Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
(The shifting sands of "truth") There are some web pages that have tried to keep count, but it's a tough job. Funny how people don't notice, isn't it? I suppose Lakoff's explanation holds good (though he's not in very good odour right now, and he wasn't at all the first to observe this: "One of the fundamental findings of cognitive science is that people think in terms of frames and metaphors - conceptual structures. The frames are in the synapses of our brains - physically present in the form of neural circuitry. When the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored." -- George Lakoff The frames of reference used by the current administration have been foisted upon the American people in a highly effective propaganda campaign. I often wonder why so few of us notice what's happening. Perhaps moving to someone else's country has enabled me to see the mind control that many of my fellow citizens can't seem to comprehend. (The warmonger's perspective on civilian casualties) As indeed they would be, if they had any sense - and as you say, as Americans would be too. But it's the hallmark of the kind of thinking you're having to contend with NOT to put yourself in the other man's position. You're special, after all, and if the powers-behind-the-powers-that-be have done their jobs properly, you've already dehumanised the other guy to scumbag status, beneath your contempt, let alone your powers of empathy. But just who is then dehumanised? It's perhaps only our imaginations that keep us human, and that's exactly what they're for - to put yourself in the other guy's position. What bothers me most about this, is how the warmongering talk is couched in pseudo Christian rhetoric. The antithesis of Christian philosophy is the very apathy you've outlined above. I personally have a hard time liking people, but as a Christian, I would certainly not wish anyone harm. Arrogance and humility are polar opposite concepts. Christianity requires humility. The attitudes being promoted in my country right now are not Christian. (Mr. Chomsky) Well, that's their problem, isn't it? And, to put myself in the other guy's position, it's not quite the same as my dismissing people like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins as dangerous maniacs, that's easily demonstrated , and it's easily demonstrated that Chomsky does not talk nonsense. Conservatives in the U.S., or at least the sector of them that we're talking of, are now famous for being unable to abide any views that differ from their own, as you've remarked, their intolerance is extreme (and most unAmerican, or anti-American). Elsewhere Chomsky is highly respected, whether he's agreed with or not. Anyway, okay, it's also your problem, you have to deal with these guys. Frequently! And yes, it IS a problem! (Pro Syrian protest in Lebanon) Virtually the entire US media ignored that, and were heavily criticised for their bias. Yet we still hear much grumbling about the "liberal" bias in the U.S. media. Ironic, isn't it? Well, as you pointed out, military power is a blunt weapon. "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow. This is why military power should be employed with great reluctance and careful oversight. The job of a soldier is to impose his nation's will on other people while preserving his own life. If he dies, he can no longer serve his country. We consider his willingness to risk his own life as noble somehow, but in fact, the conduct of warfare is a ruthless business. There is nothing noble in killing, no matter how much patriotic language we employ to beautify the brutal. (Corruption) Um, especially with American involvement, with all due respect, on a much bigger scale than Saddam ever had the resources for. The whole thing is corrupt, all the way from the lies you mention to Halliburton et very much al to the imposition, or attempted imposition of all the one-sided neoliberal pro-corporate "rules" to rip the place off and all its resources. And they talk about democracy! LOL! Barefaced cheek is not something they seem to be short of. The idea was that we would "liberate" the nation, then utilize profit derived from the sale of Iraqi resources for rebuilding the country's infrastructure. This is pure NeoCon thinking: Use a small force, supported with overwhelming firepower, then let someone else pay for the damage. . . When we're done, we'll "support" a democracy that supports us; all done in the name of God and country. I'm sceptical, Robert, I'm a journalist after all. But I don't find much or any conflict between due scepticism/realism and optimism. Is it people you're suspicious of, or their institutions and organisations and corporations? They're not the same. I know myself well enough not to trust anyone like me! :- ) Did you read that piece? It's worth a r
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
subject. Dispensationalists are also easily identified by negatives - what you don't see them doing is talking a lot about such basic Christian tenets as "God is Love" for instance, or the Sermon on the Mount, let alone practising such things, quite the opposite. This view is neither Christian, nor biblical. It's a perversion of the scriptures; writings which demand stewardship of creation. It's anti-Christian, IMHO, little more than a demonic cult, at its worst. I'd take action against an attack on a genuine religion on the list, but I don't believe this is a religion, it's a perversion, as you say, and a highly lethal one. Nice references too Robert, thanks. I reffed these before: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html Comment US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power George Monbiot Tuesday April 20, 2004 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13750 Fundamentally Unsound By Michelle Goldberg, Salon August 2, 2002 Useful, I think. (No, I'm not a Christian, though I was brought up as one. I don't have a religion, nor feel any need of one.) What's all this got to do with BIOFUELS?!!! LOL! Apart from what you say about the environment Robert (quite correct), would-be topic cops could try this: Oil and Israel http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/34947/ (Which caused us a lot of trouble! - pretty much proving what Mr Dreyfuss says, as if it needed any proof.) Best wishes Keith Rick Littrell wrote: Dear Robert, Thanks for your comments. They are vary helpful. I'm not sure I understand this "Neo Con Dispensationalist principle" but I also have to confess I don't understand the Neo Cons all that well. Not all NeoCons are dispensationalists, nor are all dispensationalists NeoCons, and I certainly can't claim to understand either. (I find dispensationalism the most confusing eschatology ever devised by mankind!) There are enough people in powerful positions who use one perspective or the other to justify policies that amount to fascism, and by couching their rhetoric