Skip to main content

This 2008 presidential election cycle has been jam-packed with irony. John McCain has been forced to rely on the 527 groups he so despises; Barack Obama has been denounced by members of the black community but embraced by upper class whites; the Clintons have been rejected by the very media that put them in power.

But perhaps the most ironic fact of the 2008 election cycle is this: John McCain will win the 2008 election because the war in Iraq was not a war for oil.

Dems Big Problem

************************ Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

Μολὼν λαβέ

1*

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Sassy, if you don't mind, the best paragraph of the article.


[If the war in Iraq had been about oil, Democrats would be sitting in the catbird seat right now. The price of gasoline would be less than half its current price; Americans would be willing to countenance the Luddite idiocy of the no-drilling Dems. Instead, Americans are steaming over high gasoline prices, and they are rightfully blaming the left.]
You mean "beat a dead horse" don't you Howard. Man, these cowboy analogies the right wing uses, time to take off the cowboy hat and face reality.

The US has always been after the control of the oil and region.

Numerous Presidents have declared the region "A vital US interest," and have threatend to use force to "secure it."

Remember Cheney's energy task force, which had maps of the oil fields. And the Iraqi Oil Bill is one of Bush's "Benchmarks." They are also in the process of negotiating with oil Corporations over new fields that will give the Corporations the largest share in revenue then other deals with oil producing states.

The first thing the troops did was secure the Oil Ministry and for years Bush was trying to force them to privatize the oil, along with the rest of their economy.

When Bush came into office the price of oil was around $20 a barrel, it's been rising and over a hundred. The war has led to the instability in the market. Oil Profits are the highest ever, Record Profits.

How many lives per gallon is that?

Oil's the big prize in Iraq and now it's on to Iran.
Here's the problem with that theory.

Bush approves offshore drilling. The very next day oil prices started to drop and have been going down ever since.

Just the mention of an increase in oil affects speculation and oil prices dropped almost instantly.

Iraq is stabilizing, US casualties have been dropping steadily and the number of attacks have gone down significantly. So if the theory that we're only after the oil was right, then we should be seeing $2.00 a gallon prices due to the increase of product.

We're not seeing that. Therefore we're not getting more oil from Iraq. So if we're not getting oil from Iraq, it kind of shoots a big hole in the "we're there for the oil" theory.
What Ben(from the article)doesn't include or doesn't know is that the rest of the world's people are increasing their demand.

The price of oil, is dictated by supply and demand, specualation has very little to do with the price when demand outstrips supply. See T. Boone Pickens and Matt Simmons, the two best sources we can trust, or that I trust.

This is the last time we'll see oil at these levels(buck twenty - buck thirty). Nothing goes straight up. Oil production has peaked worldwide in relation to supply, the best we can hope for is a sustained plateau, and that the transition to other fuel sources will be somewhat smooth. Rest assured they won't be inexpensive.

We need to bring nuclear on in a major way, coal will be major fuel source along with natural gas.

I've posted quite a bit about this scenario before.

See these:

Roscoe Bartlett

http://bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates/EnergySpeeches.htm

Part 1 of 10, just watch in sucession.

Matthew Simmons

Just take your pick here.

T. Boone Pickens

Take your pick here too. Pickens also sets the record straight on speculators in a few of these.

We are there for the oil. We use more than anyone else on earth by far. Who suffers more when prices rise? We do.

This is a very serious subject, don't expect to spend five minutes on research and know more than the highlights.

If I were you, and the energy crunch was consuming a larger part of my income, I'd learn as much as possible, as soon as possible.

To recap: Shapiro is trying his best to put a political spin on this with faulty logic. We are there because Iraq has the largest pool of light sweet crude left on the planet. And he who controls that oil, controls those who need it, like China, India and many others.

The list of countries exporting oil is getting shorter and shorter....

The list of countries importing oil is getting longer and longer....

regards, miamizsun
Yes, the US wants to control the region, for the oil. Demand will increase in developing countries and it will be more costly to drill for enough to sustain the US economy. Who controls that oil controls the world.

