IRAQ – WAR – OIL
Hi Andrew,
Well, guess we do not agree on some items
Lets get real Americans, OIL? Come one, if it is all about oil, let go invade some of the other oil producing countries. Seems we have in the past defended one of these countries from Sadam.
OIL, do you realize how much oil THIS COUNTRY HAS? And I know what I am talking about. My family has enough oil wells in Oklahoma, along with Natural gas. There is a lot of that black gold under the ground. But, it is the bleeding heart liberals, who demand that, (not in regards to national parks and our natural beautiful back lands) but these people have put limits on how many wells can be placed on specific size of land, Land that used to be for crops, and still grow crops with just a few well intermingled.
I am not talking about drilling the heck out of Alaska, or Southern Utah, I am talking about areas, that even the devil will not live. WE HAVE OIL WE HAVE NATURAL GAS, WE HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT, IT IS UNTAPPED.
Take a drive into the SouthEastern Part of NewMexico, where it reaches 100 plus degrees, there you will see oil well after oil well, about 50 feet apart. Now, go into Oklahoma. The flatlands, you will see one well per 5 square blocks of land. There is a lot of oil under that unused ground, as my parents have wells that have been pumping for over 50 years and are still producing as much if not more than ever. But, as to the limits to how close one can place a well to the other, we are not able to pump as much as this country needs. WE HAVE IT, WE DO NOT NEED THEIR OIL, WE NEED PEOPLE WHO PROTECT THE ENVIROMENT, TO KNOW WHICH ENVIROMENT NEED PROTECTING AND WHICH DOES NOT.
Finally, the oil companies have allowed 4 additional wells to be drilled on our family land, I do not know how many wells we have, but do know, that all are producing gobs of oil and natural gas and will for an unlimited time.
So get off this War for Oil, sorry, it just is not true. It is a good cop out, it does make for an interesting dinner conservation, but it is not a fact,
We invaded that country for one reason and one reason only, WE HAD TO!
Suzanne
Emory Says: August 13th, 2004 at 12:01 am
Well said. I still can’t understand why we don’t develop the oil in Alaska, since we can now do it cleanly and without damaging the environment as in the past.
Suzanne Says: August 13th, 2004 at 9:00 pm
According to what I hear, is that it is cheaper to buy oil and ship it over the ocean than to drill our own wells.
Suzanne
Kevin Says: February 9th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
As a soldier out here fighting the war, i just wanted to say THANK YOU! With the media the way it is, and the “trend” in American colleges to bash our Government, its nice to know that some people have something to say that is based on fact instead of hear-say. For the people that think our president would actually go to war over a resource we have plenty of I say this: Do some research. Get the FACTS. Make a conclusion of YOUR OWN. If you still feel that we went to war over oil, and disapprove of what we are doing here in Iraq, just remeber you’re free because of soldiers like me. Make use of your freedom and leave my country.
Julian Says: February 9th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Kevin,
Just out of curiosity, what was you opinion of General Hoar’s (USMC) commentary that he published at Military.com? Presumably as former former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command he may have an informed opinion on whether any deception is involved in what our administration has told us about the war in Iraq. If you read his piece and get back to us with your opinion, I would be very interested in what you have to say. Thanks for sharing your views as a soldier and God Bless. His article is at the following address: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0105_Loyalty,00.html
Sean Says: February 9th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Julian,
Sorry, I know it’s been a while for this response, but I’ve been extremely busy with other things lately. First off, don’t assign me a nickname. You DO NOT KNOW ME WELL ENOUGH, AND WE ARE NOT FRIENDS. I find calling me “Seanie” offensive at best.
The reason why I waited a while before I responded to the General’s comments was because when you mentioned his name I knew it sounded familiar. So, I went back and did some research, and found out where I’d heard his name before. I also went to the website and read Gen. Joseph Hoar’s opinionated commentary on the Battle in Iraq.
