BS: It's official...... it was about oil

Subject: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:06 PM

Today's Sunday Times carries the following statement from Alan Greenspan, ex chairman of th US Federal Reserve.

"It saddens me that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows; the Iraq war is largely about oil"

This from one of the "High Priests of capitalism" is a boost for the anti-war left.

This validates my opinion, that we are prepared to indulge in piracy and countenance the deaths of hundreds of thousands , to fulfill our energy requirments.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

Well, so would any individual faced with imminent extinction. But there's the great lie -- the threat was created to support a business model, not an actually threatened life.


A

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: harpmolly
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:23 PM

Good God, akenaton...do I actually find myself *agreeing* with you? :D

Scary, eh? *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:25 PM

It's been confirmed that the Pope is indeed a Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:57 PM

And O.J. Simpson is a man of questionable character.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:59 PM

What's new? Thought this rang a bell then found what I posted in 2003.



"Metchosin    BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions? (126* d)
                   RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?        22 Mar 03

and just in case this has not been been linked to before, for those that still think that this is about weapons of mass destruction and bringing Democracy to Iraq, a little info on
Power Brokering in the Middle East

The players in this game couldn't care less about the plight of the average Iraqi as long as they have control."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

akenaton

This validates my opinion, that we are prepared to indulge in piracy and countenance the deaths of hundreds of thousands , to fulfill our energy requirments.

harpmolly

Good God, akenaton...do I actually find myself *agreeing* with you? :D

Careful, he didn't actually say that he disapproved.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

I am quite shocked to learn of this. Do the American people know their government lied to them?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

You have to get their minds off Britney Spears first.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

What other "revelations" are there in this book? Did Greenspan notice that GWB didn't exactly balance his budgets?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

"Earlier this month, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq announced that it had signed a production-sharing deal with Texas-based Hunt Oil. The move is an indication that Western oil companies, frustrated over the delay in the passage of a national oil law by the Iraqi government, are moving to make deals with regional bodies to get access to Iraq's vast oil reserves.

As significant as the deal itself is the identity of the company involved. Ray Hunt, the CEO and president of privately held Hunt Oil, is a close confidant of President Bush and a prominent figure in the US political and intelligence establishment."

Hard to believe, huh? Now, where are the mouths who said this was about WMDs and terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:20 PM

Hah Snail...You are correct to be cautious.

By WE, I mean the electorate of US/UK, and if we were honest even the "liberals" of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

Hi Molly nice to meet you in happier circumstances.....Just watch your arse this time....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Olive
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

Well, those energy requirements were established over a hundred years ago by the people now poised to kick off WW3.

Over a hundred years ago steam technology was suppressed and the US economy was diverted toward petroleum. Coal and other power sources were marginalized too, not just in the US but around the world. So now we have world dependence on oil. And it's contrived. The wealthy elite (the Dutch & English royalty, the Rothschilds and their Rockefeller agents in the US), 1) bought up all oil preduction, 2) kept the construction of oil refineries to a minimum, and 3) started the lie of 'peak oil' (the planet is running out of oil.) And now the global elite are about to attack Iran. Isn't 3/4 of the world's oil shipped through the strait of Hormuz? And when Iran is attacked, it will shut down Hormuz. Oil prices will skyrocket and nations will sink into chaos.

This global chaos is what the elite are after. When the wars are over, the world's population will be reduced by half, and the traumatized survivors will be easy to control. The global elite will have a plan for that, too.

Oil is just a control mechanism. The elite also use money as a control mechanism, and mass media. By controlling what your brain picks up on TV, and by converting the necessities of life into paper script, and by being able to cut off your fuel, they own you. The people who have set up this system think generationally. So of course it's about oil. It's been about oil for more than a century.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

"Coal and other power sources were marginalized too, not just in the US but around the world."

While I agree with you in general, I also think it a good thing that the use of coal was suppressed. It was a terrible pollutant then. It's only been the last few decades in which coal has become 'clean enough to burn'. The technology wasn't there before. It is now.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:22 PM

Coulda got it for 'em wholesale . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: gnu
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:24 PM

Olive (oil...allow me).... thank you. Well said. The rich subjugate the poor. And, although I have tried, and kinda failed, to say the same in many ways on many threads, you have just said it perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:36 PM

Note that the Hunt deal is with "Kurdistan", not the "Iraqi government". Therefore that cannot be used as evidence that the Iraq war was about oil--the US would have had access to "Kurdistan" oil regardless--ever since the Gulf war the Kurds would be happy to have Western oil investment. And that is still their plan--whatever the Maliki government wants. Now they say that the Hunt oil income would be shared by all Iraqis--but I suspect
that if the Maliki government continues to insist that there should be no oil deals until the Iraq oil law is passed, eventually the Kurds will get tired of playing the game and keep the income for themselves. There won't be any oil flowing for a while anyway--and by then the Maliki government will likely be a memory.