in pseudo-religious phrasing lead a great many sincere people astray. This is a complex issue, so by being brief, I will not do justice to the topic. It has, however, been discussed at length in this forum, and you can learn a lot by searching the archives. You are likely aware that the United States is a very diverse nation, comprised of people from a wide range of political and religious persuasions; among these a large group of very zealous Christians constitutes a kind of critical, political mass. Many Christians believe that "worldly" society opposes their core belief structure, they feel "persecuted and oppressed" by "liberal" society, and further, that it is their "right" as Americans to demand political representation for their point of view. This has been exploited by some people in Christian leadership circles who seek to galvanize support for legislation that would return "morality" to American society. (Has American society EVER been "moral"?) Because this group of Christian people is actually rather diverse, there are some "common denominator" issues that cut across many racial, ethnic and denominational barriers. I will explain these as best as I can. At its core, the most widespread Christian point of view sees the world as a hostile place, where strong moral leadership is necessary to guard against danger. Thus, a powerful "father figure" helps to focus support. (This explains the vehement opposition to Mr. Clinton we witnessed a few years ago.) In a world filled with evil, strength is necessary for protection; therefore, a large military budget and strict policing benefits society. Business exists in a competitive environment, so a legitimate role of the government is to protect American business interests from hostile actions by foreign companies and governments. These people see themselves as intrinsically "good" and moral. Their affluence is taken as an indicator that God is blessing their course of action. Anyone who lives beyond the bounds of their narrowly defined morality can be dismissed as worthy of nothing more than punishment. Therefore, these "moral" people want strict laws, long imprisonment for criminals, and think nothing of killing "godless" foreigners or ignoring the plight of the poor, a group of subhumans deserving of God's wrath for not following his edicts. (That must be, after all, why they're poor!) They see "liberal" people as weak, immoral and oblivious to the "truth" of their perspective. A radical political movement has overtaken the Republican party, but interestingly, it started with disgruntled Democrats. (In the 1980s they were called "Reagan Democrats") The NeoCons (and their allies) see an opportunity for popular support among the above described "conservative" Chris
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Dear Robert, Thanks for your comments. They are vary helpful. I'm not sure I understand this "Neo Con Dispensationalist principle" but I also have to confess I don't understand the Neo Cons all that well. Not all NeoCons are dispensationalists, nor are all dispensationalists NeoCons, and I certainly can't claim to understand either. (I find dispensationalism the most confusing eschatology ever devised by mankind!) There are enough people in powerful positions who use one perspective or the other to justify policies that amount to fascism, and by couching their rhetoric in pseudo-religious phrasing lead a great many sincere people astray. This is a complex issue, so by being brief, I will not do justice to the topic. It has, however, been discussed at length in this forum, and you can learn a lot by searching the archives. You are likely aware that the United States is a very diverse nation, comprised of people from a wide range of political and religious persuasions; among these a large group of very zealous Christians constitutes a kind of critical, political mass. Many Christians believe that "worldly" society opposes their core belief structure, they feel "persecuted and oppressed" by "liberal" society, and further, that it is their "right" as Americans to demand political representation for their point of view. This has been exploited by some people in Christian leadership circles who seek to galvanize support for legislation that would return "morality" to American society. (Has American society EVER been "moral"?) Because this group of Christian people is actually rather diverse, there are some "common denominator" issues that cut across many racial, ethnic and denominational barriers. I will explain these as best as I can. At its core, the most widespread Christian point of view sees the world as a hostile place, where strong moral leadership is necessary to guard against danger. Thus, a powerful "father figure" helps to focus support. (This explains the vehement opposition to Mr. Clinton we witnessed a few years ago.) In a world filled with evil, strength is necessary for protection; therefore, a large military budget and strict policing benefits society. Business exists in a competitive environment, so a legitimate role of the government is to protect American business interests from hostile actions by foreign companies and governments. These people see themselves as intrinsically "good" and moral. Their affluence is taken as an indicator that God is blessing their course of action. Anyone who lives beyond the bounds of their narrowly defined morality can be dismissed as worthy of nothing more than punishment. Therefore, these "moral" people want strict laws, long imprisonment for criminals, and think nothing of killing "godless" foreigners or ignoring the plight of the poor, a group of subhumans deserving of God's wrath for not following his edicts. (That must be, after all, why they're poor!) They see "liberal" people as weak, immoral and oblivious to the "truth" of their perspective. A radical political movement has overtaken the Republican party, but interestingly, it started with disgruntled Democrats. (In the 1980s they were called "Reagan Democrats") The NeoCons (and their allies) see an opportunity for popular support among the above described "conservative" Christians (an utter oxymoron from a biblical perspective) to promote an agenda of American greatness and power. After Vietnam and Watergate, the American military and the Republican party were in disarray; providing perfect platforms from whence to project radicalism. Galvanizing the support of the Evangelical Christians I've outlined above by the clever manipulation of certain media outlets (it began with radio, moved to cable television and now has evolved into internet blogs), they are promoting their pro-business, pro-military and pro-empire agenda in the name of God and country. The NeoCons seek to use American economic and military power to quite literally dominate the world for the "good" of all people. The Christians who support them really believe that doing so will prepare the world for the parousia of Jesus Christ, but really, what they're prepare for is the coming of THE ANTICHRIST, as they refer to him. This is where dispensationalism enters the picture. The eschatology is so confusing that only a "true believer" who is steeped in the doctrine can comprehend all of its nuance. It's been hammered from pulpits, in print and by TV preachers for so long, traditional Christian eschatology has been utterly eclipsed. Dispensationalism teaches that God's promises (particularly those relating to land of the "Fertile Crescent" in the Middle East) to Abraham's descendants must be literally fulfilled. (This conveniently excludes the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first born son, from whom the Arabs claim their line
