Oil a factor in Australian role in Iraq

jlew24asu wrote:

"The White House said the bill could actually lead to higher crude oil and gasoline prices, and that foreign nations would likely retaliate by limiting U.S. access to global oil supply."

The US is the largest consumer/customer of oil in the world. Along with that status comes some kind of purchasing power. Who's going to sell it, and to whom, if the US cannot get access to it?

http://www.gravmag.com/oil5h.gif

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The US is the largest consumer/customer of oil in the world. Along with that status comes some kind of purchasing power. Who's going to sell it, and to whom, if the US cannot get access to it?

http://www.gravmag.com/oil5h.gif

There are over 2 billion oil-thirsty Chinese and Indians who are increasingly becoming more and more dependent on oil as their economies and cultures progress at a record pace. They'll gladly buy all the oil the Middle East and Russia can pump out. Not to mention the japanese, with the second largest economy in the world import almost 90% of their oil. There are plenty of suitors for the Petrocrats in the Middle East.

jlew24asu wrote:

well in this case, if we sue the organization who controls oil, the price of oil would "likely" go up. seems like white house propaganda to you, but its true.

Fair enough - but I never called it propaganda. I called it a dodge - or CYA. There's a difference.

When the White House, or any organization for that matter, uses words like "should" and "likely," they're just pitching back their side of the argument without making any definite, refutable statements. It's part of their argument, but it's not propaganda as I see it, because it's an actual possibility. Why anyone would listen to them these days is a different story.

Propaganda is saying that "Islamofacists are a threat to our society." Propaganda is implying that it's possible for a bunch of disorganized, hateful, self-destructively violent groups to overthrow the United States and impose Sharia law. Propaganda is claiming that a few matches in an isolated fuel line have the potential to destroy an entire airport. Propaganda is when you tie someone like Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator, to an Islamic fundamentalist organization. Maybe it's just this way to me, but propaganda is laying out flatly false or impossible scenerios and selling them as either the truth or as serious possibilities.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The notion that aside from everything that has happened in the past (a lot of it not too long ago), The US govt now dons angelic halos and spreads peace throughout the world by exercising military might and arming nations for the sake of helping everyone be themselves and to walk on their own two feet...even in spite their own best interests.


Well...that just seems naive to me.

I think so too. Didn't say any of the things you mention above. We've been making plenty of blunders lately, but I hardly think they are reason to say we are trying to rule the world.

We're in a bad mix of an unpopular war, that carries a legitimate view that it is unnecessary, with an increcibly polarizing president who is an extremely poor leader. On the whole, however, I would say the American people have evolved far beyond just a few decades ago where we thought the rest of the world were savages that we needed to save. Most of the is because we didn't feel threatened after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Some of us are starting to feel threatened again, but even those that are still don't support torture, Guantanamo, high casualties in war, etc... showing that we have progressed as a society.

Now, if something major were to happen to the US, the gloves would come off....

NCfan wrote:

There are over 2 billion oil-thirsty Chinese and Indians who are increasingly becoming more and more dependent on oil as their economies and cultures progress at a record pace. They'll gladly buy all the oil the Middle East and Russia can pump out. Not to mention the japanese, with the second largest economy in the world import almost 90% of their oil. There are plenty of suitors for the Petrocrats in the Middle East.

I'm guessing that 20+ million barrels per day consumption isn't going to happen overnight. Probably in 10-15 years of growth at least. Add in geographical limitation...probably longer. It's still not going to be given away.

edit: I suppose someone will take it. Pump it back into the ground in a different location. I'm not an economist but I would imagine the US has some say in how prices are to be set.

I'm sure there's a good portion of secret gentleman's club going on...and Bush and Cheney (the entire lot of them no?) are international oil players after all.

NCfan wrote:

I think so too. Didn't say any of the things you mention above. We've been making plenty of blunders lately, but I hardly think they are reason to say we are trying to rule the world.

We're in a bad mix of an unpopular war, that carries a legitimate view that it is unnecessary, with an increcibly polarizing president who is an extremely poor leader. On the whole, however, I would say the American people have evolved far beyond just a few decades ago where we thought the rest of the world were savages that we needed to save. Most of the is because we didn't feel threatened after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Some of us are starting to feel threatened again, but even those that are still don't support torture, Guantanamo, high casualties in war, etc... showing that we have progressed as a society.

Now, if something major were to happen to the US, the gloves would come off....

Come on seriously don't you see the propaganda?

Regan declared war on them there evil terrorists when he came into office to. Don't ya smell something fishy. 20 odd years later, war on terrorism just different supposed terrorists.

"Upon taking office in January 1981, Reagan outlined his new foreign policy in a speech by Alexander Haig, which boiled down to: "International terrorism will take the place of human rights in our concern."[5] Thus, the 1979 US destabilization program using terrorist groups to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan was used by the US to call the Soviet invasion "terrorism" and to point to that invasion as a model for the newly invented phenomenon of "Soviet-backed terrorism" around the world."

jlew24asu wrote:

ok you obviously do not know what sarcasim is. america did not invade afgahistan to build a pipeline. ok?

I agree. show me some examples of what has enlighten you lately



wow really? what should I be worried? low unemployment? record high stock market? an ecomony strong enough to shrug off high oil prices and a fall in home prices? yea, i'm worried.

tell me, since you seem to think we are on the brink of collapse, show me some statistical data backing up your claim that I should be worried. I didnt think so.

I know sarcasim, don't worry.

Start with some noam chomsky.

It's not just america where the economy is a worry, i'm just suprised none of you ever mention it. America has the worlds biggest debt and nice low taxes at some point it will have to be payed for. 7 trillion is a shitload of debt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/08/opinion/main686839.shtml