BS: Oil wars

Subject: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 05:06 PM

Whoever said the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil is delusional. Its all about oil and gaining access to Iran's oil is the end game. What is the cost of oil? Thousand of lives.

I certainly would not blame Iran for wanting to protect its oil fields. In fact, although they need nuclear power for domestic energy, I wonder if a nuclear bomb might be necessary to keep the hungry oil barons at bay. How else can they protect themselves?

I also think its a joke to threaten Iran with sanctions. Iran has a commodity that is much more important to the world than any economic sanctions that can be imposed.

"Industry experts fear Iran might disrupt its crucial oil exports if the international community punishes the Islamic republic with economic sanctions."

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/03/26/afx3549900.html

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

What kind of people would let their government con them into giving the lives of their sons and daughters so that a few rich and powerful men could steal the oil fields of Iraq?

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:50 PM

I am timing how long it will take Teribus to show up and scoff at dianavan (and Forbes)....wait for it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:47 AM

What kind of people? People who are easily fooled, Peter. It's been done before in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:47 AM

As I would absolutely hate to disappoint you TIA, here it is. The referenced article in Forbes when inserted into their sites search engine produces no results. So I'll just stick to scoffing at dianavan:

1) "Whoever said the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil is delusional. Its all about oil and gaining access to Iran's oil is the end game. What is the cost of oil?"

Now let's see if we have got this right. The US assemble the most powerful armed force in the region, in the country with the world's largest supplies and known reserves of oil, in order to invade Iraq, the country that has the second largest reserves but only ranks 17th in the production stakes, in order to get its hands on Iran's oil a country that it has not even threatened yet let alone invaded.

Last time I checked the US gets about 15% of it's daily imports of oil from the Middle-East (main supplier is Saudi Arabia) it gets a token 450,000 - 500,000 barrels per day from Iraq and pays full market price for oil purchased from both countries. The US gets no oil from Iran. So as a fairly rational human being I would say that dianavan's contention that the war in Iraq is all about Iran's oil is a bit of a stretch - even for her. The cost of oil dianavan is currently - NYME $62.75 per barrel; Brent Crude $64.29 per barrel - It has been a lot higher in the past.

Oh! found something on the Forbes site:

AFX News Limited
OIL PRICES EASE IN ASIAN TRADE ON PROFIT TAKING
03.27.07, 12:42 AM ET
        

**SINGAPORE (XFN-ASIA) -
Oil prices eased slightly in Asian trading hours on profit-taking, but they are not expected to fall much further unless West and Iran can reach agreement on Iran's disputed nuclear program, dealers said.
At 10.45 am here (0245 GMT), the New York Mercantile Exchange's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in May, was down 0.20 usd at 62.71 usd a barrel from 62.91 usd in late trading in the US overnight. Brent North Sea crude for May was down 0.16 usd at 64.25 usd.

Daiwa Securities' Melbourne-based analyst Mark Pervan said: 'We see some profit-taking after the gains [yesterday]. The market has certainly pushed oil prices to a high due to the Iranian tension.'
He added: 'Heightened risk in the Middle East has put a high floor in oil prices.'

The increase in demand as the peak season for the consumption of gasoline approaches is also keeping prices up, dealers said.

Iran said Sunday it would restrict its cooperation with the UN in retaliation for new UN Security Council sanctions over its disputed nuclear program, and the market fears that Iran, the world's fourth-biggest producer of oil, could disrupt supply in an effort to get its way.**

Find the "fourth largest producer" tag rather interesting - on crude oil Iran only exports 5% of the world total.


2) "I certainly would not blame Iran for wanting to protect its oil fields."

Neither would I dianavan, perfectly reasonable on proper that they should. But protect them from what exactly? Nobody is threatening them, but I'd subscribe to a course of action that implies "Better safe than sorry" so they can protect away for as long as their hearts are content.

3) "In fact, although they need nuclear power for domestic energy, I wonder if a nuclear bomb might be necessary to keep the hungry oil barons at bay. How else can they protect themselves?"

Very pleased to see that like most you subscribe to the belief that Iran's nuclear programme is indeed directed towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Not so pleased to see that you wholeheartedly approve of their decision. As stated previously, to date Iran has been threatened by nobody.

4) "I also think its a joke to threaten Iran with sanctions. Iran has a commodity that is much more important to the world than any economic sanctions that can be imposed."