The price of oil began to drop because demand was down. High prices were cutting back use. The price remains high because of the instability in the region. Despite your rosy analyses Nash violence contains to plaque the Iraqi people and their are no significant political settlements achieved that guarantee anything. The Iraqi Congress went home for the summer.

We get our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela I believe. Some from Saudi Arabia too I think.

We have claimed the region to be a vital strategic interest, because of the oil. We also need a supply to run our war machine should we need to. It's why they are establishing base there. And we are moving into Africa also.

If it really were about Saddam and WMD we would have left when it turned up empty. Bush even joked about it. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan yet Bush turned to Iraq.

The world knows why we are there and so do the Iraqi's which is why even our Iraqi allies are hard to cooperate with.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
Saying McCain will win is a bold prediction LOL


Jerry, Obama's meteoric rise to the top of the heap, could work against him just as fast.

He's touting change and hope, but he is in a mainstream party that isn't going to do anything unless they're shamed into it or they have to....
The "vital interests" in the region is oil.

The Iraqi government and people have been asking us to leave for a number of years now. They blame the violence on US occupation, we sided with the Shiites and cut the Sunni out of power.

Afghanistan is not the same as Iraq.

It was the Ayatollah Sistani that demand they have elections, Bush opposed them. We began build Permanent Military Bases as soon as we arrived. First thing Bush did was try to get them to Privatize their oil.

It's the oil and always was.
While I respect Al Sistani, many of his restrictions are no worse that some Christian doctrine. However, his insistance on the stoning of gays is a bit much.

Sorry, no permanent bases. Almost wish there were -- the outlying bases I visited and stayed at were pretty basic and none had permanent structures, unless they were pre-war.

Perhaps, you have a line to those bases and can enlighten us. A few shots from a Google Earth might help. I located several places I stayed just by scrolling around the map.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
The "vital interests" in the region is oil.



Pogo, we can agree on that and I think we have had poor leadership energy wise in this country for 50 years or so. We can't put the sh*t back in the horse. However, considering where we are, our current situation, our current sources in decline, we have to have that oil. At least for the transition to the potpourri of other sources we plan on using.

We can argue how we got here, etc., but taking inventory of where we are right now, we really don't have a choice. I'm open for realistic suggestions.

What would you have us do?

regards, miamizsun
AS the US leaves Iraq, we will still have a fleet HQ and other forces in the area. The shipping lanes for oil and gas are too important to abandon, not just for the US but for our allies. The French are building a small base to show the flag, but will never have a strong presence. Whom would you wish to control access other than the US -- the Chinese, the Iranians, perhaps, the Indians? Forget the EU, they have neither the stomach or the forces.
quote:
But perhaps the most ironic fact of the 2008 election cycle is this: John McCain will win the 2008 election because the war in Iraq was not a war for oil.


Sassykim just because you type something in this forum doesn't make it so. The truth of the matter is you don't know if the Iraq war was a war for oil and I don't either. We can speculate and analyze. I believe oil was one of many elements, in that I think Bush and Cheney believed, and it was a legitimate thought that if we removed Hussein and the oil embargo the UN had on them that significant amounts of oil would be put into the market and stabilize oil prices.

They did not count on the violence and instability after the fighting part of the war so actually it backfired and helped raise tension in the Persian Gulf with Iran free to cuase trouble and as a result started the speculation and demand and supply problems which caused this run up to 4.00 gas prices.

There were other reasons, I think Bush wanted to avenge the death attempts on his fathers life by Hussein. And the neo cons were trying to fashion a western style power in Iraq. Something else that is not going to work sadly.

I think you should open your mind instead of closing it to facts and analysis. I've noticed you have a very simple thinking process when it comes to issues. Nothing in geo politics as is simple as you try to make them.
I was right along with you Evil until you went off the deep end with the neocons wanting to get saddam for past failures. Knowing full well that he only had 8 years max and congress rotates even faster, the idea that Bush was trying to fashion a western style power is not correct. We are witnessing that now. Both sides are making plans for the US to evacuate while making sure the oil in Iraq benefits all parties, including Iraq. Hence, their budget surplus is 79 billion. We have improved many areas of their life for them with no intent on staying.

