The Great Iraq Oil Robbery (interesting read)

[Myrtle]

http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20002069

The cabinet of the new Iraqi government--under pressure from the U.S. occupiers who put them in power--approved a law that would undo Iraq's nationalized system and give Western oil giants unparalleled access to the country's vast reserves.

In essence, this article argues that the war is all about oil profits and has nothing to do with democracy or reforming a country to help the citizens gain "freedom."

[Prope]

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/captainobvious.jpg

[Myrtle]

I am trying to start a discussion about why this war was started, Prope - while you may understand this shit I'm pretty sure there are several people on this board who actually think it has to do with "spreading democracy." (which in itself is questionable if you ask me)

[Prope]

The U.S. emerged from the war as the dominant world superpower, and a central part of its postwar strategy depended on maintaining control over oil resources, particularly the vast reserves discovered in the Middle East--"a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest prizes in world history," the State Department said in a document.
Seriously, my senior seminar paper was about US interests in Iran post WW2. I quoted that line from the Truman State Department in the paper.

[Prope]

I am trying to start a discussion about why this war was started, Prope - while you may understand this shit I'm pretty sure there are several people on this board who actually think it has to do with "spreading democracy." (which in itself is questionable if you ask me)
I meant it in jest. I'm actually enjoying the read, because it appears the author has cited sources I have used in papers while at school.

[Prope]

The problem is, while this may be beating the horse for people like you, Ballz, SABR, Campbell, and myself it is a tough sell for people who are in favor of the war/favor Bush. As the war keeps going, it seems that more and more are jumping ship. Those people though, are leaving because of its mismanagement - not because they feel as if they were lied to.

[Myrtle]

I meant it in jest. I'm actually enjoying the read, because it appears the author has cited sources I have used in papers while at school.

Oops, sorry, I misunderstood. :thumbsup:

I love that quote that you used, in essence it seems to sum up the "need" for being in Iraq right now.

[Prope]

1945 I believe. I could be wrong but it may have been said by Truman himself, but quoted in Foreign Relations of the United States (or FRUS to those of us in the business).

[1951Campbell]

I meant it in jest. I'm actually enjoying the read, because it appears the author has cited sources I have used in papers while at school.

Yes, when's he's not quoting Counterpunch, the Socialist Worker, and the International Socialist Review. :rolling:

Verrrrrrrrrrry persuasive.

While I was never in favor of the War, this sort of collegiate leftie critique that constantly trumpets the "OMG its teh oil!" is pretty facile, and makes it, frankly, embarrassing to be anti-war sometimes. I think there were other, strategic considerations to this war, such wanting to have bases in Iraq, some perverse belief in a backwards domino theory, and even a bit of Albright's "what's the point of the great military if you don't use it." They were wrong, but that's besides the point. Any evil capitalist worth his salt will tell you that there's a cheaper way to get you hands on that oil than a 5+ year war. But the folks at the International Socialist whatever-the-fuck will always see the problem as wanting to make a buck.

Hey, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[1951Campbell]

The problem is, while this may be beating the horse for people like you, Ballz, SABR, Campbell, and myself it is a tough sell for people who are in favor of the war/favor Bush. As the war keeps going, it seems that more and more are jumping ship. Those people though, are leaving because of its mismanagement - not because they feel as if they were lied to.

The only thing left for anti-war folks to do at this point is convince pro-war folks to avoid the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

All this pissing and moaning about Halliburton, empire, and Bushitler is Blue Team masturbation and doesn't help one bit.

[samram]

^^ Yeah, I don't see why one has to be either pro-war or has to be able to see the "truth" that it was all for oil. This was a misread of the situation in the middle east and a misuse of resources. If they just wanted the oil, they could get it with an operation that would last about an hour.

[Myrtle]

Yes, when's he's not quoting Counterpunch, the Socialist Worker, and the International Socialist Review. :rolling:

Verrrrrrrrrrry persuasive.