I know that you would prefer to do nothing dianavan, the rest of the international community does not agree, they are deeply troubled by developments in Iran, and so they should be. Iran could turn off the taps tomorrow, I believe that the rest of the world would get by, Iran on the other hand would not, economically they would be in trouble very quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:45 AM

The more we get into the Middle East the more the Middle East will turn on us. If you think that we are not seen as a threat to Iran you are sadly mistaken, they need only look over their shoulder to see the smoke & fire. If you think we are not seen as a threat to the rest of the Middle East (except Israel) you are again mistaken, They need only to listen to the sounds of the oil drums. Yes, we'd love to control Iran's oil it would place us in the power throne world wide & we fear that China will soon clain that seat & Russia won't be backing our play but rather will once again become a player with China as an ally, Russia will back it's own play, they are not out of the game. As far as I can see the US would like to control the whole region & that's what I see as their final goal. So yes they will be looking for oil where ever they can take it. Every drop counts & we will take it a barrel at a time or by the grain of sand at a time. They will also crush any non allied competition (Venezuela's an example) they can while trying to achieve this goal. We consume more than our fair share of the worlds product, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Our government firmly believe that there's no reason to change our life style nor our thirst for oil & that we have some God Given Right to it. It's just a convienence that these oil rich nations don't believe in the same God. So yes these are Oil Wars for a lack of a less transparent name. You can bet that Iran is gonna protect it's oil fields because to them it's not their oil it's their way of life that's threatened. If we could harness the sun we'd be stealing that from them too, seeing as so much of it shines down on them.   
The best thing that the US could do would be to go green & dump as much oil assocated inventory that's not needed as possible. But we'll continue by throwing good money after bad. Our investments in all things oil are too great to just dump so the cycle will continue & we'll continue in this tail spin until we're completly out of control (are we there yet?).
I almost feel bad for those poor Middle East oil rich nations. It's like watching a rock star sky rocket only to plunge in a firey attempt at trying to ajust to their newly awarded status. Meanwhile all the vultures in the wings starting to pick it apart before it's meat even starts to turn invaluable.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:27 AM

"Find the "fourth largest producer" tag rather interesting - on crude oil Iran only exports 5% of the world total."

I'm not surprised that you find that interesting, teribus. Why don't you write Forbes and ask them where they got that information? Its a far cry from what you've been trying to tell us.

btw - If Iraq had invaded the U.S., as a Canadian I would feel very threatened! How can you ignore the geographic reality of Iraq and Iran? Add to that, the fact that George Bush has called this a crusade and you should begin to get the picture.

You're absolutely right, Barry, the U.S. would dearly love to control the entire Middle East, if possible. Lets start with the establishment of Israel - er, lets not. Thats another topic for another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:53 AM

Some observations on the pontifications of Barry:

1) "The more we get into the Middle East the more the Middle East will turn on us."

Well not really Baz, I can remember back in 1956, when the opportunity to place a physical and political barrier between the Egyptians and the Israeli's was thwarted by a rather naive President of the United States of America. Rightfully being slightly miffed at Britain and France, and even more pissed off with Israel because their buddy America had once again assisted them in walloping the military might of pan-Arabic ambition, almost the entire north coast of Africa and middle-east cosied up to the Soviets. Since then Baz we've had the decline of the USSR, Camp David, Oslo, etc. Of the countries in the region the following could be considered "friendly" towards the US - Egypt; Jordan; Lebanon (provided Syria and that bunch of tourists known as Hezbollah who have more than outstayed their welcome allow them to be); Turkey (NATO member); Iraq; Kuwait; Saudi Arabia; United Arab Emirates; Oman and Yemen. So in the entire region that only leaves Syria and Iran. That your idea of the middle-east turning against us? Laughable.


2) "If you think that we are not seen as a threat to Iran you are sadly mistaken, they need only look over their shoulder to see the smoke & fire. If you think we are not seen as a threat to the rest of the Middle East (except Israel) you are again mistaken, They need only to listen to the sounds of the oil drums."

Rather nonsensical, Barry. The United States of America is no threat to Iran, neither is the United Kingdom. What is threatened within Iran by the presence in the region of the US and the UK is the regime of the 12 Old Gits who rule Iran. Now that is a different kettle of fish altogether. A threat to all in the region except Israel eh Baz? You're dreamin' son. As the brother of the late King of Jordan said on Tim Sebastian's "Hardtalk" programme on the BBC in 2003 - Open two stalls in any market place in any city, town or village anywhere in the Arab world. One stall to recruit for Al-Qaeda and the "Jihad", the other offering visas to America. For every one person lining up at the former you would see one thousand lining up at the latter.

3) "Yes, we'd love to control Iran's oil it would place us in the power throne world wide & we fear that China will soon claim that seat & Russia won't be backing our play but rather will once again become a player with China as an ally, Russia will back it's own play, they are not out of the game."