I do think we overstepped our boundaries if all of the intelligence wasn't completely accurate, but I believe his goal was not of an evil plan by the neocons to steal oil and occupy Iraq.
______________________________________________________________________________

I am not saying whether I support Sistani or not, it was his demands for elections and threatened uprisings of the Shiites that finally forced Bush's hand to hold elections. The war is for permanent bases which we are building along with the largest embassy. The War was for the bases and control of the region. Countries have fought over resources and profits throughout history, no different today. The oil corporations have been hard at work establishing their "claim" all along.

We need to get off oil for a number of reasons and as we make the transition we need to examine our path carefully. Alternative energy research is already starting but the government needs to lead the effort. We ca have an intensive effort that will create jobs and make energy independent on safe renewable sources. That's what's in the interests of the America people. Not spending billions on a war machine to protect the profits and security of the oil and Military Establishment.

We could start by getting better mileage out of our cars.
quote:
We need to get off oil for a number of reasons and as we make the transition we need to examine our path carefully. Alternative energy research is already starting but the government needs to lead the effort.


Absolutely not. The government needs to stay the hell out of it. Private industry developed the combustible engine. Private industry developed the automobile. Private industry developed the airplane. Private industry developed the cell phone. Private industry developed the internet that we're using right now. Yes, it started with the government, but if it was left to them, it would be nothing more than an interdepartmental e-mail system in Washington.

We'll make the transition off of oil soon. There are people out there right now working on new solutions to energy. Why? Because they know that whoever develops the most viable new energy source will make Bill Gates look middle class.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:



We'll make the transition off of oil soon. There are people out there right now working on new solutions to energy. Why? Because they know that whoever develops the most viable new energy source will make Bill Gates look middle class.


Unless they get bought out by big oil. A distinct possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Here's the problem with that theory.

Bush approves offshore drilling. The very next day oil prices started to drop and have been going down ever since.

Just the mention of an increase in oil affects speculation and oil prices dropped almost instantly.



So , you would have it all Bush's approval of drilling ? (BTW, just why AREN't they drilling on areas already approved ?), but I get off topic.
Maybe you should consider what could have really had an impact on oil prices: lower demand in the US, and most importantly the threat of the Democratic Congress to hold hearings on the speculators. If you were in the oil trading business which would affect your thinking more, the lambasting of a lame duck president, or the possibility of having to answer HARD questions posed to you by a bunch of senators, most of which are lawyers by trade ? And OMG worse yet, be under oath where you can't lie without going to jail.

Congress needs to close the loophole allowing unfettered speculation of oil futures that exist in the law which was enacted after the Enron fiasco. Why is it that one of the staunchest supporters of those loopholes is John McCain? He has constantly voted to oppose those loopholes. If you are of the opinion that speculation is responsible for the dramatic rise in oil price (which is far above what the supply and demand equation should be) since early spring, then again , why has he voted for us to get those higher prices ?
I also think there is a pricing area of oil and resulting gas prices that the oil companies and Middle Eastern oil producers don't want to go above. When it reaches above 4.00 a gallon for gas it begins making it more economical to pursue other alternative sources of energy on a serious basis, and as a result effect market traders.

I think the clamor to give tax breaks and incentives to wind power, solar, and hydrogen is what is getting the attention of the oil markets. Also don't discount T. Boone Pickens plan to replace a huge amount of electricy generation with wind turbines and moving to natural gas with autos away from gasoline as big variables in bringing the price of oil down once the speculation topped out in the market. T Boone and Warren Buffett have the money to actually build these huge wind turbine farms, its not just talk.
The Oil Corporations, as well as most major corporations, have a control on our government through money. We are also in the grip of the Military Industrial Complex President Eisenhower warned us about.

Through their lobbying and campaign contributions the oil industry has been able to manipulate policy and keep America stuck on an old and aging technology, something the founders of this country tried to prevent. When a particular industry, or industries, are preventing progress and the safety of the American people the people can act through the government to help set up alternatives. The government has provided such help in the past and it is definitely needed today.

Oil will only go.
quote:
I’ve been on a rant about oil prices, and I’d like to share with you some insight I gained this last weekend on what makes up oil prices, and how we got into this mess in the first place.