While I was never in favor of the War, this sort of collegiate leftie critique that constantly trumpets the "OMG its teh oil!" is pretty facile, and makes it, frankly, embarrassing to be anti-war sometimes. I think there were other, strategic considerations to this war, such wanting to have bases in Iraq, some perverse belief in a backwards domino theory, and even a bit of Albright's "what's the point of the great military if you don't use it." They were wrong, but that's besides the point. Any evil capitalist worth his salt will tell you that there's a cheaper way to get you hands on that oil than a 5+ year war. But the folks at the International Socialist whatever-the-fuck will always see the problem as wanting to make a buck.

Hey, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I agree with you here, that there are other factors that have perpetuated this war. I don't think it's 100% about oil because it's never all or nothing and I'm sure these factors have played a role in the preservation of troops in Iraq but none of these factors are really strong enough in themselves to start a war--money, on the other hand, has always been and always will be a reason for killing.

[maurice]

I think W had a number of reasons in mind, including but not limited to oil. Unfortunately, the administration was completely unable to see the teensy, tiny possibility that maybe there just might be some problems as well. (In this way, W is very different from his dad.) He really, truly believed that the whole thing would be a walk in the park with lots of flowers and no downside.

[CaptainBallz]

^^ Yeah, I don't see why one has to be either pro-war or has to be able to see the "truth" that it was all for oil. This was a misread of the situation in the middle east and a misuse of resources. If they just wanted the oil, they could get it with an operation that would last about an hour.

Well, that part of the operation did last about an hour. One of the first official actions of the Coalition Provisional Authority was the privatization of the Iraqi's oil industry, effectively seizing control of the country's reserves.

That part had been executed swimmingly. The rest of the phase has been protecting it while plans for an oil pipeline running through Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf have been put into place.

The rest is laid out in plain English here. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

And so it's known, "American interests", as they're stated by PNAC translates DIRECTLY into "American business/corporate interests"... not necessarily anything that directly benefits you or me.

[1951Campbell]

And so it's known, "American interests", as they're stated by PNAC translates DIRECTLY into American business/corporate interests... not necessarily anything that directly benefits you or me.

:confused:

Assuming this is all just to get at the oil (which I do not, but I'll play along) how does cheap gas not benefit me?

[Myrtle]

:confused:

Assuming this is all just to get at the oil (which I do not, but I'll play along) how does cheap gas not benefit me?

Cheap gas? Who said anything about making gas prices significantly cheaper? Oil companies don't necessarily make more money by lowering gas prices.

[CaptainBallz]

:confused:

Assuming this is all just to get at the oil (which I do not, but I'll play along) how does cheap gas not benefit me?

right right...


*looks at gas prices*

:confused:


For the record, I've been hearing the "cheap gas" excuse since before the invasion... I'm patiently awaiting those sweet, sweet savings being passed onto me.

[1951Campbell]

So...increasing supply has no effect on prices? Interesting. :rolleyes:

[SABRSox]

Yeah, cheaper gas...

All this war has done is redistribute a ton of wealth to the top 1% through higher fuel prices and insane levels of military spending.

[1951Campbell]

Or, put another way, why would Evil Oil Co. sell 100 barrels of oil for $50 a barrel when it could sell 200 barrels of oil at $30 a barrel? Isn't $5,000 less than $6,000?

[Myrtle]

Or, put another way, why would Evil Oil Co. sell 100 barrels of oil for $50 a barrel when it could sell 200 barrels of oil at $30 a barrel? Isn't $5,000 less than $6,000?

Why wouldn't Evil Oil Co. just go ahead and sell 200 barrels of oil at $50 a barrel, then?

$10,000 is better than $6,000.

[1951Campbell]

Yeah, cheaper gas...

All this war has done is redistribute a ton of wealth to the top 1% through higher fuel prices and insane levels of military spending.

And how would that work?

[CaptainBallz]

Or, put another way, why would Evil Oil Co. sell 100 barrels of oil for $50 a barrel when it could sell 200 barrels of oil at $30 a barrel? Isn't $5,000 less than $6,000?

Excellent mathematics sir...

Now tell me when my gas prices will go down.

[1951Campbell]

Why wouldn't Evil Oil Co. just go ahead and sell 200 barrels of oil at $50 a barrel, then?

$10,000 is better than $6,000.



Because another company could, at that level of supply, make the $6,000 themselves--no one's gonna pay $10,000 when they could pay $6,000.