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Hi All, Please do not misunderstand my point about Korea. I do not want my country to invade North Korea. (I never want the U.S. to invade anyone) I have many friends in the South whose lives would be destroyed. I was comparing the relative threat between the leaders of Iraq and North Korea relative to U.S. security. Tom I believe you made that point very well, sir. The comparison is appropriate. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782> Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Keith Addison wrote: (Iraqi forces) There wasn't much left of them by that time, which I think was the idea. This was one of my contentions in the lead up to the war. How can a nation whose armed forces have been decimated constitute a threat in the traditional, military sense? Our "solution" to the Iraqi "problem" was quite conventional from a soldier's point of view. If they'd REALLY been a threat, wouldn't they have put up a more effective fight? Trouble was, they weren't really a threat, so we had to come up with another story to cover the first lie. How many versions of "truth" have we been fed thus far? There are some web pages that have tried to keep count, but it's a tough job. Funny how people don't notice, isn't it? I suppose Lakoff's explanation holds good (though he's not in very good odour right now, and he wasn't at all the first to observe this: "One of the fundamental findings of cognitive science is that people think in terms of frames and metaphors - conceptual structures. The frames are in the synapses of our brains - physically present in the form of neural circuitry. When the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored." -- George Lakoff Hey, here are some more: "It is the nature of humans to ignore what is true but uncomfortable, and accept what is known to be false, but comforting. " -- H L Menken "It is impossible to reason someone out of something that they did not reason themselves into in the first place." -- Jonathan Swift. "Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day." -- Bertrand Russell. :-) And hence the bizarre results of the US opinion polls. But does anybody welcome illegal invaders? I don't think many Iraqis were under many illusions about that. This is a point I've made to many warmongers over here. They say things like: "When there's a war going on, civilians should get out of the way!" Or: "Those people are supporting the insurgency." As indeed they would be, if they had any sense - and as you say, as Americans would be too. But it's the hallmark of the kind of thinking you're having to contend with NOT to put yourself in the other man's position. You're special, after all, and if the powers-behind-the-powers-that-be have done their jobs properly, you've already dehumanised the other guy to scumbag status, beneath your contempt, let alone your powers of empathy. But just who is then dehumanised? It's perhaps only our imaginations that keep us human, and that's exactly what they're for - to put yourself in the other guy's position. Such sentiments are easily maintained whenever we're discussing someone ELSE'S home. I don't think many Americans would appreciate being "liberated" by foreigners. We have a lot of guns too, and many of us know how to use them. "Actually I agree that the elections were a success ... of opposition to the United States. What is being suppressed - except for Middle East specialists, who know about it perfectly well and are writing about it, or people who in fact have read the newspapers in the last couple of years - what's being suppressed is the fact that the United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections. The U.S. was strongly opposed to them. I wrote about the early stages of this in a book that came out a year ago, which only discussed the early stages of U.S. opposition. But it increased. The U.S. wanted to write a constitution, it wanted to impose some kind of caucus system that the U.S. could control, and it tried to impose extremely harsh neo-liberal rules, like you mentioned, which even Iraqi businessmen were strongly opposed to. Do you have any additional references that support Mr. Chomsky's view? (He is not well regarded by conservatives in the U.S., who tend to dismiss anything he says as nonsense.) Well, that's their problem, isn't it? And, to put myself in the other guy's position, it's not quite the same as my dismissing people like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins as dangerous maniacs, that's easily demonstrated , and it's easily demonstrated that Chomsky does not talk nonsense. Conservatives in the U.S., or at least the sector of them that we're talking of, are now famous for being unable to abide any views that differ from their own, as you've remarked, their intolerance is extreme (and most unAmerican, or anti-American). Elsewhere Chomsky is highly respected, whether he's agreed with or not. Anyway, okay, it's also your problem, you have to deal with these guys. I don't have additional references to hand, though I'm sure I could find them. I think this has been fairly well charted by folks like the BBC and the Guardian etc - it's on my hard disk, but I'd have to search. I should think Chomsky referenced his book though. I get my news from the radio, so this is the first I
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