As far as the US is concerned, I don't think they give a toss about Iran's oil, they don't use any of it, haven't done for nigh on thirty years. I can remember when you lot were screaming about America stealing Iraq's Oil before (that has all seemed to have died down now), IIRC when called to task over it and asked just how that could be done, you all shut up about that and found other things to mither on about. The only people who will ever control Iran's Oil will be the Iranian Government on behalf of the Iranian people. All the likes of China and Russia could do is the same as everybody else - buy the damn stuff at market price.

4) "As far as I can see the US would like to control the whole region & that's what I see as their final goal. So yes they will be looking for oil where ever they can take it. Every drop counts & we will take it a barrel at a time or by the grain of sand at a time."

No idea how on Earth they would do that Baz. I can see them having a vested interest in making as sure as possible that nobody else does. Love this, "looking for oil where ever they can take it." Absolute crap of course, the US like everybody else buys their oil on the open market, people don't mind doing business with the US as the US tends to a) honour it's agreements and; b) Pays cash. Oddly enough Baz, your dark brooding player sitting in the wings - Russia - hopes to entice the US into becoming one of it's major customers.

5) "They will also crush any non allied competition (Venezuela's an example) they can while trying to achieve this goal."

So Baz, pray tell us - Exactly when did the US crush Venezuela? Non-allied competition? I though ol' Hugo just returned from a whistle stop tour of the world on which he was signing alliances and agreements right left and centre. Just hope the Venezuelan people forgive him for all those discounted price deals to foreign governments when they are looking for reasons why ol' Chav hasn't delivered them from poverty a number of years down the line.

6) "We consume more than our fair share of the worlds product, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Our government firmly believe that there's no reason to change our life style nor our thirst for oil & that we have some God Given Right to it."

Now here Baz is trying to tell us all that the US Government forces the population of the United States of America to consume oil in vast quantities. I have news for you Barry, they don't. In fact they don't force you or any other citizen of the United States of America to do much of anything - What America consumes is a matter of choice, that choice being totally unforced and made using the free-will of the population - not a single politician, or government statute involved - TRUE?

7) "It's just a convienence that these oil rich nations don't believe in the same God. So yes these are Oil Wars for a lack of a less transparent name. You can bet that Iran is gonna protect it's oil fields because to them it's not their oil it's their way of life that's threatened."

As yet no-one has threatened Iran. Wish the same could be said for them.

8) "If we could harness the sun we'd be stealing that from them too, seeing as so much of it shines down on them."

Baz, that is about the most stupid thing I think I have ever heard anybody say on this Forum. Absolutely bloody ludicrous - think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:05 AM

teribus - Since you don't think the invasion of Iraq is about oil and you deny that the U.S. and Britain are threatening Iran, what do you think will be a sign of success in Iraq? Why do you think we are constantly meddling in the affairs of other nations to the tune of billions of dollars?

It may not always be about oil but it is about the control of energy and natural resources.

Why do you think its your God given right to spread democracy by the sword? Seems to me that you think its O.K. to shove freedom down the throat of others. If freedom means giving Iraqis the freedom to self-destruct through civil war, you have certainly given them that. Good on you, boy. Thats the colonial spirit! Force your values and your customs on others in the belief that you are superior. Thats very old school, teribus. Its time to re-think and shed your ethno-centrism.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:28 AM

"Last time I checked the US gets about 15% of it's daily imports of oil from the Middle-East (main supplier is Saudi Arabia) it gets a token 450,000 - 500,000 barrels per day from Iraq and pays full market price for oil purchased from both countries. The US gets no oil from Iran. So as a fairly rational human being I would say that dianavan's contention that the war in Iraq is all about Iran's oil is a bit of a stretch"

It's called "The Global Oil Market" - everbody is in there scrabbling fo their share... or more than their share...



"Now here Baz is trying to tell us all that the US Government forces the population of the United States of America to consume oil in vast quantities. I have news for you Barry, they don't. In fact they don't force you or any other citizen of the United States of America to do much of anything - What America consumes is a matter of choice, that choice being totally unforced and made using the free-will of the population - not a single politician, or government statute involved"

Teribus is perfectly right - it's just collective USA personal greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:56 AM

The choice may be unforced but, heh, with a television in every home, it makes consumerism the national past time. Wasn't if Kruschev who said, "Oh, we have televisions, we just haven't figured out how to get them into every home?" (Does anyone else remember this?)

That may be revisionist history but the point is that it is much easier to control your citizens when such a tool is available for transmitting propaganda. If you live in a capitalist society, what better tool for encouraging mass consumption?

