Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise.
how come these people arent getting impeached or thrown in jail? they screw with clinton over a blow job. bush has killed thousands for profits. its no surprise everyone hates us. it seems to me like were the terrorists. i have been ashamed of the american government for a long long time. but its getting out of control. not that this comes as any surprise. i think most knew it had more to do with oil, war profits, and a personal beef with saddam then it ever had to do with a threat to us or wmd
Last Edit: Jan 7, 2007 21:59:58 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
As much as I hate the war and those responsible for it if you think they're going to make a cent off of Iraqi oil you're mistaken. Their domestic production is so crippled right now they're importing oil (that we're paying for, incidentally).
Taciturn-- I believe you are referring to refined petroleum(gasoline,deisel,etc) which has to be shipped back into Iraq by dear Haliburton and subsidiaries. That's because we destroyed Iraq's refining capabilities. The raw crude ought to be flowing fine by now. The base is built. The rigs got the first attention and repair. We import it as raw crude and refine it here.(Thus the trouble and backups from the Gulf last year after the hurricanes).
It's the resource colonialization model of economics. Bring the raw material home for your country to do the improvement upon(That is unless labor rates and environmental standards are so low that profit dictates improvement upon the raw material in the country of export, ie. mining of minerals, coca into cocaine).
All is in place for record profits AGAIN in 2007 for the oil industry.
And none of us can bitch 'til we learn to spit out that nipple. or walk to our festies...
if it was available id pay more for it. id rather my money go to farmers in america then the horrible dictators that the american government keeps in power to fix oil prices. the saudi royal family and the bush family are rich enough.
Last Edit: Jan 10, 2007 19:40:19 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
you can make your own very very easy and on most diesels its not even really necessary to process it. You can just straight up put in used cooking oil. You just get better mileage after it is processed.
Yeah, I don't buy the war for oil thing. I think it's a pretty simplified view that's totally blown apart by any sort of cost-benefit-analysis. Given the fact that big oil is a few rungs down the lobbying influence ladder (behind defense, banks and pharmaceuticals), I find it highly unlikely that an entire political party would risk their entire reputation because they wanted better access to oil infrastructures that were ALREADY being illegally profitted from by Big Oil anyway (see Food for Oil scandal). Going into Iraq and taking out an entire countries infrastructure as well as eliminating a dictator who was holding a volatile country together takes a ideological bent that where dollars and cents isn't the bottom line.
No unfortunately for us, we have leadership who thought and still thinks that securing a military stronghold in Iraq will better situate the United States in our fight against Islamic fundamentalism as well as allowing us to keep better tabs on the most volatile areas of the world (North Korea, India-Pakistan, China-Tawain, Africa in general). Oil is a benefit, but as my dad pointed out to me when we were first discussing the pros and cons of invading Iraq, to the victor go the spoils. It's a problem that derives from a terrifyingly idiotic military philosophy that Bush seems to have thrust upon us as a nation: preemptive warfare as a means of self defense against any country or group the powers that be deem threatening to the security and welfare of the United States. We have officially entered full fledged empire territory...
well i agree. oil wasnt the only benefit. but profits were. haliburton has made a fortune. and they will pay bush and his cronies back for sure. amd you dont think the ultra rich people involved with banks, defense, and pharmies arent invested heavily in oil???
Profits for sure. It's all tied together. We have NO reason to be there. The politicians will argue ideologically that we need to secure a stronghold...blahblahblah....China and India developing...blahblahblah. Fact is that our economy, based on rampant expansionism rather than efficiency and equality, will always require more and more in order to keep existing. The difference between our economy and the Soviet Union's at the end of the cold war was credit. It has bought us about 20 more years-yay. And at what cost ? Developing countries see our lifestyle as an entitlement or something to shoot for, and Bammo. The rest of our existence will be spent violently grabbing for what we used to be "entitled". people around the world are not only dying to posess commodities, they are dying so that we may posess them for a price with which we are comfortable . The difference between price and cost is at the heart of it. The price for that WAL MART tent is only 40 bucks. The cost may have been 6 chinese children working for 2 days for a dollar(so that they may have a chance at our lifestyle is the myth).