This guy, and not in anyway to minimize his experience as a General in the Corp, was one of the original “ARMCHAIR GENERALS” back in March of 2003 who immediately discredited and attacked the strategy being employed, which later was proven to be brilliant, in the first few weeks of the Battle. He said that “danger” is quote, “what comes with being bold and audacious.” He was one of the many nay-sayers who said that the plan of attack was “too risky”, and that it used too many multiple attack strategies open for “friendly fire” incidents. There were other numerous points of failure that the former General pointed out. Nearly all of these proved to be false. The Battle was swift, succesful, and it was in direct accordance to the “Art of War”, by Sun Tzu. His analysis was incorrect 2 years ago as well. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/5405592.htm
Now, as for his comments on the state of the War now from the military.com website, I would have much more confidence and would give his comments much more clout if he actually COMMANDED FORCES ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ LIKE GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS or the General who took over after Franks retired (sorry I can’t recall his name right now). I have heard many of these Generals making political statements before (like Wesley Clark), and they mean very little because they don’t have a first hand account of the situation on the ground.
On the other hand I have heard dozens of testimony from soldiers who have returned from Iraq, some Privates, some Sergeants, Some Lieutenants and so on who have painted a completely different picture of Iraq and everything that is happening there. For Example, there was a Lieutenant (I’m pretty sure it was a Lieutenant that is) who led one of the many Marine Corps infantry’s who took Falluja just recently. He recently released a very long and indepth press release that slams the media and other “Arm-Chair Generals” who are making claims about the failure of the efforts on the ground in Iraq and he basically talks point by point and disproves all of the nay-sayers and others like General Hoar who are out there, especially in the media, who are painting an incorrect picture of the state of Iraq.
I will try to find the article that this Lieutenant wrote for you to read it.
Sean Says: February 9th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Suzanne,
Perhaps you should be asking another question. WHY IS IT MORE EXPENSIVE TO DRILL AND REFINE OIL OVER HERE? Perhaps even a better question would be, “Why don’t we have a better cheaper way to drill and refine oil over here?” I ask these questions….and I answer.
The American left, the liberals, have made it almost impossible to drill oil over here with regulations and restrictions (primarily due to the out of control environmentalists). Furthermore, everytime a new refinery is suggested it is immediately shot down by the environmentalist wackos (E.P.A.), also part of the American left-wing.
The REAL reason why we are so-called “Dependant on foregn-oil”, a famous catch phrase by the Democrat party, IS BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. THEY DO NOT PROPOSE NEW WAYS OF FINDING DRILLING AND REFINING MORE OIL ON OUR OWN LAND LIKE IN ALASKA OR OFF THE WEST COAST. Whenever they come up with a new so-called “energy scheme” they primarily suggest wild and un-reasonable levels of conservation, and then they go back to the old environmentalist hold outs of: wind-power, solar-power, etc., etc., etc. None of these ways will produce anywhere near enough power to supplement our power demands. We cannot replace the role of Oil in our energy production (or replace coal and other fossil fuels for that matter) to provide for our energy demands, EVEN WITH CONSERVATION.
Oil drilling and refining research and development has been completely shut down by the American left. It has been so over-regulated and restricted in this country that we have not built a new refinery since 1976! We have only recently started drilling new wells with EnergyTec and their Sulphur Bluff project. However, there are still not enough refineries.
We MUST find new oil ventures in this country and develop more oil production in this country. That is the ONLY WAY to free ourselves of our “Dependance on Foreign Oil”
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 3:15 am
Sean, it isn’t clear to me what your are disputing in General Hoar’s article. He simply said that the administration presures high level military commanders to choose between loyalty and honesty. As the former commander-in-chief of the US Central Command, he claims to have access to information that the administration is covering up about why we really invaded Iraq and that the administration hides many other facts that embarass the administration behind the words “top secret.” He is writing his article to an audience of military commanders and he is urging them to consider, when they are put in such situations, whether their duty is to defend the constitution or to defend Bush. Sometimes, according to the General, military commanders are being put into situations were being honest and being loyal to Bush are at odds with one another.