Oh, thats right, teribus doesn't believe in propaganda ;>}

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:08 AM

It's always somebody else's fault isn't it dianavan. That way you and your lot never have to accept responsibility for anything. The rallying cry of the left - "Somebody should do something! - But for Christ's sake don't ask me".

Who forced you to have a television in your home dianavan, who indeed forced ANYONE to have a television in their homes. There is, you see dianavan, a thing called individual choice. Now you may not exercise it all that often because, I believe, that you are an idiot, someone who is all too ready to be led by others whose statements and opinions pander to your bigottted and prejudiced views.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Peace
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:14 AM

I don't have a television, not that I am involved in this thread. TV pisses me off. Just thought I'd mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:37 AM

I never said the government forces anything. They don't, it a choice of the people. On the other hand they don't choose to use their bilities, sway or power to limit the comnsuption for these products nor do they see fit to limit the wastes of it either. It would go a long way to provide incentives & better tax breaks & to put some meat behind their constant yapping about becoming independant of oil, which translates to being dependant upon the mid east. Now twist that how ever you like but bottom line is the governmet's been spoutting for years about getting out from underneath the oily thumb of the mid east but they're not acting on it one bit. Except to send over our children in an effort to pull a power grab. It's in the interests of big business that we stay in the oil industry & how better than to control it. This isn't about Iraq's oil or oil that's in Iran this is about OIL, about all the oil, that's in the mid east & being able to control the flow & the direction of the flow. It doesn't matter who's controlling the nations as long as we pull the oil strings.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:27 AM

OK Baz, something like a drunk sitting in a bar saying, "I wish somebody would come along and close this bar, or tell me to stop drinkin' so that I can go home".

You have the freedom to do whatever you chose to do. Once again I repeat the United States of America is NOT, repeat, NOT dependent on oil from the middle east - your consumption is around 20 million barrels of oil per day - you import about half of that - of those imports about 15% comes from the middle-east - so dependency upon middle-east oil translates to about 7.5% of total demand - not really all that significant.

Take a look at those figures - You and those like you who are trying to convince me and the rest of the world that the US is in the middle-east, has been in the middle-east for decades, to "steal" oil for their own ends. Well they're making a really good job of it aren't they Baz? Just think of that, all those lives, all those resources, all that energy, all that money - just to get their hands less than 10% of what they actually need. Absolutely ridiculous, it just does not stand up to enquiry or examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:48 AM

T, I'm not gonna chase you around the cat, it's Barry

Now that we're past that.

Take away that 15% or even that 7.5% & tell the country we're not dependant & see how they look at you.
And we're not there to steal but to control the flow & direction & how it's paid for (in U$ currency). That's where the power comes from, that's what we want, of course that's my opinion but that's how I see it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:50 AM

Forces within the international market have always controlled where the oil flows to (best market price). International demand and the price of oil per barrel have always controlled the amount of oil that flows. The United States of America does not, nor ever will extert any influence on either except in the extremely unlikely even it overnight abandons oil in favour of some other fuel.

The direction of oil supplies, again generally dictated by the market. If you are responsible for husbanding the natural resources of any country you tend to sell to whoever will give you the best price for it.

The international currency used throughout the oil industry is and always has been US Dollars. Historically the Oil & Gas Industry is an "American" Industry, all major technological break-throughs and innovations related to down-hole and reservoir technology have been American. The US holds the vast majority of patents relating to Oil & Gas exploration and production activities. You cannot move anywhere in this industry without bumping into them.

Areas of the world where for political reasons this expertise is not brought to bear are those with the lowest operating efficiency - Iran, Iraq (although this will change now that Saddam has gone), Russia (This too is changing).

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: TIA
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 05:28 AM

"The United States of America does not, nor ever will extert any influence on either..."

You are kidding right?

'Cause beyond the general silliness of this statement, the rest of your post turns around and completely contradicts this (dollars are the currency, oil is an american industry, US holds the patents, etc....)

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 06:34 AM

TIA, the oil industry in Russia is far older than that in the US. A cursory glance at the history of Baku will tell you that.

For years Russia was the greatest producer and exporter of oil. It wasn't very efficient but it didn't have to be. And guess what TIA, it all ran without US dollars as a currency, it all ran without US expertise, and it didn't give a damn about US patent rights.

But tell us TIA how would the US "control" the flow & direction of the world's oil? Exactly what could the US do if for whatever reason the rest of the world switched from trading for oil in US dollars to trading in Euros, what would the US do TIA to control that? You seem to agree with Barry that they could do all this, in which case you must have some idea how they would do it.

