The impending war is really not about the oil...

While you're pulling quotes out of context, why don't you identify who this "he" is? let me help you: a Liberal Democrat and formet Clinton foreign policy wonk.

So very typical.

What you're saying here is that you believe George Bush is an amoral dog who cares nothing for the lives of young American men because he's only interested in making a bunch of rich freinds richer.

Are you really and truly this blind?

And NOW, in a flash of inspiration, you've decided that it's not even about oil for George Bush's rich freinds to get richer on for some reason, but rather that it's REALLY about getting a gas discount for the Turks!!!

So the USA is committing a half million men to combat so that Ahmen bii Salahdin can save a few cents at the old Ankarta gas and go??????

Have you been drinking?

What the interests of Turkey are, or what they hope to get out of this deal, are pretty irrelevant, don't you think?

And don't be an idiot: Turkey is already our freind, and will remain so because they need us. It is also, coincidentally, an Islamic country and they have to be enormously careful about public opinion. They also have a Kurdish problem, which is really their biggest worry. As for oil, they have access to the Causaus and Transcaucasus pipeline and can buy oil at market whenever they like, as can anbody else. This "the Turks want to buy oil cheap: crap is just more BS Whom will they buy it from? The successor government in Iraq? Nope, because the opposition has already said no deals for anybody. So you're left wih claiming that the US plans to STEAL oil from Iraq and "sell" it at a discpount to Turkey. Who would get the money here? The US treasury? George Bush? Some oil guy in Texas? None of this makes even a little sense on any level. It's idiotic, polically motivated crap.

And since Turkey is not a communist country, the oil would have to go to a corporation. Which one? What about the others? Will the discount be passed along to the Turkish consumers? Gasoline costs about $6 a gallon in Turkey. Will this change? Who will benefit?

(Don't tell me - I can guess - George Bush or his "country club frineds" or "rich Republicans" or "Texas oilmen" or Dick Cheney becasue he used to work for an oilfield equipment compnay. Don't you see how ridiculous this all is?_

It has squat to do with Iraqi oil which, just by the way, we do not and will never "control" or "own" and thus cannot "give a discount on". This would be called stealing. It would require a long-term occupation of Iraq by a million men. Is this what you think will happen? Who will benefit? How, exactly?

You have no answers for this, do you? But that's not important. What's important is to holler "war for oil" and ignore the facts that there is no plausible explanation for how this would work, who would profit, how it would be legel or anything else.

And as for Russia, I'd buy you a steak dinner if you could even come CLOSE to what their interest really is.

So you think, apparently, that the US intends to invade, take over the country and start stealing their natural resources? If you do, you are simply clueless.

And the US government is not in the oil business. So what you REALLY are saying is that you believe that the American Army is going to invade, take over and then install various oil company executives as the de facto government so that they can start stealing it for their own private profit..

All of which displays a frightening ignorance of the geopolitical facts of the matter. Do you know ANYTHING about the Middle East? The Saudis? Muslims? The UN? America?

Or do you only know the hate-filled lies and gross distortions being fed by idiots to the gullible?

Fact is, the US oil industry would be far better off if the US did NOT invade Iraq.

World oil prices are set by the benchmarks. North Sea Brent. West Texas Intermediate. The Seven sisters.

The United States will NEVER not for ONE MINUTE "control" or "own" or "get a deal on" oil from Iraq. And as I said, the US is not an oil company.

The whole thing, like most Liberal assertions, are based on stupid slogans, not anything resembling a fact.

 

In fact, I'll make it easy on you.

Because the fact is that, ironically, the US is just about the only country for whom oil really isn't the issue.

So with that in mind, can you answer my question yet regarding Russia, ie. What is their primary interest in all this?

And no, if you say "World Peace, the brotherhood of man and the saving of innocent women and children" you will be fed milk and cookies and led away to bedtime.

Bonus question: What does Saudi Arabia hope to gain from all of this?

 

Can I try?

Could it be the millions (possibly billions) that Irag owes to Russia? I think I have heard the number 8 billion bantered around. From what I read on WND and other publications, Russia simply wants the US to cut them a check or ensure the 8B will be paid to them.
Sound correct?

 

Absolutely, although there is one other part to it.

Russia has another problem: something on hte order of 70% of their national income is from oil. Nobody actually pays their taxes there, and the state-owned oil monopolies are literally keeping Russia afloat. Without that income they are nothing but an extremely poor third world backwater.