On Apr 8, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Rick Littrell wrote: I guess the most important questions for me are how much of the administrations positions on environment are philosophical and how much pragmatic. As several people have pointed out the collapse of cheap energy i.e., oil and gas will have the most profound effect on peace and war, economics, and even the nature of life itself in the very near future. The energy corporations seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of just maximizing profits with no attention to other consequences. Is this just shortsighted self interest or a political philosophy? That's a damn good question. I suppose some members of the administration believe that the environment won't suffer too much, that oil will last forever or will be easily replaced by coal or nuclear, that global warming is a leftwing myth, etc. -- in other words, they're in denial or are just stupid and lazy, as well as selfish. The scary bunch think that all or some of the negative consequences of their actions will actually further their ultimate interests, or are part of God's plan anyway (the "dispensationalist" philosophy referred to earlier), or will be mitigated by God, or will not have an opportunity to occur prior to God removing the true believers from the earth. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Thanks for your comments. They are vary helpful. I'm not sure I understand this "Neo Con Dispensationalist principle" but I also have to confess I don't understand the Neo Cons all that well. Do you think the is a political philosophy here or is it just another name for business interests who want no limits on their prerogatives and profits? Who would you suggest reading o understand them better? How much of what Bush does is connected with their philosophy? I guess the most important questions for me are how much of the administrations positions on environment are philosophical and how much pragmatic. As several people have pointed out the collapse of cheap energy i.e., oil and gas will have the most profound effect on peace and war, economics, and even the nature of life itself in the very near future. The energy corporations seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of just maximizing profits with no attention to other consequences. Is this just shortsighted self interest or a political philosophy? Rick robert luis rabello wrote: Rick Littrell wrote: Dear Tom, These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. You bring up something interesting, Rick. I would like to clarify, however, that the German troops we Americans faced in France were far from the crack, front line divisions that initially invaded Western Europe. I have read somewhere that the best troops in the German army were transferred to face the Soviets during the "Operation Against Bolshevism" and in their place, second line divisions and reserves filled the void. Field Marshal Rommel once described "Fortress Europa" as "Cloud Cuckoo Land". Nonetheless, those German troops put up a formidable fight. They were well equipped and led by an outstanding officer corps. In the case of Iraq, we were told that they constituted an "imminent threat." I remember hearing about WMD warheads able to fire on "30 minute notice". We were warned about mushroom clouds over American cities. When our troops invaded Iraq, the resistance the Iraqi army actually mounted against us has to qualify for among the most inept in history. They didn't even destroy a single bridge leading to Baghdad! Perhaps SOME of the Iraqis wanted us there. Perhaps we had SOME good will among the civilian population, at least initially. Our inability to secure the place, coupled with an increasingly effective insurgency, compounded by the inability of Iraqis to agree on a government, essentially led us into the quagmire we now face in that country. Whenever I say: "I told you so", I now hear a list of "accomplishments" and derogatory remarks about my allegedly "liberal" perspective from the people who think we've done well with our current Middle East meddling. I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. Here I disagree with you strongly. American military planners are trying very hard not to replicate Vietnam, and among the techniques they espouse is the idea that "force multipliers" (such as overwhelming air power) can make up for troop strength on the ground. This serves to limit the number of possible American casualties, but it has a few unintended consequences. The first, is that American soldiers have to rely on brute firepower to accomplish their objectives; a principle that serves the soldier well, but often does so at the cost of civilian lives in urban areas. Other people in the world interpret this as either cowardice (Why don't those Americans just stand up and fight? This is a sentiment I've often heard from my saintly mother in law, who doesn't understand that the job of a soldier is to kill other people, not to die himself!), or excessive force. I've written before that the military is, at best, a blunt instrument. Bludgeoning the Iraqi insurgency into submission will come at a high cost. We were not told that this would be the case prior to the invasion, and much obfuscation has occurred since then to deflect attention away from the truth of the matter. In the case of Japan, there are several mitigating circumstances that compound comparison of the conflicts. One of them is cultural. Defeat for a Japanese of that era was utterly humiliating, and they did not rise up against us when our forces arrived to occupy the islands. (It would also be helpful to tabulate how many American soldiers were involved in the occupation of that country.) Secondly, the nation had been effectively reduced to rubble by massive aerial bombardment, and the
RE: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Hi All, Please do not misunderstand my point about Korea. I do not want my country to invade North Korea. (I never want the U.S. to invade anyone) I have many friends in the South whose lives would be destroyed. I was comparing the relative threat between the leaders of Iraq and North Korea relative to U.S. security. Tom -Original Message- From: robert luis rabello To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/7/05 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity Rick Littrell wrote: > Dear Tom, > > These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German > army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French > actually wanted us there. You bring up something interesting, Rick. I would like to clarify, however, that the German troops we Americans faced in France were far from the crack, front line divisions that initially invaded Western Europe. I have read somewhere that the best troops in the German army were transferred to face the Soviets during the "Operation Against Bolshevism" and in their place, second line divisions and reserves filled the void. Field Marshal Rommel once described "Fortress Europa" as "Cloud Cuckoo Land". Nonetheless, those German troops put up a formidable fight. They were well equipped and led by an outstanding officer corps. In the case of Iraq, we were told that they constituted an "imminent threat." I remember hearing about WMD warheads able to fire on "30 minute notice". We were warned about mushroom clouds over American cities. When our troops invaded Iraq, the resistance the Iraqi army actually mounted against us has to qualify for among the most inept in history. They didn't even destroy a single bridge leading to Baghdad! Perhaps SOME of the Iraqis wanted us there. Perhaps we had SOME good will among the civilian population, at least initially. Our inability to secure the place, coupled with an increasingly effective