"Kurdistan" is both the agent and the model of the breakup of "Iraq". And there's no reason why it should not go its own way---especially since it is the US fallback position--which eventually Bush will admit.

It is fascinating that Greenspan has said that the war was about oil. And it's obviously true, to some extent. But I suspect it was also about Bush wanting to be a "war president", especially after toppling the Taliban, with the political benefits that accrued to that. He saw another war he could win on the cheap--having been assured by the only advisors he allowed access to him--that it would be. Strange how that happens, when you reject any advice that might contradict what you want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM

Now the French are getting 'mouthy' about Iran. I guess they want some oil, too. I can get it for them, wholesale.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:43 PM

Also, it's noteworthy that the Wall St Journal editorial page, which is an amazingly faithful reflection of Bush regime attitudes, has already been publishing very critical columns about Greenspan's tenure as Fed chairman. It'll be interesting to see if they allege he is senile, politically naive or what--to try to deny the validity of Greenspan's observation.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:05 PM

Well, Greenspan is about half right... It wasn't only about oil but politics... Afganistan was settlin' into a borin' war and the '04 election was comin' and Karl Rove knew that '04 wasn't gojng to be a cakewalk and so he let Bush know that a new shiney war would get him thru '04...

Ohio??? Okay, maybe Rove missed but the crooks cleaned it up...

But there is no question that Bush would have lost '04 without Iraq... No question at all... Even against a lousy Dem candidtate in John Kerry...

Dean, however, would have kicked Bush's ass...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:05 PM

Bobert-

Dean would have smashed Bush?--it ain't necessarily so. Remember the main attack on Kerry, was, as usual, "weak on national security". That took some doing. With Dean that would not have been at all hard to establish--harder than against a Vietnam combat veteran.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Alice
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:34 PM

Greenspan was on 60 Minutes tonight.
I hope it sells more of his book.
When asked, he said Clinton was the smartest
president he worked under, Ford the most ethical,
and Nixon the most foul mouthed and racist person
he'd been around.
Hillary he said is very smart, very capable of being
president, but he would vote for
a Republican (Greenspan is a Republican).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:48 PM

It wasn't just about Iraqi oil. It was about controlling all the oil in that entire region, which includes the Middle East and the Caspian region. The USA wanted to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, set up permanent bases there, and use them as staging points for further ambitious moves in the direction of, most likely, Iran...and quite possibly Syria.

Iraq is one part of a larger grand strategy, a strategy which is grand imperialism on a vast scale. Excuses will be found for future wars, as they have been found for past wars. This sort of thing's been going on for centuries, and it always involves the robbing of the less powerful by the more powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

Interesting side note to this discussion.

Heard that Israel bombed a Syrian Nuclear installation.

Here we go again? Remember who first attacked Iraq to destroy nuclear facilities? And who later sent in their troops?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:21 AM

The fight over oil in that region Little Hawk isn't over either. The US has long been far more interested in the region as a whole & doesn't give a shit about Iraq or Iran for that matter, they're just stepping stones. It wants control over the oil flow through out the Mid East & North West Africa & it'll go after it, slowly, maybe but that is the "End Game"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:55 AM

I'm waiting for teribus (the resident know-it-all) to argue this point with Alan Greenspan, ex chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:46 AM

Hey!--What's all this guff about "clean burning coal"? There is no such beast. Any engineer will tell you that the main measure of combustion efficiency with respect to carbonaceaous fuels is in analysis of the "flue gases". And the higher the figure for carbon dioxide, the happier will everyone be---except those who are concerned about greenhouse gases, that is! Finding a way to capture and confining carbon dioxide is the ONLY way to making "clean burning coal" a credible expression.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:04 AM

"Dean, however, would have kicked Bush's ass..."


                      But the corporate forces of evil destroyed Dean in Iowa, in case a Democrat got elected.


"Greenspan was on 60 Minutes tonight.
I hope it sells more of his book."


                     Oh, that's why he finally admitted Iraq was about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:05 AM

""clean burning coal""

Ah - Little Fascist Johnny has that under control! - so he tells us...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:25 AM

"coal has become 'clean enough to burn'."

