On 11/29/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, if I understand your point correctly, Bush went to war so that a > few > > > key industries could make about 10 billion per year in profit for a > couple > > > of years? He was not only wrong, but happily sacrificed thousands of > > > lives, hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of the military readyness > of > > > the US, just so a few key friends could make, compared to the 11+ US > > > ecconomy, chump change? > > > > > > In particular, if you compare the profits from this war to the chance > of > > > getting further tax cuts through, dosen't it seem like an inefficient > way > > > to get money to the wealthy? > > > > This was in response to your comment you cut off. Bush didn't care > > about the economy as a whole, the people he most associated with like > > the war business just fine. > > I realize you said that....but I wanted to be clear. He only associated > with a small subset of the wealthy? Most people in the oil business > assumed that the general effect of the attack would be an increase in oil > production by Iraq, which would have a net effect of lowering prices and > hurting the oil business. So, for Bush, the profits of military suppliers > was much more important than the profits of oil companies, oil service > companies, etc. He'd rather make sure that Seattle did OK than Houston, > for example?
Again there is some distortion or non-understanding of my answer - Bush or Cheney did not only go to war so a few companies would make billions of war-related dollars. The oil companies that meet with Cheney before the war were interested in dividing up Iraq's oil reserves and oil infrastructure. They met with them is known - that was despite extensive efforts to keep it secret - most of the people who met with him were leaked as shown when several members lied to Congress about it. (Interesting that the GOP Senator refuse to put them under oath which just drew attention to the lies when they came out over the next couple days.) The fact that Iraq was a good part of the discussion came out including maps of Iraq oil fields. So - yes oil companies wanted to divide up Iraq. Yes, large American companies and many not so large were promised huge contracts. Yes, American companies got huge contracts with practically no oversight. The corruption in Iraq reconstruction and security is currently estimated at ten times that of the oil-for-food scandal. > > Second, do you deny the history our country has had with war > > profiteers and the military-industrial complex? > > There has been war profiteering, no doubt. People have made money cheating > the government on a variety of military procurement programs. IIRC, Truman > became VP partially as a result of the exposure he got from uncovering war > profiteering. > > But, there is a real difference between that and a president starting a war > so a small subset of the rich can make some money, while other of his rich > friends lose their chance at additional tax breaks. Under this President who among the rich has lost tax breaks? You are oversimplifying, this is a major reason for the war but not the only one. > > > Third - There had alreay been a plan in place for years by those who > > felt they were unjustly out of power to remake the Middle East > > starting with Iraq and seize control of the oil. > > You know, the word "control" is wonderously slippery and vauge. By control > the oil do you mean, in decreasing order of amount of control. > > 1) Own the oil, make all profits from selling it? > > 2) Let others own the oil and sell it for a profit, but control the > production rate and the prices? > > 3) Make sure that American based oil companies, instead of French based oil > companies, British based oil companies, or Netherlands based oil companies > have contracts to produce the oil. > > 4) Make sure that, whoever owns the oil, will see it on the marketplace as > determined by their financial interests, and not use it as a weapon to > obtain arms/concessions from other nations? > > 5) Make sure that Baker Hughes, instead of Schlumberger gets MWD business? > :-) 3 - with some elements of the others. I had an uncle who worked for Schlumberger, which is a multinational more owned by US investors. > > >The Bush team in military and foreign policy was stacked with this wahawk > gang > >who had their own reasons to going to Iraq and would also profit from a > war. > > I'm curious to understand what you think the plan was. Did those folks > deliberaly ruin the US efforts after the war to decrease oil exports from > pre-war levels? Did they know that insurgents would bomb oil pipelines to > restrict transport? Why would they want to do that? Why would they know that? The plan was to take control of Iraq and ensure they had the contracts. There was no plan for after they took control of Iraq and Rumsfeld rejected advise on how to secure the peace. Agreements with the new Iraqi government were made - long term contracts -and pretty much constitution work could not proceed until the unbreakable nature of those long term contracts was reasonably secured. > This leads to anothe rpoint. We have such overwhelming differences in our > understanding of how the oil business works, that it really blows me away. > My understanding of how the business works comes from experience (e.g. > being in the Mid-East and talking to ex-pats and locals), discussions with > a wide range of individuals in the business(including friends who have > management jobs in service and oil companies), and critical reading of > business analysis. Remember, my job depends on the state of the oil > business, so I was very interested in understanding the ecconomics. My experience dealing with the oil business is living in Houston and having relatives as engineers and managers with the oil company. My experience with Iraqi economics is keeping up with the politics of the CPA. > > What makes you so sure that all these scientists, engineers, managers > (including regional managers), marketing analysis are all dead wrongabout > the basic economics of the oil patch? There is a lot of difference in the > politics of folks at places where I've worked, but we have been able to > arrive at a decent consensus concerning the basic economics. I've worked > through the view you must have of us, and all of the views I come up with > are quite uncomplimentary. I hope I'm just missing something. I am not sure what you mean here. Which of my statement are you denying or feel my views are incorrect. That most of the Cheney team - shorthand - did not plan for years to take over Iraq? That Cheney did not meet with the oil company executives before the war began to divvy up oil contracts for Iraq? That the CPA was intent on securing American long term contracts? That profit considerations are not a higher concern for companies than overall US economic and foreign policy? > BTW, It's not that you think I am wrong....that's not insulting. It's that > you appear to think that all** us folks in the industry are dead wrong > about something that they should reasonably be expected to understand. What are you saying I am you all are dead wrong about. Very often I feel we are talking past each other. > > Dan M. > > **I'm sure you can find a quote from someone in the industry who doesn't > hold this view....it does employ tens of thousands. But, I think I've done > at least a mediocre job of sampling the better educated people in the > industry. And what is this view? And what is it compared to the view you believe I hold? -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 "The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