insurgency, compounded by the inability of Iraqis to agree on a government, essentially led us into the quagmire we now face in that country. Whenever I say: "I told you so", I now hear a list of "accomplishments" and derogatory remarks about my allegedly "liberal" perspective from the people who think we've done well with our current Middle East meddling. > I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is > no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more > than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead > of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger > war criminal than he is now. Here I disagree with you strongly. American military planners are trying very hard not to replicate Vietnam, and among the techniques they espouse is the idea that "force multipliers" (such as overwhelming air power) can make up for troop strength on the ground. This serves to limit the number of possible American casualties, but it has a few unintended consequences. The first, is that American soldiers have to rely on brute firepower to accomplish their objectives; a principle that serves the soldier well, but often does so at the cost of civilian lives in urban areas. Other people in the world interpret this as either cowardice (Why don't those Americans just stand up and fight? This is a sentiment I've often heard from my saintly mother in law, who doesn't understand that the job of a soldier is to kill other people, not to die himself!), or excessive force. I've written before that the military is, at best, a blunt instrument. Bludgeoning the Iraqi insurgency into submission will come at a high cost. We were not told that this would be the case prior to the invasion, and much obfuscation has occurred since then to deflect attention away from the truth of the matter. In the case of Japan, there are several mitigating circumstances that compound comparison of the conflicts. One of them is cultural. Defeat for a Japanese of that era was utterly humiliating, and they did not rise up against us when our forces arrived to occupy the islands. (It would also be helpful to tabulate how many American soldiers were involved in the occupation of that country.) Secondly, the nation had been effectively reduced to rubble by massive aerial bombardment, and the economy was in absolute shambles from the war. Thirdly, the use of atomic weapons (not merely the threat of them) crossed a threshold that had never been reached before. We didn't have the ability at the time to utterly destroy the Japanese nation with atom bombs, but their leadership didn't know that, and further, no one else on earth was capable of retaliating against us at the time. Additiona
RE: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Dear Rick, In principle you are correct but does anyone really want to occupy an area after dropping nukes on it. Besides it would have spoiled the oil. As for having enough troops, no way I can agree. Why do you think those poor men and women in the "National Guard" are doing service there? I was always under the opinion that those who were in that branch we're there to protect our soil not our national interests. I agree with analysis of North Korea. Besides that really is more a problem for China and Japan. China's got a madman in their backyard and has to keep him pointed at the U.S. or else he points elsewhere, no? Tom -Original Message- From: Rick Littrell To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/7/05 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity Dear Tom, These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. The response we got from the French is what Bush apparently thought he would get from the Iraqis (sp?). Unfortunately, he had no equivalent to DeGaul. I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. As for North Korea, I think he had sense enough to know ... OK, the people around him had sense enough to know, that the North Korean Army could inflict unacceptable losses on us even if we won and we would risk "complications" with China. He doesn't fight from principle. As many in this group have pointed out, he is basically a bully. Rick Tom Irwin wrote: >Dear Rick, > >What makes you think the U.S. did a good job with the invasion? It was a >major cluster. Sure we beat up a third world army but failed to send the >forces to close the borders. Iraq is the size of France. We invaded France >in 1944 with about 1 million soldiers, Iraq with 120,000. Infantry is >designed to fight for and hold territory. Our army fought extremely well, >detroyed their army but it simply is too small a force to occupy a country >that size. You can't occupy with firepower, you occupy with manpower. This >is just basic military strategy. Do not think for an instant that I believe >that we invaded to free the Iraqi people. If we really wanted to go after a >really bad dictator where our military is extremely exposed and where there >is a greater national threat, we'ed be in North Korea. Why aren't we there? >There's certainly weapons of mass destruction? WHY? WHY? WHY? There's no oil >there. > >Tom > > >-Original Message- >From: Rick Littrell >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 4/5/05 5:05 PM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity > >Dear Scott, > >I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the >invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason >for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory >that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would >threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush >administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather >than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses >that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro >vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid >in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in >the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than >try to pipe it to the lower 48. > >Rick > >Scott wrote: > > > >>How many of us had an "AHA moment" when reading this article? >> >>We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the >>reasons]. >> >>Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN >>inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then >> >> >going > > >>to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to >> >> >sell > > >>oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would >> >> >also > > >>have driven the global price of oil down. >> >>Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want >> >> >the > > >>price of oil to go down. >> >>"ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its >> >> >highest > >
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