Oil price is moved by three major items – supply/demand curve, the value of the dollar, and speculation. The latest information regarding these 3 major items is:
Supply/demand is in balance – so it isn’t moving the market right now.
The value of the dollar is stable over the past month, and the dollar has strengthened over past oil price highs. This means that the dollar shouldn’t be moving the market – from a rational viewpoint – and the market is irrational under the best of times.
Speculation is rampant, and that’s the point of this write up. Only speculation has been moving the market this past week, especially last Friday when it gained over $10/barrel.


How did this speculation get started? Well, back in 1999, our beloved Congress (you can tell how much I love them if you know I’m being sarcastic here) passed a bill introduced by Senator Graham and the bill was “modified” in the black of the night after the vote, and was signed by the President. It became law. It contained such a major change (the one introduced at night) that allowed Enron to become “Enron.” Inside of this bill was the “Enron loophole.” This loophole changed the way speculation was done on energy from that point in time on. Prior to that bill, speculation was controlled by US agencies because speculation could not take place without a justification of its need and extent. After the bill, no justification was required, and in fact, if the public thought that speculation would “hurt” them, the public had to prove it – and this is a lengthy, expensive process.

In addition, speculation in the US of US products (think Texas intermediate crude oil) had limits placed on it. Things like trading limits, margin limits, etc. However, another loophole has been put in place – a letter only (that could be repealed) - that allows non-US regulatory government bodies (think Dhubi) to use their own rules. Well, guess what, there are NO rules in those regulatory bodies, and more than 30% of US oil commodity contracts are traded outside of the US without US control. That means “our government” has consciously given up control of the US energy market place, and speculation is now driving the price.

It was predicted by a knowledgeable person that if this letter was repealed, then oil would drop somewhere between 25% and 50% in price.

From: http://www.economyguy.com/history-of-oil-speculation/

To be fair, since money can be wired to another country and invested, even if Congress were to forbid speculation in this country it might not stop the practice. It might be a worthy idea to forbid the use of pension, 401k, and IRA funds to be invested in futures and set up a workable auditing process.

The Oil Corporations, as well as most major corporations, have a control on our government through money. We are also in the grip of the Military Industrial Complex President Eisenhower warned us about.

Pogo, if the statement above were true, then every patch of suitable land or seabed would have an oil well sunk on it. No, not all the land leased presently by the oil companies will be drilled, much of and probably most of that land does not have oil.
Yes, speculation, Wall Street and Global Capitalism are the culprits. Off shore drilling is only going to add to our dependence on oil.

The dollar is not really strong, it rises and hangs in there sometimes but it's future dominance is questionable. It's weakness adds to the price rise but a major factor on the spot market is the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Bush's threats to Iran and the instability in the region. Also speculators are betting on the world's continued reliance on oil. The Saudi's and OPEC discuss whether to drop the dollar as the currency because of it's weakness, they are losing money. "Nothing personal, just business."

The oil industry as well as the Military Industrial Complex that relies and feeds off oil use their wealth to establish power and influence over our representatives to protect their interests over that of the American people. We are also "propagandized" through the Corporate Media and news that oil is the only way to go.

You see it repeated here on the Forum.

The Bill that Phil Graham sponsored was done for Enron and the Energy Industry's Benefit. Good example of how these corporations use their wealth and power to lobby millions on our representatives. They support representatives that pass bills that are against the interests of the American people. Graham's wife was an Enron Board member, I think it was.

These speculators went from the Dot.com bubble to housing and oil and they are now also moving into food. Not the first time in our history that wealth corrupted the government. People organized and elected representatives that protected their well being.
Sorry Popo, by refusing to drill for our own resources, dummocrats are in fact supporting the military-industrial complexes of foreign dictators. It's amazing that finally after years of blaming "Big Oil" for the high price of gasoline that now Dems have discovered that speculation may be to blame. I suspect that now the large Democratic donors are out of the market leaving the pension fund lemmings to suffer the bursting oil bubble. Supposedly the Dems have a bill to close the "ENRON Loophole" , but don't bet on it.

quote:
January 23, 2008 (Boston, MA) — Congressional legislation aimed at closing the “Enron Loophole” instead leaves the door wide open
for oil and gasoline speculators, according to an analysis of the measure by the New England Fuel Institute.
Yet, despite deficiencies in this legislation, and despite that fact that relevant legislation is yet to be made law, some Senators are
already claiming victory, claiming the Enron Loophole has been “closed.”