Do I really have to explain supply and demand?

[SABRSox]

^^^
Yeah, that works in theory. But we're living in the real world.

[1951Campbell]

Excellent mathematics sir...

Now tell me when my gas prices will go down.

Do you really think gas prices would be where they are if oil was, say, $35 a gallon? Do you really think there's no correlation between crude oil prices and what you pay at the pump (once you adjust for taxes, of course)?

As an aside, it's $2.79 a gallon here in Carlisle.

[Myrtle]

^^^
Yeah, that works in theory. But we're living in the real world.

Exactly. Supply and demand does not work the way you would read about it in the text book.

Gas prices are not going to go down, at least, not significantly. Maybe enough to get people to shut up about it.

[CaptainBallz]

Do you really think gas prices would be where they are if oil was, say, $35 a gallon? Do you really think there's no correlation between crude oil prices and what you pay at the pump (once you adjust for taxes, of course)?

As an aside, it's $2.79 a gallon here in Carlisle.

Full Bluntal Nugity...

Campbell, prices have contiually gone up... Put the Adam Smith down for a sec.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_chart.gif

[1951Campbell]

^^^
Yeah, that works in theory. But we're living in the real world.

Non-repsonsive, but I'll ask anyway:

If oil companies can charge whatever they want, why not charge $6.00 a gallon at the pump? $10.00? $15.00?

It seems your defintion of the "real world" is a tin foil-laden land where oil companies get together and decide what to charge--which makes you wonder what all those futures traders are doing everyday when they go to work.

[SABRSox]

Exactly. Supply and demand does not work the way you would read about it in the text book.

Gas prices are not going to go down, at least, not significantly. Maybe enough to get people to shut up about it.
They'll "magically" go down before the 2008 elections...

[Myrtle]

They'll "magically" go down before the 2008 elections...

Ha! I'll agree with that.

[Bonzosa]

There is nothing wrong with pointing out that giving no bid contracts to people who rip you off billions of dollars is not in the best interest of the country. Then to do it again in NO is even more ridiculous. Do we learn nothing?

Republicans aren't jumping ship because of mismanagement, they're doing it to save their ass in future elections. Once the tide of popularity turns sour, people start turning on you. Add the fact that GW is a lame duck from here on and you have more reason to go after whats best for yourself and your state, not the party.

I think the fact that we choose to knowingly manufacture evidence to invade a country is evidence we were not going in there for the right or stated reasons. In that case, it is easy to see that securing a major resource for ours and our allies' use is in our interest. Iraq have the second largest proven reserves if I am correct. Doesn't take a brainiac to see a connection.
Why else would we insert ourselves there?

As for the cost of the war, you might remember Wolfowitz saying that Iraqi oil sales would fund the war and reconstruction.
That turned out to be inaccurate as well. This whole war was flawed from the get-go. Why do the majority of Americans accept being lied to over and over?
That's the real question.

[SABRSox]

Non-repsonsive, but I'll ask anyway:

If oil companies can charge whatever they want, why not charge $6.00 a gallon at the pump? $10.00? $15.00?

It seems your defintion of the "real world" is a tin foil-laden land where oil companies get together and decide what to charge--which makes you wonder what all those futures traders are doing everyday when they go to work.
It would not be a stretch of the imagination to believe that there is collusion in the oil industry.

Hell, what is OPEC if not a group of colluding oil producers.

[Bonzosa]

oil companies do not charge whatever they want.
If you wanted to see gas prices fall, take a look at how much of the current gas price in your state is tied to taxes.

Gas prices go up because China is securing more and more oil resources which makes it scarcer for the world at large. India and a number of developing countries do the same.
That in addition to instability where the largest known, easily extracted resources are leads to increased prices.

Gas prices will continue to go up because there is more demand. If we increased R&D and allowed more exploration and extraction, that would relieve some more of the price.
See today's news on that front (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01drill.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin).

[1951Campbell]

Full Bluntal Nugity...

Campbell, prices have contiually gone up... Put the Adam Smith down for a sec.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_chart.gif


Nice graph, HomeFish.