(Iraqi forces) There wasn't much left of them by that time, which I think was the idea. This was one of my contentions in the lead up to the war. How can a nation whose armed forces have been decimated constitute a threat in the traditional, military sense? Our "solution" to the Iraqi "problem" was quite conventional from a soldier's point of view. If they'd REALLY been a threat, wouldn't they have put up a more effective fight? Trouble was, they weren't really a threat, so we had to come up with another story to cover the first lie. How many versions of "truth" have we been fed thus far? But does anybody welcome illegal invaders? I don't think many Iraqis were under many illusions about that. This is a point I've made to many warmongers over here. They say things like: "When there's a war going on, civilians should get out of the way!" Or: "Those people are supporting the insurgency." Such sentiments are easily maintained whenever we're discussing someone ELSE'S home. I don't think many Americans would appreciate being "liberated" by foreigners. We have a lot of guns too, and many of us know how to use them. "Actually I agree that the elections were a success ... of opposition to the United States. What is being suppressed - except for Middle East specialists, who know about it perfectly well and are writing about it, or people who in fact have read the newspapers in the last couple of years - what's being suppressed is the fact that the United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections. The U.S. was strongly opposed to them. I wrote about the early stages of this in a book that came out a year ago, which only discussed the early stages of U.S. opposition. But it increased. The U.S. wanted to write a constitution, it wanted to impose some kind of caucus system that the U.S. could control, and it tried to impose extremely harsh neo-liberal rules, like you mentioned, which even Iraqi businessmen were strongly opposed to. Do you have any additional references that support Mr. Chomsky's view? (He is not well regarded by conservatives in the U.S., who tend to dismiss anything he says as nonsense.) I get my news from the radio, so this is the first I've heard of this kind of problem. When I was in California a few weeks ago, I saw a Newsweek headline proclaiming the birth of democracy in the Middle East. (It showed a rather attractive young woman protesting Syrian involvement in Lebanon.) Daniel Schorr, a journalist whose perspective is generally more "left" than is mine, made a statement that his opposition to American Middle East policy is being challenged by the positive outcomes the Bush administration has been attaining in that region. I wondered where Mr. Schorr was getting his information. The headline in Newsweek totally ignored an even larger pro Syrian protest that followed a few days after the one they cited as an example. I would find it hard to believe that my government would accept any electoral outcome in Iraq that essentially opposed American objectives there. I just heard a feature on NPR concerning graft and corruption in Iraq; problems never effectively overcome, even with American involvement. The Iraqi people need officials who are accountable to them. Given our current situation in the United States, however, I remain pessimistic that this will happen soon. (The shifting strategy of NeoCon perspective) A common view in the hopelessly spun US, but very rare everywhere else, where there's generally more and better coverage and less disinfo afoot. Don't you just hate saying "I told you so"??? It would be so much better to've been wrong sometimes. Often! I've found that being suspicious about people and their motives leads me to correct conclusions more often than not. (Sorry Keith! You have way more faith in human nature than I do!) It's also said that the ground forces call in the air support when they've lost control, which would mean they don't have much control anywhere, much. But this IS the point of using "force multiplication". We have fewer troops on the ground because we can obliterate opposition from the air. A "pinpoint" air strike makes for better news coverage in the U.S. than does the "Red Badge of Courage" worn by a Marine or Army soldier. In addition, we're getting very good at "patching up" our wounded soldiers; a skill which tends to deflate the death count and make the conflict appear less deadly to American ears. (Bludgeoning resistance) If it's even possible at all. Has anyone else ever managed to do it? What about the Brits with the Mau Mau? Insurgencies have been put down in the past, but generally with ruthless brutality and great loss of life. We Americans don't like to see ourselves in that light. This word "insurgency" is a strange one. Literally speaking, the Americans are the insurgents, the so-called "in
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Rick Littrell wrote: Dear Tom, These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. You bring up something interesting, Rick. I would like to clarify, however, that the German troops we Americans faced in France were far from the crack, front line divisions that initially invaded Western Europe. I have read somewhere that the best troops in the German army were transferred to face the Soviets during the "Operation Against Bolshevism" and in their place, second line divisions and reserves filled the void. Field Marshal Rommel once described "Fortress Europa" as "Cloud Cuckoo Land". Nonetheless, those German troops put up a formidable fight. They were well equipped and led by an outstanding officer corps. In the case of Iraq, we were told that they constituted an "imminent threat." I remember hearing about WMD warheads able to fire on "30 minute notice". We were warned about mushroom clouds over American cities. When our troops invaded Iraq, the resistance the Iraqi army actually mounted against us has to qualify for among the most inept in history. There wasn't much left of them by that time, which I think was the idea. They didn't even destroy a single bridge leading to Baghdad! Perhaps SOME of the Iraqis wanted us there. Or wanted Saddam gone at any price. But then would the toppling of the statue for instance have had to be rigged and stage-managed like that, with minimal Iraqi involvement or apparent interest? Perhaps we had SOME good will among the civilian population, at least initially. But does anybody welcome illegal invaders? I don't think many Iraqis were under many illusions about that. Our inability to secure the place, coupled with an increasingly effective insurgency, compounded by the inability of Iraqis to agree on a government, "Actually I agree that the elections were a success ... of opposition to the United States. What is being suppressed - except for Middle East specialists, who know about it perfectly well and are writing about it, or people who in fact have read the newspapers in the last couple of years - what's being suppressed is the fact that the United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections. The U.S. was strongly opposed to them. I wrote about the early stages of this in a book that came out a year ago, which only discussed