LESS IS MORE
DEFINE YOUR WORTH BY WHAT YOU GIVE, NOT WHAT YOU HAVE TAKEN.
THE WAR IS LOST BUT THE BATTLE IS JUST BEGINNING.
YOUR HOLE OF NEWBETTERMORE WILL NEVER BE FULL--filling it is killing you.
"take a look around, fuck what you heard" "i played an escapade just like you"
Yeah, I don't buy the war for oil thing. I think it's a pretty simplified view that's totally blown apart by any sort of cost-benefit-analysis.
What cost/benefit analysis ?
The huge majority of the cost has been paid by the american taxpayer. For security, for infrastructure.
The Iraqi oil industry has been nationalized since 1972. That means Iraq determined the price it would sell it's oil for.
What is the cost benefit analysis of getting to buy oil from a new government that was just installed by you at no significant cost to you(bigoil) ?
And now our presence(also paid for by your children's grandchildren) will allow the pipeline from Afghanistan to totally redefine profiteering.
Dudezer-you ought to bone up a bit on your material and have another disussion with your dad. If the benefit to big oil is record profits and the cost is paid by the american taxpayer, i don't know how it is a breakeven venture.
Plus, with Bush, Cheney, and Rice as our top 3 politicians in this country, I don't know how oil lobbyists could be any more imbedded.
P.S.---not dissing your dad's argument entirely. The empire is the bigger picture.
But in the meantime we gotta hold these pricks accountable. One large way to do such is to eliminate subsidies to the oil companies. Why do we need to subsidize an industry experiencing record profits ? Cuz we want bigger crumbs-Reaganomics style.. Bush just opened up another section of Alaska for drilling. Full of wildlife, clean water and air, potential to sustain millions for centuries...and all we can see it for is black gold. When the gold is gone, the travesty remains.
Why don't we subsidize a sustainable energy industry on the level which we do big oil ? The "empire" would be stronger for it in the long term right ?
The reason we don't is cuz the oilboys like their position within the empire as it stands. They'll be the only ones who can afford clean water and air once they(we) have polluted it all. So they point fingers to say, "we are not the only ones", all the while manipulating our greed into dollars. cut off it's head and you'll kill it dead.
Of course its for oil. Every occupation in history has dropped the promises of building schools, road, and hospitals after the occupation begins. Then they focus on taking the natural resources from the area. Every occupation you can find did it the same way. Where are the schools, roads, and hospitals we went to Iraq, or Afghanistan to build? Its been years and where is even one new school or hospital? We have on the other hand put up some new roads. Only they are privately restricted to us for the sole purpose of removing the natural resource(OIL). Or if you want to look at Afghanistan instead of Iraq(NATURAL GAS).
Yeah, I don't buy the war for oil thing. I think it's a pretty simplified view that's totally blown apart by any sort of cost-benefit-analysis.
The Iraqi oil industry has been nationalized since 1972. That means Iraq determined the price it would sell it's oil for.
What is the cost benefit analysis of getting to buy oil from a new government that was just installed by you at no significant cost to you(bigoil) ?
.
even during the period since 1972 we were fixing the oil prices in iraq. saddam was in the usa getting the key to the city of detroit and shaking hands with rumsfeld. you dont think us supporting his horrible, oppressive, and violent dictatorship had anything to do with oil prices and not letting iran get ahold of the oil. iran would have destroyed saddam if we hadnt given him weapons of mass destruction to use against them. and his own people for that matter. its the same thing we are doing in saudi arabia. the people would have overthrown the royal family decades ago if the us didnt keep them in power. in fact thats why bin laden flew planes into buildings. because we have our nose in thier business proping up dictators in the name of oil prices. not because of our "freedom" or our lifestyle or religion. its solely about us doing horrible things in the name of oil/money. we didnt have a problem with saddam killing thousands of people with weapons we gave him, until he f**ked with the oil. he was our buddy and we funded/protected his regime. its sad. and unfortunatly there will be more attacks that our governtments policies are bringing upon us.
