you agree, let's shelf that idea.
2) You say: "Thus, an improvement to power plants (or a change to nuclear/solar ones) would have a direct effect on the vehicles, were we using hydro-cars." Do you really see much of that happening? Note that fossil-fuel power plants have been in use for decades and IMO any improvement will be small. Moreover, we can expect better fuel efficincies with present gasoline cars also. So, in sum, I still don't think this route (getting hydrogen by electolysis using electricity produced by power plants necessarily using fossil fuels) is more efficient than internal combustion engines. Can we shelf this too?
3) A viable alternative that has come up in our discussions (and I didn't know before) is the use of reformers that produce H directly from fossil fuels (without needing electricity). Now, maybe that is the method they mean when experts talk about H-cars, yes? And that is the answer I was looking for.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Wait a minute... Re: Re: Wait a minute... -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/23/2003, 16:21:17
Author Profile Mail author
2). I don't mind shelfing this, because the future of hydro-cars is about alternative fuels, not fossil fuels.
3). This is a viable alternative TODAY. That makes it very useful for a transition period. But the ultimate goal is to stop using fossil fuels all together. To do that, we need to use alternate fuels.
Having good hydrogen powered vehicles is only part of the effort to reduce our reliance on oil, and reduce the pollution we produce. More must be done, and it involves focusing on alternate sources of energy. Reformers are good for the short term: they can provide better mileage on the same fuel. However, the real goal is to STOP using oil all together--it is in short supply and causes massive amounts of pollution. When "experts" talk about hydrogen powered vehicles, they are looking at the big picture, as well as the short term.
Except for the cost of producing these cars (which will come down), there really is no reason to not switch. What is really important, though, is the future. If we do not start using hydro-cars, we will still have a huge dependence on oil when we replace our power plants with nuclear and solar ones. If we do, then we can slowly reduce our "addiction" when the time comes.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You summed it up well! Re: Re: Wait a minute... -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/23/2003, 17:20:58
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
The future of Iraqi oil...who will control it. Re: Re: Iraq Oil and where it goes -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/24/2003, 13:24:56
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks Jak,
This is on the CNN news channel today. (above link):
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is laying extensive plans for a long-term U.S. military and civilian administration in Iraq once the regime of Saddam Hussein is removed from power, either through war or other means, officials said Monday.
Some may say that you exhibit a propensity for conspiracy theory rhetoric about the current corporate oil-billionaire soaked administration, but I don’t. There is writing on the wall in thick black magic marker, why is it being ignored?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Conspiracy crackpottery Re: The future of Iraqi oil...who will control it. -- Jenny Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/25/2003, 00:10:32
Author Profile Mail author
Your explicit endorsement of blatant conspiracy crackpottery does not serve your position well. Your impugning of genuine and honest scholarship with your conspiracy-driven innuendo and "guilt by association" rhetoric suggests that, like JAK, you have chosen to abandon reason and truth for chest-thumping sanctimony. Yours and JAK's conspiracy mongering about "war for oil" shows real contempt for honesty and intellectual integrity, and fails to take into account the true complexity of this very difficult situation.
I read the article you cited in its entirety and consider it to display wisdom and good sense. The fact that you condemn such sensible thinking suggests that you're less interested in the truth and more interested in propaganda. While I can and do emotionally understand much of that need considering your very laudable love of your son and your fear that he may be drafted, praising the vapid "war for oil" conspiracy rhetoric is no substitute for a sober and principled stand against war.
Are you aware of the fact by endorsing such juvenile propaganda that this is all about "war for oil" by an "oil-billionaire soaked administration" you're unfairly and grossly insulting the leaders and governments of Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom? Are they all in it primarily for oil money, too?
According to you and JAK, Saddam and Saddam's actions are essentially irrelevant and we have no right or business holding him to more than a decade's worth of U.N. resolutions which demanded that he disarm, all of which went largely ignored. We have no right or business challenging Iraq to comply and have those challenges backed up with the credible threat of force. According to you and JAK, this whole thing is primarily an evil conspiracy of an "oil-billionaire soaked administration" to gain private profit from stealing Iraq's oil, and it's just poor Saddam's lousy luck that they happened to choose Iraq for their conspiracy's target.
I urge you to abandon such conspiracy ranting and JAK's ridiculous propaganda and return to your former intelligent position.
Sincerely,- Martin
Modified by Martin at Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 04:44:43
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a good boy Martin Re: Conspiracy crackpottery -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jenny ®
02/25/2003, 12:33:07
Author Profile Mail author
I admit to using jingoism and rhetoric Martin. Yes, it is very complicated indeed. Yes, Saddam is a bad bad dictator. Yes, Iran is nearly ripe to throw over their experiment in cleric Islamic Fundamentalism and if Iraq has a government in place that is “friendly” to that end, it will be a lot easier for “us” to help “them” get that done. Yes yes yes yes, if this was a puzzle we could find the pieces that fit, but it isn’t a puzzle and I am loathe to agree with bombs. And I am loath to agree with “regime change is the only way out.” Bush says that if Saddam disarms war can be averted. What he means is in order for their not to be a war, Saddam’s government must be toppled. Disarmament is not enough, Bush wants a government friendly to “our” interests, in fact he already has one picked out and ready to step in.
So back to Guatemala, did our involvement in their political process (the fledgling democracy) HELP the people of Guatemala that it was supposed to? Did it give them the “freedoms” that the press here was saying they were denied? NO, it gave them years and years of terrorist death squads paid for, supplied and trained by “us.” Terror death-squads are OK in a nation, as long as our economic interests are being “protected.”
With Respect and a bit of frustration,
Jenny
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Weapons & Oil Re: The future of Iraqi oil...who will control it. -- Jenny Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/25/2003, 11:57:03
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks to you as well for the CNN web-page.
There is no question that issues with Iraq indeed involve Saddam’s weapons, their status, their readiness for use, etc. Given Saddam’s history, one must recognize that as a major issue. However, as I pointed out and CNN confirmed along with other sources, this administration is not disinterested in the oil in Iraqi oil fields.
Consider the price of oil today as the threat to Iraq looms ever larger. For the U.S. to remove Saddam and be in a stronger position to exert control over Iraqi oil, this administration would claim victory. The claim of victory would be not only over removal of Saddam (assuming the U.S. succeeds in that), but victory in improving the economic condition of the United States.
The problem for Bush is multiple unknowns if war is the chosen alternative. It appears more and more likely that war will be the case. But, even now and in an instant, an event or some unpredictable action by some unknown agent could change the course.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page