the early stages of U.S. opposition. But it increased. The U.S. wanted to write a constitution, it wanted to impose some kind of caucus system that the U.S. could control, and it tried to impose extremely harsh neo-liberal rules, like you mentioned, which even Iraqi businessmen were strongly opposed to. But there has been a very powerful nonviolent resistance in Iraq - far more significant than suicide bombers and so on. And it simply compelled the United States step by step to back down. That's the popular movement of nonviolent resistance that was symbolized by Ayatollah Sistani, but it's far broader than that. The population simply would not accept the rules that the occupation authorities were imposing, and finally Washington was compelled, very reluctantly, to accept elections. It tried in every way to undermine them." From: On Globalization, Iraq, and Middle East Studies - Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic, March 29, 2005 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=7548 essentially led us into the quagmire we now face in that country. Whenever I say: "I told you so", I now hear a list of "accomplishments" and derogatory remarks about my allegedly "liberal" perspective from the people who think we've done well with our current Middle East meddling. A common view in the hopelessly spun US, but very rare everywhere else, where there's generally more and better coverage and less disinfo afoot. Don't you just hate saying "I told you so"??? It would be so much better to've been wrong sometimes. Often! I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. Here I disagree with you strongly. American military planners are trying very hard not to replicate Vietnam, and among the techniques they espouse is the idea that "force multipliers" (such as overwhelming air power) can make up for troop strength on the ground. This serves to limit the number of possible American casualties, but it has a few unintended consequences. The first, is that American soldiers have to rely on brute firepower to accomplish their objectives; a principle that serves the soldier well, but often does so at the cost of civilian lives in urban
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Dear Tom, These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. You bring up something interesting, Rick. I would like to clarify, however, that the German troops we Americans faced in France were far from the crack, front line divisions that initially invaded Western Europe. I have read somewhere that the best troops in the German army were transferred to face the Soviets during the "Operation Against Bolshevism" and in their place, second line divisions and reserves filled the void. Field Marshal Rommel once described "Fortress Europa" as "Cloud Cuckoo Land". Nonetheless, those German troops put up a formidable fight. They were well equipped and led by an outstanding officer corps. In the case of Iraq, we were told that they constituted an "imminent threat." I remember hearing about WMD warheads able to fire on "30 minute notice". We were warned about mushroom clouds over American cities. When our troops invaded Iraq, the resistance the Iraqi army actually mounted against us has to qualify for among the most inept in history. They didn't even destroy a single bridge leading to Baghdad! Perhaps SOME of the Iraqis wanted us there. Perhaps we had SOME good will among the civilian population, at least initially. Our inability to secure the place, coupled with an increasingly effective insurgency, compounded by the inability of Iraqis to agree on a government, essentially led us into the quagmire we now face in that country. Whenever I say: "I told you so", I now hear a list of "accomplishments" and derogatory remarks about my allegedly "liberal" perspective from the people who think we've done well with our current Middle East meddling. I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. Here I disagree with you strongly. American military planners are trying very hard not to replicate Vietnam, and among the techniques they espouse is the idea that "force multipliers" (such as overwhelming air power) can make up for troop strength on the ground. This serves to limit the number of possible American casualties, but it has a few unintended consequences. The first, is that American soldiers have to rely on brute firepower to accomplish their objectives; a principle that serves the soldier well, but often does so at the cost of civilian lives in urban areas. Other people in the world interpret this as either cowardice (Why don't those Americans just stand up and fight? This is a sentiment I've often heard from my saintly mother in law, who doesn't understand that the job of a soldier is to kill other people, not to die himself!), or excessive force. I've written before that the military is, at best, a blunt instrument. Bludgeoning the Iraqi insurgency into submission will come at a high cost. We were not told that this would be the case prior to the invasion, and much obfuscation has occurred since then to deflect attention away from the truth of the matter. In the case of Japan, there are several mitigating circumstances that compound comparison of the conflicts. One of them is cultural. Defeat for a Japanese of that era was utterly humiliating, and they did not rise up against us when our forces arrived to occupy the islands. (It would also be helpful to tabulate how many American soldiers were involved in the occupation of that country.) Secondly, the nation had been effectively reduced to rubble by massive aerial bombardment, and the economy was in absolute shambles from the war. Thirdly, the use of atomic weapons (not merely the threat of them) crossed a threshold that had never been reached before. We didn't have the ability at the time to utterly destroy the Japanese nation with atom bombs, but their leadership didn't know that, and further, no one else on earth was capable of retaliating against us at the time. Additionally, Douglas MacArthur did a brilliant job as that nation's administrator until an elected government could take his place. That achievement is the shining moment of MacArthur's career. No similar circumstances exist in Iraq. If we destroy the Iraqi people with our own WMDs, we lose all credibility. (Do we have any left?) The NeoCon belief that costs would be minimal has been laughingly assigned to the scrap heap of unsupported, nationalistic nonsense where the theory of a "master race", communism and a host of other stupidities have been discarded. As for North Korea, I think he had sense enough to know ... OK, the people around him had sense enough to know, that the North Korean Army could infl