Last Edit: Jan 11, 2007 19:09:11 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
Yeah, I don't buy the war for oil thing. I think it's a pretty simplified view that's totally blown apart by any sort of cost-benefit-analysis.
What cost/benefit analysis ?
The huge majority of the cost has been paid by the american taxpayer. For security, for infrastructure.
The Iraqi oil industry has been nationalized since 1972. That means Iraq determined the price it would sell it's oil for.
What is the cost benefit analysis of getting to buy oil from a new government that was just installed by you at no significant cost to you(bigoil) ?
And now our presence(also paid for by your children's grandchildren) will allow the pipeline from Afghanistan to totally redefine profiteering.
Dudezer-you ought to bone up a bit on your material and have another disussion with your dad. If the benefit to big oil is record profits and the cost is paid by the american taxpayer, i don't know how it is a breakeven venture.
Plus, with Bush, Cheney, and Rice as our top 3 politicians in this country, I don't know how oil lobbyists could be any more imbedded.
Well, first it's not my dad's argument. I was referring back to a discussion I had with him before the war started about the foolishness of preemptive warfare as a strategy for any sort of country.
Second, I'm not sure if you read anything I wrote. I mean, you seem to be under the impression that I think getting oil is justified or that it's an economic strategy or that I support the war. You're being really vague and more than a little condescending putting out arguments I've heard from the blood for oil people for years now.
When I say cost-benefit analysis I mean this: If you blow the oil infrastructure to hell (which happened), it costs a lot of money to rebuild it AND it decreases the availability of oil in the region. In fact, I would say that the main push against the war in Iraq was driven by a portion of the Big Oil industry that was against any sort of military interference into a region they already had cut a deal with through the U.N. That's not to say there aren't companies that benefitted from the invasion. But that is to point out the obvious: that when you say Big Oil, you act as if it's this giant figurehead that has one motive and isn't made up of a lot of oil companies all over the world competing for profits. Next you'll be going on about Mason conspiracies.
Further, if the primary motive behind the Bush administration ISN'T ideological then they are a bunch of dumbasses who pretty much pissed away the power they had for a bad business plan in invading Iraq.
Yes, part of the long term neo-con strategy is about oil, but that also discounts recent finds in Sudan and Canada that dwarf the oil reserves in Iraq. It also overestimates how much ACTUAL oil comes from Iraq, something that can't be truly known given the country's been run by a dictator whose been fudging the numbers for decades AND is part of a group (OPEC) that is notorious for misleading the oil industry about oil reserves.
As far as record profits are concerned, that has more to do with the inflation of gas prices due to the decreasing value of the American dollar than anything else. The end of a golden era is neigh for the oil industry unless they adapt, and if you pay close attention, you'll notice that while profits are up, brokers aren't necessarily encouraging their clients to invest in the oil industry because of a growing movement towards alternative fuels AND the increasing uncertainty of oil resources in Central America and the Middle East (due to warfare).
I'm sorry, I don't mean to come across as insulting, but I'm kind of tired of hearing dated arguments on why everything is about oil, when like I said, the oil lobby isn't at the top of the pecking order politically. It's a group that's never been #1 and has been steadily losing power since the early 90s. Not to say they aren't part of the problem, just saying I think you're looking for the boogeyman in the wrong closet.
and when the bushes lost their asses who bailed them out? the saudis. they have bought a couple of failing bush businesses over the years for way more then they are worth. i wonder why that is.. and the oil companies work together to fix prices.. there is no competition. except from that evil dictator in venezuela. what a bad guy he is. he calls a spade a spade and takes a bunch of nuts. and bush, cheney and all of their cronies will be on the borads of mega companies raking in millions. and they will be giving hour long seminars to haliburton and oil companies for millions of dollars a pop. is it only about oil. no its about a lot of other illegal and immoral profits too, but its certainly not about any wish to do something that is good or right. its all about the rich getting richer. i find it hard to believe that anyone still denies it. especially after this administration. thats whats wrong with america. most of the people dont want to accept that we are the evil. we are the dictators of the world. we have nukes. but you cant, we will give them to our friends that are your mortal enemies but if you try to get them we will blow you up. we won't sign a non agression treaty but we will bomb you into submission and assasinate your leaders if you try to get them. its crazy. someday oue empire will fall... they all do. and in the history books we are going to be looked back on as an oppresive, violent, and aggressive empire.