Boab, that is not what I said. What I did say is above, here. Coal burns more cleanly today than it did even 30 years ago. But that's a far cry from me saying it is clean burning.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:29 AM

BTW, I live in a coal mining area.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:36 AM

To some it is official when Greenspan has now said in his new book that the Iraq war is all about oil .

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:52 AM

I am waiting anxiously for those folks who were so vocal about it all being about terrorism and WMDs to put Greenspan in his place. Yep. Let's hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:22 AM

The effect of the war has been to provoke MORE terrorism, but that's always what happens when you violently invade other people's countries.

I mean, hey, just look at all the "terrorism" the Nazis had to contend with in WWII. ;-) Terrorists were springing up all over Europe and killing innocent Germans, for God's sake!!! What was their problem anyway?   (don't take me literally, please......)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM

Foolstroupe--You juxtapose the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor by Israel with the sending of US troops to Iraq as if that was one concerted attack. Be fair! The first gulf war was almost ten years after than the Israeli action, and the proximate cause for US/UN involvement was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The current Iraq war started more than twenty years later, and had nothing to do with Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 10:46 AM

And a bloody good thing it was that that reactor was destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:18 PM

Yea, where´s Teribus when you need him?......

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

Well, so as not to disappoint dianavan.

Greenspan says that it was all about oil.

All the anti-war; anti-Bush start jumping up and down chattering with excitement.

OK, it was all about oil, but not in the way most who have posted to this thread imagine.

The US position with regards to the Middle-East and particularly to the Persian Gulf is something similar to Great Britain's attitude to Europe from about the early 1700's to 1914. At no time throughout that period did Britain ever want to rule or control Europe, nor did they ever seek to do so. Their primary aim in their foreign policy towards Europe was that they would make absolutely sure not to let any other single state ever control Europe.

The USA has no intention of controlling the Middle-East, but it doesn't want anybody else to control it either. Far, far too many of the USA's allies and trading partners rely on oil from the Middle-East, the USA itself most singularly does not, particularly not with oil at the price per barrel that it is at present.

Little Hawk
"It wasn't just about Iraqi oil. It was about controlling all the oil in that entire region, which includes the Middle East and the Caspian region. The USA wanted to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, set up permanent bases there, and use them as staging points for further ambitious moves in the direction of, most likely, Iran...and quite possibly Syria."

Now Little Hawk can you possibly explain why they need this now, when they didn't seem to need this at any point during the last sixty years. The plain fact is that they don't need permanent bases in the region now, they never, ever did. And they are not setting up any such bases now.

Control of the area is not on the cards - for a start it is impossible for the USA to gain such control, just as it was impossible for Great Britain to gain control of Europe, but they can stop anyone else from controlling it and ensure that oil supplies flow freely out of the Gulf. To do that you do not need permanent land bases - you need a Navy - The United States of America has got a Navy that is second to none - in exactly the same way as Great Britain needed and had the Navy it required between 1700 and 1914.

All this by the way was not brought to the table by President George W. Bush, or by any member of his Administration. It was introduced into US Foreign Policy many, many years ago by that "nice" peanut farmer chappy "Jimmy" Carter.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:12 PM

Nice try Teribus, but laying it all at the feet of Jimmy Carter is like trying to blame the Planter's Peanut Man for AIDS.

From my link above:

"A client oil state was first defined by Lord Curzon, who was the British foreign secretary after World War I. He said it was an "Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff . . . There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on".

The US took over the British imperial prize in the Middle East after WWII. The official US State Department history (1945, volume 8, page 45) noted: "These resources constituted a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment."

The US is not going to give Iraq up without a fight, even if the main cost will be damage to its reputation as a good global citizen."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:35 PM

Jimmy Carter is a favorite whipping boy for the Right. The poor man, after all, was attacked by a killer rabbit while out canoeing... ;-) ...thus cementing his reputation as an official "wimp" for all time.

Anyway, Teribus, I consider all American presidents to have been servants of the grand strategy I allude to...not just the Republican presidents.

I don't think the USA's policy is surprising, as it's motivated by self-interest. I just think it's unacceptable to many in the Third World whom it directly affects, that's all...

Because of that, you will see further struggle and further terrorism. Such things happen when great powers muck around in the affairs of smaller powers (as they always do). I see no reason to sympathize with the activities of the great powers when they do that.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:22 PM

"The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." - President Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address, 23rd January 1980.