Problem is, unlike other countries, their oil is in remote regions where it is expensive to extract and VERY expensive to transport. So they desperately need for oil prices to remain high. Since oil is sold at a benchmark price, when that benchmark dips below a certain level, they can actually lose money selling oil.

But for the last few years Russia has been selling it as fast as they can pump it; the price was high enough to make it well worth their while and they are desperate for money. Unfortunately for the al-Saud family, this weakens OPEC's grip on the world's oil markets.

The Saudis want Russia brought into line. Russia ignores OPEC in their frantic attempt to stay financially afloat and it's killing Saudi control of world markets.

The Saudi's intend to break Russia. They had planned on simply p[ening up the spigots last year, drive the price way down and wait for Russia to cry uncle. But this Iraq thing is in the way. Until that's resolved the turmoil is keeping the price artificially high which is very very good for Putin.

So the longer this whole thing drags on, the longer Russia can delay having the axe fall. Putin hopes the UN can make this crisis last for years.


Next is our pals the French:

Why is it that they are so opposed to a US overthrow of a sadistic animal in Iraq? Concern for the safety of all those little Iraqi children and a high moral plane that opposes all military action on humanitarian prinicples?

Bonus question: Where does the oil America uses come from?

 

Ooh, Ooh, I know teach....

I believe I have the answer. Again, I tend to get my reading material from sources that seem to tell the truth, instead of just "touting" some political phrase.
So, for my "friends" the French:
According to WND and some excellent commentary on page 2 of WND:
Seems the French are in this for two reasons. (1) Contracts with the Iraq are huge. Remember, follow the money. France needs those contracts. Sources I have read (45 days ago) said that France was actually on board to invade for this simple reason: They cannot afford for the US to invade Iraq, but the REALLY cannot afford for the US to invade Iraq and win quickly. They MUST be on the winning side of all this.
However, as I stated, this was 45 days ago.
Now, part two is being speculated.
(2) Seems France is making a move to get back to the days of her Old Glory. Seems the reputation of dropping her weapons instead of standing and fightiing has gotten to their psyche.
France sees the EU as the up and coming rival to the US. France would love nothing more that to be the defacto leader and spokesperson for the EU. Ie, remember what Chirac had to say to those 10(?) eastern European countries that "dared" to stand up to the frogs?
He told them, "They missed a good opportunity to keep their mouths shut." On its face that is not that bad...until you realize he thought he was speaking for the entire EU. Did he forget that Italy and Spain (EU Members) are already on board with US?
France wants to be the Washington DC of the EU. They realize that Germany can NEVER be seen as the leader of anything. Just a few too many people still alive that remember what happens when you let the "Huns" arm themselves.
So, I will leave the bonus question to someone else.
I think I know the answer and will post it if somebody else has not posted in the next 48 hours.
BTW, I formally want to annouce the Draft Blair or Draft Berscoluni program for the next VP of the US.
I know there is the little problem with the Constitution and the part about being born in the US. We will worry about that part later. Right now, I just want Blair to know he has a country to come to if he gets ousted for all this.
To think that I will actually be ROOTING for the Labor party in England in the next election. My boy Blair has some set of BALLS!
I still think the duo of Reagan and Thatcher were the greatest alliance the world has ever seen. However, as time goes by I am letting the present cloud the past. I could actually second the notion that I would follow Bush/Blair to the ends of the earth. Just an aside.

 

You've pretty much nailed it, particularly with those two leaders.

In America we've forgotten what leadership is. We had eight years of "What do the polls say I should do this morning?"

Well, that may keep you in power and riding around on AF One, but it isn't LEADING.

Bill Clinton used to wank on endlessly about "Making the tough choices". It sounded really tough of him, but was meaningless.

George Bush really is making tough choices. He's betting his poilitical future that he can pull this off. It's as gutsy as hell, but he's doing it because he thinks it's the right thing to do to protect America's future.

In any case, I find myself endlessly curious about where some of these people were when Bill Clinton was dropping bombs on innocent Yugoslav women and children. If this whole big stink is not politically motivated, then please tell me what the difference is.

RE: France, they do indeed see themselves as the leading force in the new United States of Europe. Unfortunately for them, the rest of Europe isn't going along. Indeed, our strongest support internationally (except, shhhhhh, the Saudis) is from Eastern Europe.

The French meanwhile hold that anachronistic seat on the Security council which is a bad joke. Japan, Brazil, even Nigeria or Canada have a lot more weight in the world than the French ever will again.

But their other problem, of course, is that THEY really DO depend on Iraqi oil.