Last Edit: Jan 11, 2007 20:32:06 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
its a long read. but it pretty much lays out a history of nothing but criminal activities in the name of profits. and alot of that is oil. anyone who thinks the bushes arent making money of oil is crazy. even the failed ones you are talking about were all bailed out with huge profits for the bushes. they are rigging elections. they are lying to get us into illegal wars. 3 bush investment firms were shut down in 1942 under the "trading with the enemy act" for trading with the nazis. nuts they are grave robbers. they are stealing heritage/history, a bush lead a raid to steal geronimos skull so they could have it for their little skull and bones organization. they are just bad people. with too much power. and they owe too many people.
Last Edit: Jan 11, 2007 20:44:54 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
You have repeated your own argument without addressing mine and then lumped me in with conspiratorialists out of nowhere. You call my "argument" the blood for oil argument which tells me you are kneejerking to several years ago and haven't updated your own take on things.
You have ignored the idea that if taxpayers foot the bill, there is no cost in your cost benefit analysis.
You have said that record oil profits are to be attributed to inflated prices. Meanwhile, gasoline is as cheap as it has been in 3 years(i just paid 2.11 a gal) and we still pay a subsidized price that the rest of the world does not enjoy. You want to extoll the evilness of the Empire while letting the emperors of the hook. Oil has been the key to our actions in the region. It is why we have such a beef with Iran--didn't N. Korea just test an actual bomb?
Bush, Cheney, and Rice are all (debateably) former oil execs. Who needs lobbyists when you run the country and it's budget ?
If Somalia or N.Korea had oil, Haliburton would be profiting there. So would the defense industry. But they are not.(except for third-party arms sales).
Canada's oil is suspended in shale and is one of the toughest and least efficient sources to extract, thus mostly cost prohibitive at the current rate of a barrel of oil.
Your argument is weakened by telling but half of the story. But maybe that works for you when you vy with the uninformed. It seems you want to be heard and to be right, rather than want the truth to be known.
It seems like you want to defend the oil boys but still wanna condemn the war. Join the democrats in line for that one.
You even ripped on my use of the term "bigoil" even though I was quoting your terminology , and parenthetically at that, so that you would know to whom I was referring.
Strengthen and update your own kneejerk reaction to the war from a couple of years ago. Then you won't have to split hairs with the choir. Oh and sell your oil stock--it's in limited supply and you'll never make any money on it when you do a "cost-benefit analysis". (sarcasm intended)
Last Edit: Jan 12, 2007 10:57:26 GMT -5 by dudezer47 - Back to Top
The White House, already criticized for its connections to Big Oil, now is facing renewed questions over Chevron's decision to name an oil tanker for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The double-hulled giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, named several years ago in honor of Rice when she was a Chevron board member and stockholder.
Rice, the former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after President Bush named her to the national security post.
But with California's energy crisis intensifying and human rights groups spotlighting abuses in countries where Chevron does business, critics say the tanker now poses serious diplomatic and ethical issues for Rice and the administration.
Even more sensitive, they say, is the appearance of a far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.
"It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry -- in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry," said Chuck Lewis, who heads the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, which first raised the issue of the tanker's moniker last month. "Look at the president and his background, the vice president (who is a former executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his oil interests . . . and now this."
