Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline)
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 46 (386987)
02-25-2007 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
02-24-2007 7:10 PM


quote:
There were also thousands of people dying under Hussein.
Saddam's government was the only one in the Persian Gulf that wasn't based upon Sharia. Women were freer in Iraq than anywhere else in the region, and there was a western-style legal system instead of Islamic courts.
I'm not saying that he was a nice guy or anything. Far from it.
But the danger to the "average Iraqi" from Hussein was small. He was ruthless, but was not random or indiscriminate in his attacks on people. He went after his enemies but courted everybody else.
The danger to the "average Iraqi" from the warring religious militias is great today. Everybody is in grave danger; if the Sunnis move into your neighborhood and you aren't Sunni, you're dead. If you ARE Sunni, then you're dead if you try to leave.
quote:
It seems to me that at least now there is hope for a better future that didn't exist before.
You think there's hope for a better future?
I think the most likely outcome is that there will be an Iranian- or Taliban-style oppressive, Sharia-based conservative Islamic dictatorship in Iraq.
Anybody with half a brain coutl have predicted this very probable outcome if Saddam was removed, since his was the only secular, modern Arab government in the region.
Is this the better future you envision?
If not, what do you think is going to happen?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 02-24-2007 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 02-25-2007 10:25 AM nator has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 32 of 46 (387008)
02-25-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
02-25-2007 8:22 AM


nator writes:
You think there's hope for a better future?
Who knows. There is no doubt that a lot of my thoughts on this are based on nothing more than hope as I am aware that things are pretty bleak.
One thing to be considered is that at some point Hussein and his sons were going to be gone one way or another. (Probably assainated) At that point there would be total anarchy without any stabilizing foreign influence. At least now there is someone there bringing a certain amount of order to things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 02-25-2007 8:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-26-2007 8:53 AM GDR has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 46 (387014)
02-25-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
02-24-2007 1:17 PM


I don't recall anybody, on the left or the right, asserting that the plan for the Iraq war was to provide the American consumer with cheap oil. Where did you get the impression that those on the left take this position?
Uhhh... Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, the common protester. Isn't this a familiar taunt and a played out tautology?
Why would, hypothetically, a massive government adventure to secure American access to the second largest oilfield in the world result in cheaper gas at the pump, in your opinion? Perhaps your mistaken assumption is that the oil business is a business where cheaper supply means lower prices for consumers.
This isn't my conspiracy Crash. I seriously doubt you haven't heard all of the conspiracies about how this war is just about oil cooked up by Haliburton and associates. Unfortunately for them, its impossible to be using that much Iraqi oil and still have the gas prices so inflated. In either case, this is where the US gets its oil.
Do you remember that he re-admitted the inspectors before the current conflict, and that those inspectors had concluded that they had seen no evidence of any weapons program - at which point we forced them out of Iraq in preparation for our invasion?
I remember Hussein playing nice a few times to appease the UN because he had been warned numerous times to stop jerking every one around.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Trying to fix my link

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2007 1:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2007 11:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 42 by Vacate, posted 02-27-2007 1:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 46 (387017)
02-25-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 10:52 AM


Uhhh... Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, the common protester. Isn't this a familiar taunt and a played out tautology?
That the Iraq war was to make gas cheaper at the pump?
No, I've never heard that from Moore or Churchhill or from any protester. Maybe you're confused about what "no blood for oil" actually means? It has nothing to do with making gas cheaper for the consumer. Just like the Iraq war had nothing to do with making gas cheaper for the consumer.
I seriously doubt you haven't heard all of the conspiracies about how this war is just about oil cooked up by Haliburton and associates. Unfortunately for them, its impossible to be using that much Iraqi oil and still have the gas prices so inflated.
It's my understanding that the civil conflicts have largely prevented the resumption of oil production.
But I don't understand why you think it's impossible for the 4-5 oil companies that control gas prices in the US to inflate the price of gas, when that's exactly what they did during Katrina. The destruction of New Orleans' refining capability did have an effect, yes - but less than 1/3 of the geographic US is supplied by oil passing through those refineries, yet gas prices went up everywhere in the US, and stayed up long after refining resumed.
The idea that it's just supply and demand is, of course, nonsense. There's no shortage of supply. Even with the loss of 1/3 of the refining capability during Katrina there was no shortage of gas anywhere in the country. The only gas stations that ran out of gas were the ones located in storm-affected regions where the gas trucks couldn't yet reach.
NJ, the oil companies last year posted profits so high they were greater than any other corporations in the entire history of humanity. Where do you think those profits come from? Good advertising? Please.
It's a true fact that the highest priority for the military in the days following the Iraq war was not the security of weapon stockpiles (hence the Al Qaaqaa debacle) but the security of Iraq's oilfields. To suggest that American energy policy had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, which sits on the second largest oilfield in the world, is nonsense.
And, again, absolutely none of that has anything to do with the price of gas at the pump.
I remember Hussein playing nice a few times to appease the UN because he had been warned numerous times to stop jerking every one around
Which was the point of Congress's authorization for the use of force, as you'll remember. And it worked - Saddam started playing nice.
So why the war? Because Saddam playing nice didn't further our energy interests.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 10:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 7:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 46 (387024)
02-25-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by berberry
02-24-2007 7:35 PM