Metchosin, read that last paragraph again very carefully, then go back and read what I said in my post. If you then have any doubts about the United States of America's long term policies in the region come back and talk about it.

The article you linked to, dated 2002 was way off mark. neither French, nor Russian, oil interests in Iraq have suffered one jot, much to consternation of those who predicted that "big bad" American Oil Companies were going to "steal" Iraq's oil.

One of these days the truth will sink in:

- You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible (None of you who have claimed that it is possible have ever come up with a way of explaining the means of doing so)

- Just as you cannot "steal" it you most certainly cannot "control" it, you cannot "corner the market" and if you cannot control the market you cannot control the commodity. (This used to be a great hobby-horse of dianavan's, and no matter how many times she was asked to explain the how, she always just ducked the question)

Oh and what the US State Department history 1945 said at the time was probably very true at that time, 62 years down the track, things have changed - greatly.

People have talked a bit about coal - the long term view should be that it is too precious to burn.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM

It's kind of important to read exactly what Greenspan 'admits'...and who he says he 'advised' about what, and what what was NOT said.

He says that the point was that *IF* Saddam was allowed to remain in power, he would eventually have attempted to control the Strait of Hormuz, and thus have the power to cut OFF large amounts of the world's oil supply! He did NOT say...and specifically did not assert...that it was all about 'getting' Iraq's oil, as so many seem to insinuate. I gather that Greenspan assumed that, with Saddam gone, access to Iraqi oil might automatically follow as a plus.

Whether it is true that Bush & Co. listened to Greenspan and integrated his analysis into their plans is NOT clear. There's a lot we can guess at in these issues, but oversimplifying and making broad assertions about what YOU believe policy was, is kinda dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

Bush 'surprised' by Greenspan--White House



Agence France-Presse
Last updated 10:42pm (Mla time) 09/17/2007


WASHINGTON--US President George W. Bush was "a bit surprised" by a memoir by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan that alleges "the Iraq war is largely about oil," the White House said Monday.

Spokesman Dana Perino pointed to a new interview with Greenspan in which he backtracked and "acknowledged that oil was not the president's motive for engagement in Iraq and our decision to go into Iraq."

In published excerpts of the book, Greenspan said: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil."

In an interview with the Washington Post, done Saturday but published on Monday, Greenspan explained "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:14 PM

Obviously, NO one in the administration wants to go on record as having oil on their minds. WMDs, real or ephemeral, were a much better excuse.....but obviously, oil was a big unspoken issue, whether they even admitted it to themselves or not.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM

1. The effect of the war has been to provoke MORE terrorism ...

But that's just fine with the BuShites. As long as the average U.S. citizen/voter is kept ready to shit his/her drawers for fear of "tay-rists- phantom or real doesn't signify- they won't have time to figure out how badly they're being screwed over.

2.Yea, where´s Teribus when you need him?

Who, precisely, needs him & for what??

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM

"Jimmy Carter is a favorite whipping boy for the Right."


                That's because now even they recognize that Carter was right all along. If the country had made itself energy independant as Carter was trying to do, none of this Iraq stuff ever would have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 07:24 PM

It's hard for anyone not already wallowing in the profits of one energy source to bear the costs of R&D on another type....and those who are invested in oil & gas don't WANT to spend their profits on Solar or Wind development..etc...until forced to.

Carter just didn't have the clout to twist their arms.

Now I read every day about new breakthroughs in other types of energy...and I see evidence that the big oil conglomerates are trying to horn in and be sure THEY get control of that also...when we have no choice but to do with MUCH less oil.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 07:25 PM

. . . or take over the conglomerates.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:42 PM

Much as it pains me to agree with Teribus on anything, and I assure you it does:

"Iraq is part of a larger grand strategy, which is imperialism on a vast scale." Sorry, but that's grandiloquent drivel "on a vast scale".

Sounds like somebody addicted to wargaming, who always wants to read something cosmic into any development.

GWB is sui generis--for which we can all thank our God, our stars, or whatever benevolent force you may choose. The Iraq war and Bush's 2004 election were only possible thanks to 2 wonderfully successful propaganda campaigns. Bush will be gone in January 2009. After that, "fool me once, shame on you..." Even the-- substantial-- sheeplike portion of the US electorate can learn--and probably has.

Unless of course the poster's point is that capitalism itself is a vast imperialist conspiracy. Which on Mudcat is a definite possibility. An intriguing viewpoint--and in that case there's no point in discussing economics, politics, or history with the poster. But I'm sure he can find other intellectual giants to pass time with. Enjoy!