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 4:12 am
Sean, it surprises me to hear you admit that environmental groups, those little rag tag, grass roots organizations that operate off of donations, have so successfully spoiled the nobel efforst of the wealthiest, highly profitable, and most influential superindustry on the planet (I mean the energy industry, of course). The energy industry owns a very large share of our current cadre of senators and congressmen and those delightful chaps who “work” in the White House. Imagine what those clever environmentalists hippies could accomplish if they actually had something in the way of resources to work with? They are so creative and clever, as evidenced by their ability to stymy the mighty oil companies, if they more than a little loose change to work with perhaps they would turn a tiny bit of their creative energies away from defeating the oil companies, which apparently is not that hard to do, and focus more on strategies for meeting our long-range energy needs.
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 4:45 am
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America.” G.W. Bush, May 2001
National security concerns—the dependence on foreign oil that, in Cheney’s words, makes it “easy for a regime such as … Iraq to hold us hostage” Dick Cheney, May 2001
Still wonder why we are fighting in Iraq? Our national security and economy depend on taking control of the world’s major oil supplies. It really is that simple.
quotes from MSN Slate Magazine
http://slate.msn.com/id/105848/
Sean Says: February 10th, 2005 at 6:46 am
First off, the General was also debating the success and failure of Iraq in his article, and that is one of the things that I was questioning his credibility on since he didn’t command any ground forces here.
Second, I established a history of this opininated and incorrect analysis when I explained his March 2003 comments.
Third of all, is the Bush administration the only administration that classifies sensitive government information as “Top Secret” because that’s all he’s classifying. You act as if this is the first administration to classify information. If John Kerry was classifying it you’d say, “Well it’s a matter of National Security so It’s ok.”
Sean Says: February 10th, 2005 at 6:56 am
JULIAN, READ MY FRIGIN’ COMMENT YOU TWISTED LIEING JERK. I DIDN’T SAY A RAG-TAG GRASS ROOTS FUNDED ENVIRONMENTALIST ORGANIZATION LIKE GREENPEACE THAT OPERATE OFF DONATIONS.
I SAID THE E.P.A. IN ADDITION TO THIS THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER VERY POWERFUL, WELL FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST’S. I’M REALLY SICK OF YOU RESPONDING TO MY COMMENTS WITHOUT FULLY READING THEM THROUGH.
Sean Says: February 10th, 2005 at 7:03 am
We have NEVER, EVER, taken control of Iraq’s Oil resources, Julian. Our economy has never depended on taking over the rest of the world’s energy resources or their oil supplies. ‘
Why don’t you just change your name to Ward Churchill (former Head Professor of Ethnic relations at University of Colorado), you are just about as extreme and wacko as he is.
By the way, what the world, especially the U.S. really needs to hear is more people speaking publically like Ward and you. You know why……Because the more the American citizens hear wacko’s like you and Ward Churchill and the rest of the left-wing spout off. The more they see all of you for what you are. I want you all to get to the podium and “GET YOUR MESSAGE OUT” as you are always worried that you don’t do enough of. I want you guys to all show the world and tell the world, especially the U.S. citizens, what you believe. It will further lead to your political destruction.
AAAAAHHHA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA. Little humor there at the end, you know sort of like a triumphant laugh.
Suzanne Says: February 10th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Just a few words to the comments above;
First to Kevin – You are one of America’s finest. I know, and many know this war is not about oil. This war and the reasons behind it, go very deep. For me to even try to come close in explaining why we are fighting over there, to be able to put into words that all of you can understand is not something I can do. This is something each individual must do themselves. To do this, one must be open minded, be able to separate fact from rumor, remove themselves from any political brainwashing. Then, talk to our Men and Women who are over there fighting they will tell you the reasons we are involved in Iraq.
And you may be sure; it is not because of oil.
I am proud of you Kevin, as is all of America; you and all the other men and women there with you. Proud for that which you have already done and all that you will accomplish before most of you come home.