Post by chicagorooer on Jan 12, 2007 12:34:34 GMT -5
while I aggree there has been many mistakes with this war (never heard of a war that wasn't riddled with errors) you all seem to miss the real point. The fact remains the U.N. had passed many resolutions demanding Iraq to comply with the cease fire or face santions/military action. The world body is the failure not the U.S. When it was obvious the UN was not going to follow up on it's own resolutions did the U.S. take action against IRAQ.
So get this the UN and the world talk tough then don't act ever. They never ever take action. Then when we follow through the US is slammed for how we conduct the war. Believe me france, russia, germany are more than happy to sit back and blast the US for the action but then in private cheer that we did. The US is not an "evil" empire. How come were not evil when the world needs medicine or help after earthquates or tidal waves....even then if we are slow to react we are evil for not being fast enough.
I can understand why people don't like Bush but I can't understand why people think he is evil. The way many people view this is as if when bush leaves office all this will go away and the world will be happy again....sorry but these problems where here long before bush and I can't wait to see who the next president is (probably a democrat) that way when he takes action that the world wants we can call him evil.....
When it was obvious the UN was not going to follow up on it's own resolutions did the U.S. take action against IRAQ.
Iraq was allowing UN inspections for the supposed "WMD's" they had and the US took it upon themselves to pre-emptivly strike while the UN and most of the entire world did not support it. And low and behold there were no WMD's. Every single reason the US gave pre-invasion has been found to be false. All of them. 100%
Show even one reason we stated previous to the invasion that it was needed that still holds up.
Post by chicagorooer on Jan 12, 2007 13:00:19 GMT -5
Then why did the UN keep passing resolutions if all was going well? why were the inspectors kicked out in 1998 only allowed back in b/c iraq face santions/military action. There may or may not have been wmd's......Sadaam could have easily sent them to syria or another country. Although right now u are correct u have found zero. unlike u jason I don't like to say I know how the story ends before it does.
We found a lot out about wwII many years after the fact. So the verdict is still out on Iraq that is for sure
The only reason u gave has not been proven why we went to war but the UN, the iraq people and the fact Sadaam was supporting terror by giving suicide bombers families money if they blew up Israel. Is just a few of many reasons why
I feel we went to war not for oil but to stratgically set ourself up for the real war and real problem Iran.......Iraq is a great location for us b/c we can attack Iran from Iraq and afganistan. this is the real reason why we are in iraq...we could care less about the people we know that.
Like I said before we can't tell the entire story until the entire story is lived so there is a lot we don't know but to say we went only for oil and b/c we are evil is just missing the big picture.......this war has only began...we have a long way to go
If you could all only see the pictures my brother took before the actual invasion and then on his first trip out. (He has been to Iraq 7 times between the two wars) He was in Kuwait for a few weeks before the actual invasion. He showed me all of these pictures of huge oil piplines sitting piled up near the border waiting to be assembled and then on his first trip out, long after the actual invasion all of those very same pipes assembled and running the oil out of Iraq into Kuwait and onto oil tankers. This was the plan long before any fighting, invasion, WMD talk ,or anything else.
Chicagorooer- See the remaining members of the coalition of the willing to see what the world really wants. Who's left ? Who's paying in the billions ? or with over 3000 lives lost ?
The inspectors were removed from Iraq because of safety issues our presence caused-see shock and awe.
We owe the world an apology and iraq a buttload of aid. Not the research food we "give" Africa either. More than 100,000 iraqi's lives have been taken by our occupying force since the first gulf war.and now from a war based on lies. I suggest YOU read the lengthy article dudewhere'smyroo cited and get back to this thread when you've got answers for some of the questions it poses.
and now bush/cheney says torture is ok, as is domestic wiretapping and mail opening to save us from the terrorists. meanwhile our worst terror event happened under their watch. oh and f kyoto and the geneva conventions for that matter too.
yes virginia, bush and cheney ARE evil. and our poor young people need to be brought home. we can't even afford to help our own and we're spreading "installed" democracy all over the world. that's why the world views us as imperialists and they are right.
Last Edit: Jan 12, 2007 14:39:13 GMT -5 by dudezer47 - Back to Top