I, on the other hand say that they cannot beyond switching to an alternative fuel in order to collapse the market by creating a glut. This would be rather short lived as no doubt China and India would take up the slack in the market.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:29 PM

the Idiot has spoken..
forces in the international market have always controlled where oil flow s (best market price)..ha ha ha ha..

thats the biggest line of bullshit I ever heard..
its never really been a true market for oil..(the west got it for peanuts for years until opec formed)

I suppose you think the 73 oil embargo was just a blip in the market mechanism when the Opec nations decided to leverage their power to quadruple oil prices..

what followed was the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the west to the oil producing nations..

so western nations focused on non-opec oil, such as the north sea...until the Saudis finally figured out in the late 80s the power of market control - and vastly increased their output leading to a glut which made non-opec oil such as in Russia, Texas etc unprofitable (the consequent loss of hard currency - contributed to Russias collapse).

of course back in 51 when prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran tried to get a fair royalty for their own oil and failed and ended up nationalizing the Iranian oil industry - he got overthrown in a CIA sponsored coup..

(and the Americans have no interest in oil from that region - not what a number of Past US politicians and presidents have said - from Kennan in 45 to Eisenhower, to Carter and even when Paul Wolfowitz proclaimed that Iraq war will pay for itself with its own oil (funny how that one turned out)- )

which is why they also formed a close relationship with the Saudis
and sell them arms etc.. they dont have to occupy the country to have influence. Even before the Iraqi elections they tried to prevent religious parties and impose their stupid electoral vote system on Iraq - they didnt get anywhere with that one because Sistani nixed that..

as you said yourself strategic interest may have more with denying the resource to others.. even Dick Cheney proclaimed that control of a pipeline (when others do it) is a tool of 'intimidation and blackmail'
yeah but its ok when the US has it..

oil has everything to do with it, the West went to war kick Saddam out of Kuwait but in 91, the US didnt end up with control Kuwaits oil but it prevented Saddam from controlling - I doubt the West would have gone to war if the worlds largest oil fields were in say south america and not in the middle east..

its not as simple as Dianavan said as outright control of the countries resources its much more subtle, when the US elites talk about world wide US hegemony for ever, like the Project for a New American Century.. it makes sense to deny resources to others such as China and keep the currency of oil trade in US dollars (that way when the US $ loses 1/2 its value like it has in the BUsh years - you can indirectly tax the rest of the world- because they have to buy oil in US $)
the PNA got off to a poor start though, looks like the biggest military power in history cant even control a poor developing nation.
so much for Pax Americana.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: bubblyrat
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:13 PM

Well, that"s all settled then !! Now we know !! The Americans are only in Iraq ,(and soon, Iran ) , because of oil, and for no other reason . Good. I feel better and safer for realising that .Because the continued peace and stability of the Free World depends upon the unhindered availability of oil, irrespective of whether or not that is moral, or justifiable, or excusable, and , in that case , I would far sooner that the Americans were in control of such a globally important resource, than wildly unstable and unpredictable nations like Iran, Iraq, or Russia. Peace may yet prevail, but not if Islam controls oil !! OK , Russia is not a Muslim country, but that doesn"t alter their reputation for duplicity and deviousness !

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

"I, on the other hand say that they cannot beyond switching to an alternative fuel in order to collapse the market by creating a glut. This would be rather short lived as no doubt China and India would take up the slack in the market"

Exactly T and this is where we should be putting our energies, "alternative fuels". We have the abilities, technologies & there is profit in it. We are even there in some areas & don't know enough to expand on it. Hybrid vechiles is one example, "Green Building" is another. But we have to commit & know that any industry that is dependant on oil will need to adapt. This is where we get to a impasse.
With this advance, we can kiss the 'Oil Wars' goodbye, that alone might save us a few pennies.

$69 per barrel is just what we're paying for the barrel, what it's costing us to "GET" the barrel is far more.   

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:04 PM

Petr, you have just illustrated to anyone who has ever had any experience in the international Oil & Gas Industry that you haven't got a clue about about what you are talking about.

Hey my little Russian scrambler, remember that the premise of the discussion was that America controlled all - My point was that they don't and they can't. Any problem with that - if so take it up with those on this forum that would have you believe otherwise - not with me.

By the bye Petr, OPEC, originally the creation of "The Seven Sisters", now live in fear of the non-OPEC producers, most notably Russia and the others who could scupper any design that OPEC may have at an instant. All it takes is money. The cartel that once was is no more, by their formation they ensured their own demise.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:29 PM

typical bullshit response without actually addressing any of the points. but then what do you expect from someone who though Bremers disbanding the army and debathification were good ideas..

opec in fear of non-opec producers? ha - show me what non-opec oil is easier to pump than Saudi and other mid-east oil, the Alberta tarsands? or expensive offshore rigs in the north sea?