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. The response we got from the French is what Bush apparently thought he would get from the Iraqis (sp?). Unfortunately, he had no equivalent to DeGaul. I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. As for North Korea, I think he had sense enough to know ... OK, the people around him had sense enough to know, that the North Korean Army could inflict unacceptable losses on us even if we won and we would risk "complications" with China. He doesn't fight from principle. As many in this group have pointed out, he is basically a bully. Rick Tom Irwin wrote: Dear Rick, What makes you think the U.S. did a good job with the invasion? It was a major cluster. Sure we beat up a third world army but failed to send the forces to close the borders. Iraq is the size of France. We invaded France in 1944 with about 1 million soldiers, Iraq with 120,000. Infantry is designed to fight for and hold territory. Our army fought extremely well, detroyed their army but it simply is too small a force to occupy a country that size. You can't occupy with firepower, you occupy with manpower. This is just basic military strategy. Do not think for an instant that I believe that we invaded to free the Iraqi people. If we really wanted to go after a really bad dictator where our military is extremely exposed and where there is a greater national threat, we'ed be in North Korea. Why aren't we there? There's certainly weapons of mass destruction? WHY? WHY? WHY? There's no oil there. Tom -Original Message- From: Rick Littrell To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/5/05 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity Dear Scott, I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than try to pipe it to the lower 48. Rick Scott wrote: How many of us had an "AHA moment" when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. "ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever..." http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/ 0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailin
re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
> Iraq Invasion May Be Remembered as > Start of the Age of Oil Scarcity > By Robert Collier > San Francisco Chronicle > Sunday 20 March 2005 > http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032105EA.shtml > > Production tumbles in post-Hussein era as > more countries vie for shrinking supplies ... > "If it weren't for the insurgency, Iraq would produce > at least another million barrels day -- and maybe two," > said Gal Luft, co-director of the > Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. > "Iraq is very much missing from the market, and > it's one of the reasons why prices have risen so much." > I love it how people like Gal Luft can quickly ignore the cause-effect relationship... If it wasn't for the US invasion the insurgency wouldn't exist. ... > Fast-rising energy prices helped the Bush administration > rally votes in Congress for its proposal to open the > Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. > That proposal squeezed out a victory by a two-vote margin > in the Senate last week. But then again, if it wasn't for the invasion that cuased the insurgency that caused the oil shortarge then the ANWR may have remained protected. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Dear Rick, What makes you think the U.S. did a good job with the invasion? It was a major cluster. Sure we beat up a third world army but failed to send the forces to close the borders. Iraq is the size of France. We invaded France in 1944 with about 1 million soldiers, Iraq with 120,000. Infantry is designed to fight for and hold territory. Our army fought extremely well, detroyed their army but it simply is too small a force to occupy a country that size. You can't occupy with firepower, you occupy with manpower. This is just basic military strategy. Do not think for an instant that I believe that we invaded to free the Iraqi people. If we really wanted to go after a really bad dictator where our military is extremely exposed and where there is a greater national threat, we'ed be in North Korea. Why aren't we there? There's certainly weapons of mass destruction? WHY? WHY? WHY? There's no oil there. Tom -Original Message- From: Rick Littrell To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/5/05 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity Dear Scott, I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than try to pipe it to the lower 48. Rick Scott wrote: >How many of us had an "AHA moment" when reading this article? > >We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the >reasons]. > >Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN >inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going >to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell >oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also >have driven the global price of oil down. > >Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the >price of oil to go down. > >"ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest >quarter ever..." >http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/ 0503ms.asp > > >PEACE >Scott >- Original Message - > > >> Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become >> >> >known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. > >___ >Biofuel mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than try to pipe it to the lower 48. Rick Scott wrote: How many of us had an "AHA moment" when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. "ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever..." http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
One way of looking at is the increased price of petroleum satisfies the oil bosses desires for profits and possibly the decreased demand for petroleum products from the public without increasing taxes to discourage its use sometime in the future. Is their any truth to the increased demand from India and China for personal transportation which might increase petroleum product prices due to the lack of supply? > How many of us had an "AHA moment" when reading this article? > > We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the > reasons]. > > Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN > inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going > to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell > oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also > have driven the global price of oil down. > > Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the > price of oil to go down. > > "ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest > quarter ever..." > http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp > > PEACE > Scott > > - Original Message - > > Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become > > known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
How many of us had an "AHA moment" when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. "ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever..." http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - > Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