You're missing the point. You're arguing that access to more oil has no effect on prices. That's untenable.

Was that the point? :D

Anyway, my only point is the premise that invading Iraq would seem to benefit oil companies by increasing supply, which would in turn lower prices, benefitting consumers--the "you or me" in your post that started all this. It hasn't worked in practice because it's hard to extract oil amidst a civil war and terror attacks.

[Bonzosa]

It would not be a stretch of the imagination to believe that there is collusion in the oil industry.

Hell, what is OPEC if not a group of colluding oil producers.

Yeah, but oil companies are not tied to OPEC in setting prices, they are affected by the decisions of nationalized oil companies because it increases and decreases supply.

Nationalized companies love to extract less of their finite resource in order to reap greater profits.

[1951Campbell]

They'll "magically" go down before the 2008 elections...

Because the time of high demand--the summer, with all the travel--is over. But I guess those huge elections in the fall of 2005 were the reason why prices dropped then. :rolleyes:

But hey, let's not ruin the tin foil party here on the Left.

[1951Campbell]

oil companies do not charge whatever they want.
If you wanted to see gas prices fall, take a look at how much of the current gas price in your state is tied to taxes.

Gas prices go up because China is securing more and more oil resources which makes it scarcer for the world at large. India and a number of developing countries do the same.
That in addition to instability where the largest known, easily extracted resources are leads to increased prices.

Gas prices will continue to go up because there is more demand. If we increased R&D and allowed more exploration and extraction, that would relieve some more of the price.
See today's news on that front (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01drill.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin).

QFT.

[SABRSox]

Because the time of high demand--the summer, with all the travel--is over. But I guess those huge elections in the fall of 2005 were the reason why prices dropped then. :rolleyes:

But hey, let's not ruin the tin foil party here on the Left.
Gas prices did go down in the weeks before the 2006 elections, and then rose regularly afterward:

http://theelectoralvote.com/gasoline/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/gaschart.gif

Election day was 11/6/06, BTW.

[maurice]

Gas taxes in the US are comparatively low. There are plenty of good arguments (from both the right and the left) in favor of raising them.

[1951Campbell]

Gas prices did go down in the weeks before the 2006 elections, and then rose regularly afterward:

http://theelectoralvote.com/gasoline/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/gaschart.gif

Election day was 11/6/06, BTW.

And that explains 2005 how?

And according to Capt. Ballz' graph, prices were lower in January 2007 than on Election Day. So, the evil oil companies wanted to reward the Democrats for gaining control of Congress? :rolleyes:

[Bonzosa]

Gas taxes in the US are comparatively low. There are plenty of good arguments (from both the right and the left) in favor of raising them.

Here is a list of the taxes by state in 2002. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html)
The national average was 42 cents per gallon.
That's nearly 1/4 of the price at $2.00/gallon

[SABRSox]

I was talking about 2006. I don't know where you got 2005 from...

[maurice]

Gas taxes in the US are comparatively low.

Here is a list of the taxes by state in 2002.
The national average was 42 cents per gallon.
That's nearly 1/4 of the price at $2.00/gallon

And how does that compare to, say, Italy or the UK?

I wish my income + payroll taxes were only 1/4.

[SABRSox]

I'm all in favor of raising taxes on gas, so long as those taxes are earmarked towared alternative fuel research and production.

[maurice]

I'm all in favor of raising taxes on gas, so long as those taxes are earmarked towared alternative fuel research and production.

That would be one of the good arguments I mentioned. Unfortunately, this one has big downsides. The government sucks at this kind of earmarking, and the government is very good at turning "alternative fuel research" funding into pork-barrel spending.

[1951Campbell]

I was talking about 2006. I don't know where you got 2005 from...

Prices go down every fall as demand from the summer driving season lessens, which can be seen in Capt. Ballz' graph. The argument that Big Oil! fixes prices so Republicans can win is bunk.

[SABRSox]

Prices go down every fall as demand from the summer driving season lessens, which can be seen in Capt. Ballz' graph. The argument that Big Oil! fixes prices so Republicans can win is bunk.
Come on, Campbell. It bottomed out on election day, and then consistently went up. Sorry, but I don't buy the coincidence argument.