From: http://www.nefi.com/pdfs/NEFI_Press_Release_Enron_Loophole_Update.pdf
The oil industry already has land to drill on, of which they are not even using a third of. New drilling off shore will not bring any new oil for at least 5 years, that is the most optimistic estimates from the oil industry, or up to 20 years. It will not significantly effect the price. It's a rip off.

I have not been following the details of the Enron Loophole Bill but congress, and the Presidency, is controlled by Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats. That's what I am talking about. It's been happening under both democrat and republican.

"Big Oil" has been one of the wealthiest and most influential lobbyists in Washington for years. Along with the Drug and Insurance Corporations. It's why we are stuck on oil, an old and aging fossil fuel, and ignoring new and more beneficial technologies for the American people. Same with our Health Care.

That you repeat the spin fed to the American public and are an apologist for their profits shows it's influence and the power of the Corporate Media to get people to support their interests over your own well being.

The Corporate Media are just huge corporations that hire pundits to promote corporate interests.
I am just amazed at some of what I read on here.
The Republican lie machine is cranking out that Democrats are against drilling. Bush has stated that the high price of gasoline is all the Democrats fault. People on here (ie: Flatus) are sold out to false ideas.
People who think in simple terms (and there are a lot of them) are parroting those lies hopefully because they just can't think through a problem past one level or are intellectually lazy and don't really seak the truth, and hopefully not because any lie is ok as long as it hurts a Democrat.
Democrats are not against "drilling". To say they are, is just a lie.
It is not uncommon for a politician to make up a position that their opponent does not hold, assign that position to the opponent, and then try to beat them to death verbally by railing against that made-up position.
Again, to state that the Democrats are against drilling is to just (hopefully) be ignorant, or at worse just a lie.
If you will actually check what Obama's position on drilling is, you will find that he is stating that oil companies should drill or loose their leases. Now, that is a long, long way from being against "drilling".
You can get the highlights at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
You can also download the entire thing from there in PDF format.
Don't listen to what McCain, Bush, or any of these other people on talk radio or Fox "news" says about what the Democrats want to do, or not do. Their job is to mis-represent the facts to the point that they can control your mind.
Excelman, if ignorance is bliss, Democrats should be the happiest people alive. The present GOP House plan seems to cover most aspects of the energy problems we face.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6566

Democrats seem to believe in magic wand economics, where a Democrat politician waves a wand and good things magically appear. Our infrastructure is presently geared around petroleum. It is profoundly stupid to continue sending billions, if not trillions, of dollars to despots when our country may have much of the resources that may tide our people over till newer and better technology is brought to market. Yes, oil companies have leased a bunch of land to explore and develop. Not every site has oil and hit or miss takes time and money. It makes more sense to drill on land which has a higher probability of finding oil.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Pr...63&Month=6&Year=2008
Last edited by Flatus the Ancient
Excel, I type in three words into google 'democrats for drilling', this is the first page I got.
The land leases don't all have oil, infrastructure would take 10-15 years for wind, solar, more nuclear. Wind would only supply 20% of energy at best after it is in place. What about the other 80%? Do them all, use oil now since we have the structures in place while we build for the rest. Is that so hard to understand?? Nancy is more interested in trying to sell her book than helping the economy, of course, it helps her economy. Sales are not good I saw. Punishing big oil for profits is not the capitalist way, but it is socialist.