the tribes that are now at war with each other in Iraq were at war for centuries before Iraq was ever a country. Only Prince Fiesal was ever able to truly unite the different Arab tribes, and even he, beloved as he was by almost all Arabs, was only able to do it ad hoc. By the time he was made King of Iraq, it was only the continuing presence of British armed forces that allowed him to keep peace.
Sectarian rivalry is a problem within the Islamic community, and as you alluded, always has been. But should we forsake it all over this fact, or should we establish order in Iraq and gain a new and much needed ally in the Middle East? I think military strategists would really like to make Iraq a new home for a few air bases because of its central locality. They can't achieve this until the hostilities subside. The number one question is, will it ever subside? One thing is for certain. We are at war with radical Islam regardless. We simply must exist. I simply can't appreciate the argument that terrorists are only trying to get rid of America from their soil. That's not their reason, that's their opportunity to strike America. So if we are going to be at war with them regardless, we might as well secure a good position. Because thus far, we have no bases stationed in the Mid East except for Bahrain. The next closest base is in Turkey. This is why carrier groups for the US Navy are always somewhere in the Gulf because, quite frankly, the Mid East is a tinderbox always capable of intense violence.
What makes you think we can do any better? George Bush isn't Lawrence of Arabia and Ahmadinajhad (I probably mispelled that) isn't Prince Feisal.
I've heard a few Fundamentalist Christians say that Babylon (Iraq) is forsaken land and that any attempts to reconcile will result in failure. That may be the case. What is your suggestion in how we should handle it.
I think George Bush planned this whole nightmare, obviously thinking it would turn out much better and obviously seeing himself as achieving what people like T.E. Lawrence and King Feisal were never able to do: create a lasting alliance between bitter Arab enemies.
Its like anything else, really. Clinton wanted to be the one guy to reconcile the Palestinians and Israelis. But he wasn't able to achieve it no matter how hard he tried.
surely you must see that we are far beyond any such hope now.
I think now that Rumsfeld resigned that we are better off than ever were with him. Notice how many people left the Administration abruptly, but most prominently, Colin Powell, who I believe would have made a far better Secretary of Defense. There has been a lot of mismanagement in the Iraq conflict because the SecDef was not listening to his commanders on the ground, who, lets face it, feel like their hands are tied behind their backs.
With that said, I remain firm that what's done is done and we can't change history. But if we were to pull out at this point the condition would be worse off than an effort for stabilization.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by berberry, posted 02-24-2007 7:35 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 02-25-2007 4:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 37 by berberry, posted 02-25-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 46 (387043)
02-25-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 11:59 AM