The other way the empire taxes the rest of the world is by getting the Saudis to agree to trade in US$ - so now the dollar no longer backed by gold but rather backed by oil - except when the US dollar tanks (like it has in the Bush years) the rest of the world pays Americas inflation tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:40 PM

Teribus must agree that if you are not with us you are against us . We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders and if you can't support the mission, you are killing and demoralizing our troops in the field. Traitors to the President now run the Congress but they don't have the nuclear briefcase.

Furthermore our weapons of mass destruction are in sound, sane and brave hands that are prepared to use them where it sees fit. We have more of them than the rest of the world put together. We can walk away from any international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of our own factories because we have more and bigger weapons.

The three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter because they were the result of a cowardly sneak attack. Peacniks and rag head lovers have amenesia about 9-11 probably from all the drugs they take.

The US has been extremely reserved in the use of nuclear weapons. The only slightly radioactive weapons we have used so far are DEPLETED urananium. Radiation levels in Iraq is not our fault. IT was Saddmam's fault for being defiant to the hands that fed him. Babies are born in Iraq with no brain, no eyes, no genitals just like anywhere else. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood but only a traitor would blame the US.

If we don't get them over there they will get us over here, plain and simple.
Just yesterday Obama was trying to recapture his initial rapture since he has already crested a mere 722 days before the election.
This is what he said, "George Bush is guilty of social Darwinism".
Do you belive this CRAP that falls out of this guy's mouth?

-------------------------------------

you see, I can write somewhat like Teribus, but a Teribus can't understand or embrace my point of view.
If his son was not fighting in the middle east, he might not be so strident. But since he is a proud father he must reamin a true believer. I do not blame him. I do not envy him.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:13 AM

>>Well, that"s all settled then !! Now we know !! The Americans are only in Iraq ,(and soon, Iran ) , because of oil, and for no other reason . Good. I feel better and safer for realising that .Because the continued peace and stability of the Free World depends upon the unhindered availability of oil, irrespective of whether or not that is moral, or justifiable, or excusable, and , in that case , I would far sooner that the Americans were in control of such a globally important resource, than wildly unstable and unpredictable nations like Iran, Iraq, or Russia. Peace may yet prevail, but not if Islam controls oil !! OK , Russia is not a Muslim country, but that doesn"t alter their reputation for duplicity and deviousness !<<

"the continued peace and stability of the Free World depends upon the unhindered availability of oil, irrespective of whether or not that is moral, or justifiable, or excusable,"

So therefore we should control it by whatever means we have at our disposal including lying. However...

"Russia is not a Muslim country, but that doesn"t alter their reputation for duplicity and deviousness !"

So Russia has no right to want to control oil because they are duplicitous and devious but the US is justified to act with duplicity and deviousness because the control oil of the flow of oil is essential to peace and stability.

For your sake, I'm assuming this is just troll post and your only purpose for posting this dreck was to stir up reaction. It's mildly amusing, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:44 AM

Tonight on Larry King Madeline Albright seemed pretty upset about the tensions over Iran holding British sailors as well as the US war games going on off Iran's shores. So did Christien Alanpur.

If there is one thing you can depend on the Bush family for...it is an oil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:15 AM

Petr

On the price per barrel, Russia's price for financial planning is $22, Saudi Arabia's is $25, for tar sands it has to be about $35. Now current prices are hovering around $65. As long as the price remains high the US has no need of foreign oil, as far as sources of shale oil go within its own borders the US has over 400 years supply. The largest supplier of foreign oil to the US is Canada.

By the bye Petr can you explain how, "When the US dollar tanks", i.e.falls in value, exactly how does the rest of the world pay. If the US dollar falls in value it means that I get more oil for fewer pounds sterling - TRUE? But by all means prattle on about bullshit responses, you are still illustrating that you know sweet FA about the oil & gas industry.

Donuel,

As much as I am enjoying the break from your rather inane cartoons, they were at least slightly more humourous than your written ramblings.

Now let's see - "Furthermore our weapons of mass destruction are in sound, sane and brave hands that are prepared to use them where it sees fit. We have more of them than the rest of the world put together." - Sorry Donuel that honour goes to Petr's homeland Russia who have roughly 1.5 times the number of nuclear weapons that the US has, and more than the rest of the world put together. As for chemical and biological weapons the US renounced the use of such weapons decades ago and is currently acting as the world's largest facility for the destruction of such weapons. Some time this year the Pentagon will report to the US Congress that all chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed, such destruction having been verified by the UN in accordance with agreements made between the UN, the US and other signatories of the UN agreement abandoning such weapons.