[Bonzosa]

And how does that compare to, say, Italy or the UK?

I wish my income + payroll taxes were only 1/4.

How is that the point?
Do you live in Italy?

I am pointing out a fact about what comprises part of the price of gas since some are convinced it is set by oil companies.

I am all for higher taxes, tax the hell out of it. It would be better to add a progressive tax to non-commercial vehicles which get low MPG.
That way our commodities would be partially isolated from increased costs.

[1951Campbell]

That would be one of the good arguments I mentioned. Unfortunately, this one has big downsides. The government sucks at this kind of earmarking, and the government is very good at turning "alternative fuel research" funding into pork-barrel spending.

Not only is raising gas taxes regressive, you're right about pork. That money would go to, say, ADM with a mandate to come up with something in five years, and when the five years was up, ADM would say "gee, we need another five years and a couple of billion more dollars" and nothing would get done.

Unless you worked for ADM. Then you could get a lot done, like maybe a new boat and granite countertops for your cabin in Jackson Hole.

[SABRSox]

Not only is raising gas taxes regressive, you're right about pork. That money would go to, say, ADM with a mandate to come up with something in five years, and when the five years was up, ADM would say "gee, we need another five years and a couple of billion more dollars" and nothing would get done.

Unless you worked for ADM. Then you could get a lot done, like maybe a new boat and granite countertops for your cabin in Jackson Hole.
Well, that's where I'd argue that the money should be given to public institutions and universities over private interests.

[1951Campbell]

Well, that's where I'd argue that the money should be given to public institutions and universities over private interests.

Yeah, they'd never drag their feet to get additional funding. C'mon.

[1951Campbell]

How is that the point?
Do you live in Italy?

I am pointing out a fact about what comprises part of the price of gas since some are convinced it is set by oil companies.

I am all for higher taxes, tax the hell out of it. It would be better to add a progressive tax to non-commercial vehicles which get low MPG.
That way our commodities would be partially isolated from increased costs.

When the very last person who advocates higher gas taxes gives up their car, maybe I'll think about supporting such an idea. Maybe.

No. Even then I won't. :D

[CaptainBallz]

Prices go down every fall as demand from the summer driving season lessens, which can be seen in Capt. Ballz' graph. The argument that Big Oil! fixes prices so Republicans can win is bunk.

You have mad respect for my graph... as well you should. My graph posting skills are quickly reaching the girth of Homefish's...

I think Big Oil just wants to maximize its profit margin. Which is at record highs even as every excuse in the book is thrown at us to have us believe that the current prices are a direct result of market forces...POPPYCOCK.

I will post a corresponding graph as soon as I find one.

[1951Campbell]

I think Big Oil just wants to maximize its profit margin.


Holy shit, private for-profit companies try to maximize their profit margin!

Get this man a Nobel Prize for economics!


:D

[Bonzosa]

When the very last person who advocates higher gas taxes gives up their car, maybe I'll think about supporting such an idea. Maybe.

No. Even then I won't. :D

If I drive a car that means I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.
The proposed tax also increases incentive to transition to more fuel efficient cars and provides incentives for auto companies to produce more fuel efficient vehicles across the board.

It's clear this won't happen anytime soon since GW won't even raise MPG fleet requirements over the next decade.

[1951Campbell]

If I drive a car that means I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.


I'd have to pay taxes under your proposed tax too. You're putting my money where your mouth is.

[Bonzosa]

And I deserve your money, so what's your point?

[Bonzosa]

Yeah, they'd never drag their feet to get additional funding. C'mon.

That's not the way it works.
Gov't says "we want to establish x number of alternative fuel research centers, submit proposals if you want it and why you should have it."
Then unis send in the RFP and the government issues funds to fund the research outlined in the RFP. They stray the course, they lose funding.
Unis want that money because it makes their school more attractive to students and can help them secure more funding for buildings, resources, equipment etc.

[1951Campbell]

And I deserve your money, so what's your point?

That's for me to decide.

[maurice]

How is that the point?

:confused:
YOU responded to MY post.