How would it be worse?
With that said, I remain firm that what's done is done and we can't change history. But if we were to pull out at this point the condition would be worse off than an effort for stabilization.
How would it be worse if we were to simply pull out now?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 11:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 46 (387057)
02-25-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 11:59 AM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
quote:
Sectarian rivalry is a problem within the Islamic community, and as you alluded, always has been. But should we forsake it all over this fact, or should we establish order in Iraq and gain a new and much needed ally in the Middle East?
I'm not talking about forsaking anything; the idea of a stable, democratic Iraq where Sunni and Shia share power and work together is pretty much off the table now, already forsaken. It's a lovely thought, but it's grossly unrealistic. Even the president seems to have dropped that nonsense, apparently wanting now to commit to nothing more than, to use your words, establishing order.
What I'm talking about is acknowledging facts and informing our policy with those facts. If Iraq's history is any indication at all, then even under the best possible scenario the most we can do is maintain some measure of peace through force. Tensions will continue to simmer and, be it five, ten, twenty or however many years from now we finally do pull out, the whole thing will fall apart into a continuation of the very civil war that's going on right now. Unless we find some solution completely different than what we're trying to achieve right now (whatever that happens to be these days, no one seems to be able to clearly explain it. Perhaps you can?) then sectarian war is inevitable and all we're doing is wasting the lives of the men and women we're sending over.
quote:
I think military strategists would really like to make Iraq a new home for a few air bases because of its central locality. They can't achieve this until the hostilities subside.
You're worried that we're not going to have permanent military bases in Iraq? That's why you want us to stay there? Has anyone consulted with the Iraqi people to see whether they'd be amenable to American military bases being permanently established in their country? Would their opinion matter to you?
quote:
What is your suggestion in how we should handle it.
Make like the Brits and get the hell out. Quit meddling in internal Arab affairs.
quote:
Clinton wanted to be the one guy to reconcile the Palestinians and Israelis. But he wasn't able to achieve it no matter how hard he tried.
You're right, and it's probably true that regardless of whatever altruistic motives Clinton might have had, he probably had some selfish motives, too. What president wouldn't want to be remembered by later generations as a great peacemaker?
I'm not sure what kind of analogy you're trying to draw here, but I think it's worth mentioning that Clinton didn't start any wars in the Middle East.
quote:
I think now that Rumsfeld resigned that we are better off than ever were with him. Notice how many people left the Administration abruptly, but most prominently, Colin Powell, who I believe would have made a far better Secretary of Defense. There has been a lot of mismanagement in the Iraq conflict because the SecDef was not listening to his commanders on the ground, who, lets face it, feel like their hands are tied behind their backs.
You're making my case for me. I don't see how you reconcile these sentiments with your continuing support for the president's policies.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 11:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 46 (387061)
02-25-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
02-25-2007 11:05 AM


That the Iraq war was to make gas cheaper at the pump?
The diatribes are as follows: "No blood for oil!" "Bush lied kids died!" "Haliburton! Haliburton!" "Its all about oil, man... Its all about oil." "Watch Syriana or Fahrenheit 9/11, man. That will explain everything."
Well, if its really about oil then why are gas prices so high? The reason is because its not true. I would go so far as to say that securing oil would be a fringe benefit of toppling the Iraq autocracy, but nowhere close to being the reason. You don't seem to believe that so I'm not talking about you. I'm just relaying that its a common conspiracy theory.
No, I've never heard that from Moore or Churchhill or from any protester. Maybe you're confused about what "no blood for oil" actually means? It has nothing to do with making gas cheaper for the consumer. Just like the Iraq war had nothing to do with making gas cheaper for the consumer.
Moore and Churchill most certainly speak about the Bush Administrations "insatiable lust for oil."
It's my understanding that the civil conflicts have largely prevented the resumption of oil production.
This sounds reasonable.
But I don't understand why you think it's impossible for the 4-5 oil companies that control gas prices in the US to inflate the price of gas, when that's exactly what they did during Katrina.
Price gouging is criminal conduct as far as I'm concerned. Believe me, my wife and I have boycotted OPEC for a long time now. We have no love for them. I'm simply saying that people who honestly believe that the war was about oil are very misinformed. Likewise, any one who believes that the war was about coming to the aid of the Kurds is gullible. The sole reason is removing threats posed by against the interests of national security. And since we live in an age of technology, national security often extends to global security. What happens in the Mid East effects us like it happened next door in Canada or Mexico.
The idea that it's just supply and demand is, of course, nonsense. There's no shortage of supply.
I agree. I think its a scare tactic to tell every one that oil reserves are depleting. Well, I mean, yes of course they are depleting, but its not like we'll be without oil tomorrow. I think we should really be focusing our attention away from fossil fuels and looking toward Flex fuels, but I doubt we're gonna dry up tomorrow.
NJ, the oil companies last year posted profits so high they were greater than any other corporations in the entire history of humanity. Where do you think those profits come from? Good advertising? Please.
Look, I don't want you to be under the impression that I'm a big oil guy. Forget those guys. I'm simply arguing that the Iraq war was not about oil. But you seem to agree with me so I guess there is no need in discussing it further.
It's a true fact that the highest priority for the military in the days following the Iraq war was not the security of weapon stockpiles (hence the Al Qaaqaa debacle) but the security of Iraq's oilfields. To suggest that American energy policy had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, which sits on the second largest oilfield in the world, is nonsense.
Of course they are concerned with the oil fields. Remember what Saddam had done the first time? Like a child with a temper tantrum, he set them on fire and it took coordinated efforts to stop those fires. It took us over a year to get those fires out. We aren't just going to leave them to fall in to enemy hands. The point of the war was not to get to the oil. Saving the oil reserves is in the interest of global security for every one.
Which was the point of Congress's authorization for the use of force, as you'll remember. And it worked - Saddam started playing nice.
Crash, he did it because he moved them and he knew he had nothing to fear. It wasn't the threat of force. For as much of a diabolical genius Saddam wass, his pride consistently got the better of him. Bush gave him 48 hours to leave Baghdad. By staying and not ordering his troops to stand down, it was his big F.U. posture to us. If wanted to avert the invasion he could have done it by complying.
So why the war? Because Saddam playing nice didn't further our energy interests.
The war because he was standing in the way of national security. You think Hilary, Bill, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, etc were just idiots? Pawns? As if they didn't read sensitive intelligence reports? They got it. They knew he was a threat. But what did they do? They saw how unpopular the war was with their party members was and decided to exploit that to get the vote. Way to stand by your laurels guys.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2007 11:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2007 8:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 02-27-2007 10:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 46 (387067)
02-25-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 7:09 PM