Sheryl Crow and George Clooney and Sean Penn don't know this, but the US gets the majority of it's imported oil from Venezuela. Combined with domestic sources (Texas, Alaska, Gulf Coast), and Mexico, we really could get by if the Middle East shut down altogether. it would be expensive, but it would not cripple us.

And the reason we don't buy any more than we have to from the middle east is, again, very simple: transportation costs. Shipping it in from a port in Yemen is simply more expensive than moving it into the Houston ship channel from South America. Or Lubbock.

If anybody is being held hostage by oil here, it's the French. Without Arabian Gulf oil, their country would, quite literally, grind to a halt.

Eastern Europe can buy from Russia. Even the British have North Sea Brent to offset imports. France would have to start burning Medoc and Chardonnay.

So between their economic motives and the fact that they fantasize about replacing Washington DC as the leaders of the West, you can also add the huge Muslim population that scares the crap out of Paris. They could set France on fire from one end to the other.

As for me - I'd mail them matches.

OK tough one: What do the Chinese want out of this deal?

 

Suffering Fools

So, then, I must ask, "Why do you suffer fools so well?"
I must admit I have your personal forum in my favorites folder. I think you and I think quite alike.
So, I have noticed that a certain person writes in with absolutely incredible questions.
I have read them over and over trying to see (1) a shred of logic, or (2) the slightest hint that this person listens to ONE single thing you say. The lack of the first probably leads to the lack of the second.
It seems that no matter what you quote, document, etc., he always comes back with the same old catch phrases.
That is not the type of debate I can handle.
Mind you, in my day (18 years ago) I went to Nationals in Cross Examination debate. I could kick anybody's butt concerning the absolute NEED for solar energy. (The Solar One project, not some water heating piece of crap on your roof.) But a real debate with someone who is listening is required to call it a debate. If logic is met with sound bites all we have is.....well, all we have is exactly what we have in America today....Logic versus soundbites.
But I digress....I am just wondering why you even respond to some of the ridiculous questions? You know you are getting NOWHERE! In the end, he will believe what he hears from Nina Totenberg on NPR or Dan Rather, and you and I will KNOW what we read in the free press.
Just wondering.

 

I understand what you're saying. And frankly, I lose patience a lot of times, which is why I don't frequent the "Politics" forum any more. Too many idiots whose main thesis seems to be that George Bush loves war and would kill off half the Eastern seaboard if it meant making a couple bucks.

And it's simply not possible to discuss anything rationally with people like that, so I gave up trying.

But I try very hard to draw a distinction between the haters (I always find it hilarious that those who are the most hate-filled people around are those who claim they're doing it because they are opposed to hatred) and those who have been force-fed so much left-wing crap all their young lives that they just don't know any better, having never heard the other side.

The Clinton era did a lot of this, by telling everyone that there are two sides to the political debate: those that agree with them, who "care" about people and the planet, and the "other" side, which consists entirely of "mean-spirited" (a phrase they even invented for the purpose) hate-filled bigots who want to bring back segregation and put schoolchildren and old people out on the street and who "hate" the poor.

They were very successful at this, but I fear it permanently poisoed political debate in this country.

Because it meant you didn't even have to listen to the other side - in fact, since they are nothing but evil, greedy animals, it's better by far to organize a crowd and shout them down so that NOBODY can hear their message of hate.

So when somebody who has been imbued with this absurd sort of "We're good people, and we're always right and if you disagree with us then by definition you are a bad person who's not worth listening to" attitude is occasionally willing to think for 10 seconds outside of the ideological "right-think" box they've been nailed into by the liberal press and their even more blatently liberal teachers, then I try and be accomodationg.

Because I really and truly feel that when some of these people get an exposure to a different, rational point of view then all this politically motivated crap will evaporate.

Speaking of which, anybody who's up for a little dose of real, honest-to-gosh truth for a change should read Annie Coulter this week; she lays out just how politically motivated weasels like Daschle have become. They care nothing about anything at all except gaining political advantage.

I dare you all to read it:

http://www.anncoulter.org/


Hillary did not object to precipitous action against Iraq when her husband bombed it on the day of his scheduled impeachment. President Clinton attacked Saddam Hussein without first asking approval from the United Nations, the U.S. Congress or even France. But now we have a president who wants to attack Iraq for purposes of national security rather than his own personal interests, and Hillary thinks he's being rash...

...When Clinton bombed Iraq to delay his impeachment, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was ablaze with war fever. Daschle said: "This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq." ...