Folks constantly complain that fuel taxes and, thus, the price of gas are "high." "High" is a relative term, so MY point was that US gas prices are comparatively low (which is true) and probably should be higher. You responded with the fact that it's about 1/4 of the total fuel cost, which does not address MY point that it's comparatively low and probably should be higher.

I suppose I could have just responded, "How is that the point?" but I'm in a good mood today.

Do you live in Italy?

Not any more, but a fellow SATCer is moving there.

[CaptainBallz]

Holy shit, private for-profit companies try to maximize their profit margin!

Get this man a Nobel Prize for economics!


:D

you knob.... you know what I'm talking about.

Follow here:

Argument for invasion including lower gas prices which is good for the people-- No subsequent decrease in gas prices resulting from invasion-- Record profits for companies reaping the benefits of the hostile takeover of Iraqi oil Fields-- Argument that invasion and occupation of Oil fields not necessarily good for the people while being hugely beneficial for companies...

I know you're at an ideological wall right here since profits MUST be the best thing for everybody, but you're being willfully ignorant.

[1951Campbell]

you knob.... you know what I'm talking about.

Follow here:

Argument for invasion including lower gas prices which is good for the people-- No subsequent decrease in gas prices resulting from invasion-- Record profits for companies reaping the benefits of the hostile takeover of Iraqi oil Fields-- Argument that invasion and occupation of Oil fields not necessarily good for the people while being hugely beneficial for companies...

I know you're at an ideological wall right here since profits MUST be the best thing for everybody, but you're being willfully ignorant here.

It's good for shareholders in those companies.

Even when I lose, I win! :D

[SABRSox]

It's good for shareholders in those companies.

Even when I lose, I win! :D
Well, you've justified nearly a million deaths in the name of shareholders. Well done...

[1951Campbell]

Well, you've justified nearly a million deaths in the name of shareholders. Well done...

That's not what I'm doing at all, and you know it.

[CaptainBallz]

http://www.pacificsites.com/~lakenews/LCFP%20Graphics/head_up_ass.gif

[SABRSox]

That's not what I'm doing at all, and you know it.
Fair enough, but I can't really seperate the two. I understand your economic viewpoint, but my point is that there is a human cost to this that is not covered in a purely market view of the war.

[Myrtle]

:rolling:, Ballz.

[1951Campbell]

Capt. Ballz implied--or perhaps I inferred--that there was no benefit to anyone except the oil companies as things have panned out. I simply said those huge profits are good for tens of millions of shareholders to disprove the point.

I didn't say it was worth it.

[Myrtle]

Capt. Ballz implied--or perhaps I inferred--that there was no benefit to anyone except the oil companies as things have panned out. I simply said those huge profits are good for tens of millions of shareholders to disprove the point.

I didn't say it was worth it.

You were nitpicking at the message. The main benefit goes to the oil companies and that's not going to change.

Who the hell are the shareholders anyway, hmm? :jagoff: Not any low income families who could use a break on their gas prices, that's for sure.

[JohnBasedowYoda]

I say we go back to Whale hunting to fill our tanks.

[Myrtle]

I say we go back to Whale hunting to fill our tanks.

Dude, we can't do that, haven't you ever seen Star Trek IV?!

http://services.tos.net/pics/st4/st4-probe.gif

[CaptainBallz]

Capt. Ballz implied--or perhaps I inferred--that there was no benefit to anyone except the oil companies as things have panned out. I simply said those huge profits are good for tens of millions of shareholders to disprove the point.

I didn't say it was worth it.

My original point was stating that as the PNAC uses it, the term "American/US interests" translates into nothing more than an ultimate benefit for US owned and US friendly companies/corporations, which I believe has been demonstrated does NOT naturally or directly benefit the average American, i.e. non-stock holding, gas consuming American who is currently getting gouged at the pump.

For now, at least: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/24/news/companies/oil_profits/index.htm
Featuring Everybody's Favorite Ohio Elf!!!

[1951Campbell]

Who the hell are the shareholders anyway, hmm? :jagoff: Not any low income families who could use a break on their gas prices, that's for sure.

Presumably the same low income families whose gas taxes I'm guessing you'd like to raise to gain "energy independence"?