Well, if its really about oil then why are gas prices so high?
Again - why would an American adventure to advance the concerns of Big Oil result in cheaper prices at the pump?
Moore and Churchill most certainly speak about the Bush Administrations "insatiable lust for oil."
Sure, I'm totally certain that it's just a coincidence that a former oil company owner and the former CEO of oil-exploration company Halliburton Energy Services decided, contrary to treaty obligations and international law, to invade the country on top of the second-largest oilfield in the entire world. LOL!
The point is - the price at the pump has nothing to do with that. Why would it? Why would oil companies lower prices at the pump just because American foreign policy put them in an advantageous position to drill Iraqi oil?
Price gouging is criminal conduct as far as I'm concerned. Believe me, my wife and I have boycotted OPEC for a long time now.
What makes you think OPEC has anything to do with what's going on at the gasoline pump? Sure, they set the price of crude coming out of the Middle East, but that's only a small portion of our oil supply. And the price they set only represents the floor of gas prices at the pump. What do you think OPEC possibly has to do with the ceiling?
I'm simply saying that people who honestly believe that the war was about oil are very misinformed.
Misinformed in what way? I mean they're certainly not saying that the Bush Administration openly embarked on a war to secure the second-largest oilfield in the world. Obviously the American people would find such a war ridiculous, as you clearly do.
What exactly do you think they're misinformed about?
The sole reason is removing threats posed by against the interests of national security.
That doesn't seem consistent with the facts. We know that the persons involved in the greatest single act of terrorism on American soil were predominantly citizens of one country; that country was Saudi Arabia, the country in which Islamic terrorism originates. And we know that, in Asia Minor, there's largely one country who has shown the capability and willingness to supply nuclear secrets and technologies to Islamic terror groups; that country is Pakistan.
But Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our allies, instead of our targets. Surely, if national security was the goal, we would have deposed the leaders of those countries and secured those populations? Rather than attacking a country which proved to have no ties but the most tenuous to Islamic terror networks?
I'm simply arguing that the Iraq war was not about oil.
LOL! I'm sure it's just coincidence, then, that Iraq is on top of the world's second-largest oilfield, and that securing those fields were the military's immediate top priority - over the securing of weapons depots and ammunition dumps.
Remember what Saddam had done the first time? Like a child with a temper tantrum, he set them on fire and it took coordinated efforts to stop those fires. It took us over a year to get those fires out.
So? Do you think that those fires destroyed even one-hundredth of one percent of the oil in that field? The oil wasn't going to go anywhere. It wasn't like Islamic terrorists were going to drive up in trucks and load up 350 tons of crude oil - you know, like they did with the high explosives locked under IAEA seal at al Qaaqaa.
Crash, he did it because he moved them and he knew he had nothing to fear.
There's no evidence that he moved anything, or had anything to move. Certainly that was the conclusion of the weapons inspectors. But I guess you know better sitting there in Oregon than the guys that were right there in Iraq?
Bush gave him 48 hours to leave Baghdad. By staying and not ordering his troops to stand down, it was his big F.U. posture to us. If wanted to avert the invasion he could have done it by complying.
By complying with the invasion? How does that make any sense?
You think Hilary, Bill, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, etc were just idiots?
I don't know what they were, but I notice that none of those figures invaded Iraq. So clearly they knew something Bush didn't know, or were motivated by other concerns. For instance, national security.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 7:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2007 6:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 46 (387096)
02-26-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
02-25-2007 10:25 AM