1.
Democrats Against Drilling - WSJ.com
Democrats Against Drilling. July 24, 2008; Page A14 ... that deliberation is too taxing for "the world's greatest deliberative body. ...
online.wsj.com/article/SB121685595088379073.html - 74k - Cached
2.
Democrats Against Drilling - WSJ.com
2. Funds for Highways Plummet. 3. Stocks Slump as ... Democrats Against Drilling. July 24, ... permit a vote on offshore drilling, they know they will lose ...
online.wsj.com/article/SB121685595088379073.html?mod=djemEditorialPage - 75k - Cached
3.
American Thinker: Countering Democrats on Drilling
The Democrats are avoiding their traditional environmental arguments for good reason. ... If the Democrats stop their obstruction of drilling, that would ...
www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/countering_democrats_on_drilli.html - 128k - Cached
4.
CQ Politics | Democrats Dangle Drilling Votes
Senate Republicans who have been maneuvering for weeks to get a new round of votes on legislation that would expand offshore drilling appear close to getting their wish.
www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002927989 - Cached
5.
FOXNews.com - House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to ...
said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party. ... Wis. Democrats oust delegate over McCain support ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.html - 57k - Cached
6.
Energy Tribune
The Democrats' No-Drill Energy Plan. Democratic Senator Richard Durbin ... Pemex May Drill Abroad for First Time If... Jul. 22 2008, 1:00 EST ...
www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=936 - 135k - Cached
7.
Democrats Against Drilling - Blogrunner
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other liberal leaders on Capitol Hill are gripped ... Thank Goodness for Democrats ... democrats have NO intention of allowing ...
www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/8/democrats_against_drilling - Cached
8.
Democrats against Drilling | cooler heads
Cooler Heads Coalition is an international group of non-profit organizations dedicated to smarter thinking on the subject of global warming and climate change
www.globalwarming.org/node/2483 - Cached
9.
Democrats Against Drilling
Democrats Against Drilling. Obama's Trip: Some Questions Katie, Brian and Charles Should Ask ... Fighting for our Freedom in Western New York. Free Republic ...
rochesterconservative.com/blog/democrats-against-drilling - Cached
10.
Democrats' oil drilling compromise fails in House - The China Post
House Republicans on Thursday killed a Democratic plan designed to spur drilling on already available federal lands in Alaska, the West and the western Gulf of Mexico.
chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/.../166173/Democrats'-oil.htm - Cached
The Democrats were against drilling and Peolsi made it clear she would do her best to stop it, but it would not be the first time she has changed her tune. Obama recently addressed it and stated he would support limited offshore drilling along with other steps.

More and More Democrats are "considering," and some stating, they would support off shore drilling and in ANWAR. This is due to the power of the Corporate Media and it's Oil Industry to take advantage of a public under stress and "Manufacture Consent" for these polices. They are not wise. It will not really solve the problems.

As stated by government and industry the oil will not be on the market for at least 5 years and probably more and will not significantly affect the price.

Pelosi and the Democrats are finally showing some backbone and saying "Enough of the Greed." Record profits, a war for oil, millions of acres to drill on, which they are not using, and they want more. There is no end to their greed.

They want to ensure US and world dependence on oil.

If the US set it's attention to renewable energy sources it could be on line in a few years. A number of energy companies are buying or leasing land and building wind farms. Businesses are beginning to install solar panels on roofs of stores and warehouses. China is building an electric car and Saudi Arabia is investing in wind power. A Mideast country built a rather large Mall I believe it is, using only solar and renewable alternative sources.

The US has been supporting, propping up and installing dictators around the world for decades. It's only interests are profit and power.
First, the democratic leader ship and the national party are such wimps that since the republicans are for offshore and ANWAR drilling they have decided to be against it. It's like a broken record everything the republicans are for the dems are against and it swings both ways. When have you ever heard of an Alabama yellow dog democrate be FOR gun control.

Second, the war in Iraq was maybe 20% about oil but the other 80% was all about and eye for an eye. After 9/11 somebody had to pay and extreme force had to be used to keep the same kind of attack on the same scale from hapening again. It came down to maybe three suspects, Iran, Iraq, and Afganastan. Afganastan has a somewhat civilized and nonhostile government (even though they cannot control half of the country. Iran, well they were less likely to be heavily involved (odds are they had some kind of knowledge of the attack). That leaves Iraq, all past deeds by Iraq left them as the most best chioce to show extreme force and give the only message these crazy fundementalist understand; eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Iraq and its leader were the only logical chioce left and the wrath of The Eagle carried out the message.
quote:
As stated by government and industry the oil will not be on the market for at least 5 years and probably more and will not significantly affect the price.