[1951Campbell]

My original point was stating that as the PNAC uses it, the term "American/US interests" translates into nothing more than an ultimate benefit for US owned and US friendly companies/corporations, which I believe has been demonstrated does NOT naturally or directly benefit the average American, i.e. non-stock holding, gas consuming American who is currently getting gouged at the pump.

For now, at least: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/24/news/companies/oil_profits/index.htm
Featuring Everybody's Favorite Ohio Elf!!!

A majority of Americans own stock. I'm just sayin'.

Also, Kucinich = Elfskin?

[CaptainBallz]

Presumably the same low income families whose gas taxes I'm guessing you'd like to raise to gain "energy independence"?

C'mon... you know we're trying to fuck over the rich here...:D

Low income families would not be effected by any such tax increase, if done properly.

[1951Campbell]

Anyway, yes Capt. Ballz, we did sort of get far afield in this discussion.

Just to be clear, even though I, unlike many folks here, do not habitually hump a Noam Chomsky blow-up doll, that doesn't change the fact that the most rational course in Iraq is to get out yesterday.

[CaptainBallz]

A majority of Americans own stock. I'm just sayin'.

Also, Kucinich = Elfskin?

I don't have the exact numbers on the % of Americans that actually do own stock (as opposed to pwning stock, which is my forte), but I'm willing to guess that most that do are doing it through some form of 401k or mutual fund. How much of whatever possible return they're currently getting could be directly attributed to profit increases in the oil industry? How much of that is being offset by the high costs being passed onto consumers while record profits are being recorded?

What about the rest of the coutntry?

[JohnBasedowYoda]

Dude, we can't do that, haven't you ever seen Star Trek IV?!

http://services.tos.net/pics/st4/st4-probe.gif

Worst alien ever.

A GIANT WET TURD with a Swedish underarm crystal caught in a tractor beam floating through space.

[Bonzosa]

Anyway, yes Capt. Ballz, we did sort of get far afield in this discussion.

Just to be clear, even though I, unlike many folks here, do not habitually hump a Noam Chomsky blow-up doll, that doesn't change the fact that the most rational course in Iraq is to get out yesterday.

http://www.noam-chomsky.com/nc.jpg

:hitit:

[Prope]

Yes, when's he's not quoting Counterpunch, the Socialist Worker, and the International Socialist Review. :rolling:

Verrrrrrrrrrry persuasive.
Yeah, I hadn't read through the whole article. Looks like it was just the one. :o

[Bonzosa]

:confused:
YOU responded to MY post.

Folks constantly complain that fuel taxes and, thus, the price of gas are "high." "High" is a relative term, so MY point was that US gas prices are comparatively low (which is true) and probably should be higher. You responded with the fact that it's about 1/4 of the total fuel cost, which does not address MY point that it's comparatively low and probably should be higher.

I suppose I could have just responded, "How is that the point?" but I'm in a good mood today.

I get it, I was just adding something concrete to the discussion. I don't think most people understand why gas prices are what they are.
There is this misconception that oil companies rig the price for profit, but in reality that really isn't the case.
These companies spend billions of dollars just to get to the point of sticking a drill bit in the ground and then people get upset when they makesome money from their investment?
There was a lawsuit over price gouging by OR who sued BP/ARCO a few years back. OR found no proof that anything illegal was going on after they got to snoop around.

People love to focus on the price of gas.
Name another product for which you would fixate on and waste time to find the lowest price only to save $1.
It's ridiculous.

How about you don't buy that bottle of filtered tap water in your hand instead and you call it a wash?

[maurice]

My favorite is the 20 oz. bottle of soda that costs about the same as a 2 ltr. bottle of the exact same soda.

[samram]

Anyway, yes Capt. Ballz, we did sort of get far afield in this discussion.

Just to be clear, even though I, unlike many folks here, do not habitually hump a Noam Chomsky blow-up doll, that doesn't change the fact that the most rational course in Iraq is to get out yesterday.

This is really good postery.

Anyway, yeah, withdraw now. If this thing is unwinnable, how does one justify keeping anyone there for one more day? I don't see that the increase over the next five months in readiness of Iraqi forces to keep the peace would be enough to justify the 10/1 withdrawal date.