nator writes:
You think there's hope for a better future?
quote:
Who knows. There is no doubt that a lot of my thoughts on this are based on nothing more than hope as I am aware that things are pretty bleak.
Yes, they are terribly bleak. By our doing.
quote:
One thing to be considered is that at some point Hussein and his sons were going to be gone one way or another. (Probably assainated) At that point there would be total anarchy without any stabilizing foreign influence.
There were plenty of people in Hussein's secular government who could have continued the dictatorship, especially if there were incentives.
quote:
At least now there is someone there bringing a certain amount of order to things.
Wait, are you saying that the same chaos, mass destruction and loss of life on the scale of the US invasion and following occupation would have occurred in Iraq one Hussein was gone?
How on earth do you figure that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 02-25-2007 10:25 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 02-26-2007 10:57 AM nator has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 41 of 46 (387111)
02-26-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
02-26-2007 8:53 AM


nator writes:
Wait, are you saying that the same chaos, mass destruction and loss of life on the scale of the US invasion and following occupation would have occurred in Iraq one Hussein was gone?
How on earth do you figure that?
On that there is no doubt in my mind. Assuming there were still alive it probably would have been one or both of Hussein's sons that would have taken over. They were worse than the old man.
All that held things together there was fear of Hussein. With him and his sons gone there would have been nothing to keep the groups apart. As I mentioned earlier it would probably end at some time with an assassination and civil war would ensue.
The biggest mistake was made when Iraq was established the way it was in the first place, but there is no going back on that either.
Edited by GDR, : typo

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-26-2007 8:53 AM nator has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 42 of 46 (387208)
02-27-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 10:52 AM


Price at the Pumps
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
its impossible to be using that much Iraqi oil and still have the gas prices so inflated.
The site that you linked was quite interesting, thank you! One thing I did note however was a flaw in your thinking. For the six months that are on display Canada's exports to the U.S. excede all other countries in the world. This would indicate to me that Canada has plenty enough gas to go around would it not? Why is it then that with all of our excess oil/gas - the price at our pumps is 98.9 per liter? Thats what... 2 or 3 times the prices seen in the U.S.?
A surplus in oil and gas does not dictate the price at the pumps.
Well, if its really about oil then why are gas prices so high? The reason is because its not true.
You have not shown that. As Crash has pointed out, all thats been shown is that the companies now have more oil to profit from.
I would go so far as to say that securing oil would be a fringe benefit of toppling the Iraq autocracy
Yup, billions or trillions of dollars for a few companies is a hell of a fringe benefit. How silly of anyone to think this would be a primary consideration when invading a country that was allowing weapons inspections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 10:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 46 (387327)
02-27-2007 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 7:09 PM


Juggs, have you ever heard the capitalist economic phrase, "what the market will bear."?
It's a reference to the notion that when a company sets it's price for a given product in a given market, it will try to set it as high as it can in order to maximize profits, but not so high that they make it impossible for consumers to purchase it.
What Exxon-Mobil and all the other huge American oil companies are experts at doing is setting prices at the pump at "what the market will bear".
There is no reason whatsoever that those companies, once they get consumers trained to tolerate a certain pricepoint at the pump, will lower prices unless they absolutely have to in response to public outrage or big businesses that ship a lot of stuff, or congressional pressure or whatever.
They are doing a great job, obviously. They've convinced you that they must be struggling because otherwise, why would prices at the pump be so high for you and me, right?
Well, obviously, they AREN'T struggling, because they keep reporting entirely obscene profits every quarter.
It is basic corporate behavior, juggs. If you sell gasoline, you have the whole country by the nuts. They're going to squeeze 'em hard and we'll cough up.
They do it becasue they can, and the president and the formerly Republican Congress never said "boo" to any of them.
Why do you think that is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 7:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 46 (387795)
03-02-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
02-25-2007 8:20 PM


Bump for NJ
Um, hello?
Man, just when it was getting good, too... I really take no pleasure out of making arguments that are just too good to refute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2007 8:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 03-25-2007 10:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 46 (391485)
03-25-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
03-02-2007 6:01 PM


Re: Bump for NJ
It is too bad that NJ dropped this thread and is also gone from the country.
I wonder how he would have explained Halliburton's move to Dubai?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2007 6:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 03-25-2007 11:35 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024