Just lifting the ban will lower the price. Knowing that more oil is coming will cause the speculators to bid oil DOWN, the same effect that Bush lifting the federal ban had. Oil could be on the market in one to two years in places that already have pipelines and rigging, like off the coast of California and in Anwar where there is already pipework. The area to drill on in Alaska is barren land, about the size of a postage stamp on the front of the New York Times paper. It can be done without affecting the widelife refuge at all. We cut our dependence on foreign oil by using OUR own, and keep building the alternatives, like the new study on using algae and building with solar and wind incorporated. You cannot go back and add those in and be cost effective. Start now with green building, use our own oil and go to nuclear.
The Democrats had been against off shore drilling for years, and so were the Republicans. The Republicans have left the country in such a mess they are looking for an issue to make it look like they are doing something for the American people. They are happy to serve the profit interests of their corporate sponsors.

Drilling will not lower the price. It will only secure more profits for Oil Corporations. The most optimistic reports say it will take at least 5 years to get oil on line. More realistic reports put it longer.

The Iraq War was always about oil, US intelligence knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and stated it. It was Bush who kept lumping in the "war on terror" with Saddam and his (non existent) WMD to sway a shocked American public.

Energy independence is important to our economy but jobs are just as important, which are being exported by both Corporate Republicans and Democrats. That is one of the key factors that efect our trade deficited and weakened dollar.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/08/gb.01.html


GLENN BECK, CNN HEADLINE NEWS, HOST: It has become the number one issue on the minds of voters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas prices suck.

BECK: America`s energy crisis. While our presidential candidates pander with short term fixes and Congress keeps itself busy playing the blame game, we`re looking for real answers. Tonight you`ll get the straight dope for one of the ultimate insiders.

JOHN HOFMEISTER, FMR. HEAD OF SHELL OIL: U.S. oil and gas production has fallen steadily for the last 35 years. Why? Because government policies place domestic oil and gas resources off limits.



Real quick. People say we`ll never be able to pump a drop out for seven to ten years. I have heard that there are capped wells just off the coast of California and there are easier place where we could turn it around in months time, true or false.

HOFMEISTER: True. If you turn the industry loose. The coast of California is a perfect example. There is infrastructure already in place that could carry off new oil from new wells that could be drilled in a matter of months not years.

BECK: I heard that there was a big discovery in Russia, I think it was maybe somewhere near Turkey or something. They found this big, gigantic oil find, they found it back in June and I had to read this story like three times because it said they will be pumping oil from it in September this year.

HOFMEISTER: They must have had existing infrastructure because the infrastructure is usually the delay. You can find oil pretty quickly. You can put the engineering plans together if you`ve got infrastructure in place.

That`s why the oil industry continues to have interest in ANWR because the infrastructure is there. The Trans-Atlantic pipeline is there, it could bring oil quickly to the United States if ANWR was opened up and you don`t have to build new infrastructure.

But on the coast of California is a different example than the Middle Atlantic states. If the Middle Atlantic states were opened up for oil exploration and production, yes, it`s probably somewhere between five, seven years before you get any.

BECK: How fast on ANWR?

HOFMEISTER: ANWR would probably be two to three years to get some oil.
This oil company and campaign propaganda about drilling offshore is the biggest scam in awhile and you right wing nuts just eat up every word they put out. Look, I'm for drilling anywhere anytime and I have enough sense to know this latest controversy about offshore drilling is bogus. The oil companies are already drilling where they think they will get a bang for the buck in the Gulf.

You don't hear about it as much but the way out of this dependency and lower gas prices is on the other side of the supply/demand equation. Auto companies have to make significantly better fuel economy engines and cars and we have to offload gas and oil where we can such as electricity generation. Look what has happened when it got to 4.00 people stopped wasting gas on unnecessary trips and serious talk started about alternative energy and suddenly the market started trading down oil prices. But don't worry next year it will be back up for another run.

Remember, Jesus didn't drive a car except to the grocery store and the synagogue.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×