As for DU ammunition - Kosovo? WHO Report? no instances. In southern Iraq however all that has happened Donuel lays at the door of the USA, how generous. Number of points to consider:

- The US is not the only country that uses this type of ammunition
- The ammunition is 60% less radio-active than naturally occuring uranium that has been lying around on planet earth for millions of years.
- Maybe Donuel can detail the major battles that took place around Iraqi main centres of population during "Desert Storm", for the life of me I cannot recall one single instance.
- Could it be that the DU firing chain guns on Mil-24 Hind gunships flown by the Iraqi's did any of this damage when Saddam & Co went in to quash the Shia rebellion in the aftermath of "Desert Storm"?
- How about deliberate poisoning of vast areas of the wetlands in the aftermath of "Desert Storm", could that have had any possible long term consequences?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:17 AM

"As for chemical and biological weapons the US renounced the use of such weapons decades ago and is currently acting as the world's largest facility for the destruction of such weapons. Some time this year the Pentagon will report to the US Congress that all chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed, such destruction having been verified by the UN in accordance with agreements made between the UN, the US and other signatories of the UN agreement abandoning such weapons."

"ARE YOU NUTS?" Tell me Saddam where got his gas from, tell me where the antrax came from & that's just the start. We're going to destroy what, when, who's gonna report to whom & who's gonna make sure? We keep all our agreements with the UN? Who invaded Iraq on their own, saying FU to the UN? Abandoning what weapons? You mean the ones to be replaced by Bunker Busters? "ARE YOU NUTS?"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:54 AM

Just for you Barry:

"In 1985, the Congress passed Public Law 99-145 directing the Army to destroy the US stockpile of obsolete chemical agents and munitions. Recognizing that the stockpile program did not include all chemical warfare materiel requiring disposal, the Congress directed the Army in 1992 to plan for the disposal of materiel not included in the stockpile. This materiel, some of which dates back as far as World War I, consists of binary chemical weapons, miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel, recovered chemical weapons, former production facilities, and buried chemical warfare materiel. In 1992, the Army established the Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel Program to dispose of the materiel.

In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002."

I believe that the Pentagon has to report their compliance with the above to Congress in about one months time.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:56 AM

Ah HAH, gotcha Teribus,
only 92% of my cartoons were inane. 8% were insightful and more enjoyable than a visit to bad proctologist.

If one had to choose between breathing 6 micrograms of DU or drink 4 ounces of radioactive Iodine, you should choose the DU.
My sister was killed in a DOD radiation experiment from radioactive Iodine.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,Seiri Omaar
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:25 AM

//QUOTE//
Who forced you to have a television in your home dianavan, who indeed forced ANYONE to have a television in their homes. There is, you see dianavan, a thing called individual choice. Now you may not exercise it all that often because, I believe, that you are an idiot, someone who is all too ready to be led by others whose statements and opinions pander to your bigottted and prejudiced views. //END QUOTE.//

"consumers [...] are the product of the systematic deployment of power throughout society [...] consumers adopt values and beliefs that match the general requirements of society" -pg 23 (he's talking about the work of J.K. Galbreith here)

"Media corporations in the United States have used their market power to execute one of history's most successful propaganda campaigns" -pg 35

"But media theorist David Morley reminds us that the individual mind is no match for the overwhelming influence of omnipresent corporate speech" pg 41

(quoting Martyn J. Lee) "[...] the success of today's consumer economy actually depends upon the regulation of the symbolic and cultural dimensions of commodities; that is, the exercise of control over the dimensions of symbolic or cultural goods.'" pg 41

-Michael Strangelove, "The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Capitalist Movement"

Individual choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM

anyone that says with a straight face that oil trade is truly a free market knows sweet FA, not just about the industry but is ignoring the past 50years of history.

I say again, the producing countries initially got peanuts in royalties.
(which is why Mossadegh got ousted in a CIA sponsored coup in IRan when he decided to nationalize the industry - after they refused to raise the royalties)

its also why the main producing countries eventually were able to organize into OPEC and prices shot up in the 73 embargo. Free Market?

as long as the dollar is the only acceptable payment for oil - nations need to hold large amounts of dollars to buy oil. so when the dollar loses its value - everyone bears the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM

russia homeland?
wrong on that one too.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

I believe the opinions of Teribus regarding the international oil and gas industry in a proportion similar to how his predictions concerning the invasion of Iraq have played out.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:36 PM

We are skating on the edge of personal attacks here folks. If you can't make your point without those attacks, then maybe your point is not so great. eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:58 PM

Kendal is right, family concerns obviously influence all of our individual opinions so please feel free to delete any or all of my posts. Afterall we are not virtual people. Virtual kindness has its own hostility. Only genuine kindness is of any use even when discussing the unkindest cut of all, which is war.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: bubblyrat
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:01 PM

Well, 282 RA, you obviously favour our Enigmatic Russian Friends, but I am continually grateful to our American allies for helping to overcome the Nazis and end WW2----I dread to think how we"d all be living our lives today if Joe Stalin"s boys had carried the day ,instead !! I doubt if you"d be owning a PC, either !! Be grateful !!

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 05:12 PM

heres the US dept of energy oil market timeline
oil market chronology
just a visual for people who want to believe that its a 'free market'
and OPEC has no influence. (bearing in mind that most of the slack in production 82million barrels/day and consumption 80million - 2million barells is taken up by OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait)

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

>>Well, 282 RA, you obviously favour our Enigmatic Russian Friends,<<

Whom exactly do you refer to?

>>but I am continually grateful to our American allies for helping to overcome the Nazis and end WW2----I dread to think how we"d all be living our lives today if Joe Stalin"s boys had carried the day ,instead !! I doubt if you"d be owning a PC, either !! Be grateful !!<<

What the hell does WW2 have to do with anything? Your reasoning is that it's okay for the US to be duplicitous because they have to be but it's wrong for the "Russians" to be duplicitous and it only proves they should not have control of anything. If duplicity is a sign of an untrustworthy character, then America is untrustworthy. I don't give a hoot if the Russians are or not. We cannot be that way and then attempt to justify it. We lose all credibility that way--as is happening as you read this.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:11 AM

I wonder how much oil has been used by the U.S. and its allies to fight the war in Iraq? Now that would be an interesting set of numbers but I don't imagine anyone has any data on that subject. The price of oil is subject to supply and demand isn't it? If so, we're paying for this war in more ways than one. Lets see...

1. tax dollars for hired guns
2. tax at the pump
3. tax for reconstruction
4. tax for military guns and equipment

Of course if you think we have it bad, you just need to think of the
Iraqis. Its their oil fuelling the invasion. At least I think it is. I can't imagine that Texas and Canada are shipping oil to the U.S military in Iraq. So the Iraqis are providing oil for the destruction of their country. Go figure.

Somebody is making one hell of alot of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:14 AM

5. Taxed in blood.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:09 AM

Can anybody hear violins?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:22 AM

Nope.

Time for your meds, teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 05:14 AM

Mr T has again demonstrated his utter arrogant ignorance - this time of DU weapons. The nasty hassle is that the metal spalls off in tiny fragments, catches fire, and burns into a floating light powder that is easily breathed in, and blown around on the surface.

You don't NEED a source of intense radioactivity to cause serious problems if a low level one is permanently buried deep in your lungs.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:18 AM

In which case Foolestroupe the firing ranges where this type of ammunition is used would exhibit considerable signs of the contamination you describe - unfortunately after extensive environmental studies of those areas no such contamination exists.

Have you read the WHO Reports on the use of DU ammunition.

Please tell us what battles raged in or near centres of population in the South of Iraq during "Desert Storm" where the US or coalition forces fired DU munitions. I can think of none, but there again the 12.7mm chain-gun mounted on the Russian Mil-25 "Hind" helicopter gunships flown by the Iraqi's fires DU rounds, and they were used quite extensively in the South of iraq in the aftermath of Desert Storm. But it was only US DU ammunition that did the damage eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

Your tax dollars at work -

From Wiki - "In February 2006, U.S. Army placed an order for $38 million of M829 rounds, bringing the total order from the Alliant Techsystems to $77 million for fiscal year 2006.[3]"

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:15 PM

"the firing ranges where this type of ammunition is used would exhibit considerable signs of the contamination you describe - unfortunately after extensive environmental studies of those areas no such contamination exists."

Your credible references to this please?


"But it was only US DU ammunition that did the damage eh? "

You obviously appear to have serious cognitve problems to even ask such a question like that...

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:12 PM

I hear violins, The sibelius concerto in Dm to be exact.

Does teribus hear violence?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil wars
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM

I was watching FOX when Senator Orrin Hatch who had just returned from his vacation at 6 flags over Baghdad had a woundbite, I mean soundbite-interview-chat-segment.

The interviewer said he was going to take the enemy's point of view and ask a devil's advocate type of question.
"Do you think that elitist Democrats have a right to dictate foriegn policy to the President of the United States, after all they supposedly did win the election?"

Hatch: "The election polls? I can make a poll say anything I want. That is no way to run a war! Our President isn't ruled by polls he rules with strength, courage and the word of God"

whew!
Orrin is one of the most highly skilled politicians who can turn a flying camel phrase inside out with a triple toe loop and land as soft as a feather.