Please keep yourself safe, and come home proud, for it is not those who sit at their computers and say this war is for oil, who will make a difference in the future of this Earth, no, they will just sit and make comments. You are one who is changing the future of the lives of so many people. You know why you are there; I know why you are there, as do many other American’s, those who still live in the dark ages, well, leave them there.
OIL
One comment stated that it is cheaper to buy Oil from the Arab countries, instead of drilling in our own country. Well, I wonder who is to blame for this. Who put the “Windfall Profit Tax” on all the Oil Well Owners in the US, who allow the Oil companies to cheat the person whose land they are pulling up the oil from? Who passes the laws, that allow the big oil companies to lie about how much oil a well has produced, and the list just goes on and on.
The person who owns the land and the oil rights, allows the big oil company to drill a well on their land. The oil company in return, is to pay X amount of dollars for the oil they pull up and run down the pipe line. This oil and gas, belongs to the person who owns the land and the oil rights. The large oil companies, seem to think this oil belongs to them, so they drill, pull oil, and then lie about how much they have pulled, under pay the land owner, over charge the consumer, claim it is too expensive to refine the oil in the US.
This is why the big oil companies are getting richer, and the land owners are getting poorer. But, you say, there are laws, right? Sure there are; there are government regulations on this process, but the oil companies disregard them and the government looks the other way. Then the oil companies complain, it is too expensive to refine the oil in the US, we need tax breaks, we need this we need that, we don’t want to pay the owner of the oil, for the oil we pump, we don’t like the regulations, and on and on it goes.
So, the US uses all the oil from under our soil, then because the oil companies make more money from foreign oil, we import, import and import more oil. The oil companies profit, you and I pay too much for gas, and all the time we have oil under our feet.
Who is at fault? Our Government!
There was a time, back when my Grandpa was alive, during the Kennedy and pre Kennedy years, when these land owners did make a good living off their oil.
American oil and gas was less expensive than foreign oil. Then we voted in a new president, (no names mentioned, as I am already on the black list.)
This new president decided that it would be good to pass a new tax law to make the American public think the rich were being taxed. – “The Windfall Profit Tax” – This tax was directly imposed upon the person who owned the oil rights, this is the person who paid this tax, not the Oil companies.
As time went by, and the oil companies had more and more control, the US oil prices became more than the imported price.
If one were logical, why and how could imported oil be cheaper than drilling our own oil?
Explain that to me, or explain that to yourself, as I already know why.
The reason the US does not produce enough energy to meet its needs is the fault of government.
We have not only the oil and gas we need, we have other the ability to provide energy by other means. So, why are we still dependent upon foreign oil?
Money!!!!
Who is getting this Money!!
Read the comment from Sean, he seems to have a very good grasp upon the real truth.
I promise you it is not people like my parents who are making money from the high gas price you pay at the pump. It is also not people like my parents who receive all the tax breaks, just the opposite.
If it were not personal, I would love to post, exactly how much oil was reported that was pulled from my parents land, how much actually was pulled, how much the oil companies charged the consumer, and how much my parents made off this oil. Then the amount of taxes my parents paid on this income.
But as I wrote it is their income and their business, but I think you would be very surprised, and shocked.
Learn the truth, learn the facts, and learn to separate the truth from that which some would want you to believe. When and if you can do this, then you will have the knowledge, as what you do with it, well, that is up to each individual.
Should all American’s learn the truth and stick together, we might have a brighter future, but as long as we listen to the lies, the half truths and as long as we close our eyes, close our minds, and turn our backs on these truths, nothing will ever change.
It will just be a different year, a different president, and different people writing their comments on this site: Though nothing will change, not until America opens her eyes to the truth. More important, not until those who have opened their eyes, and have spoken, are not promptly black listed.
Friends, do not be afraid to research, do not be afraid to read anything and all things you might wish to read, just learn to separate the truth from the untruth.
Remember, within untruths, one can find a lot of truth.
Suzanne Says: February 10th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Just one comment to #6 by Sean
You are close to the truth, but you are far from the truth.
Find those who are really responsible for the comments you have written. Do not be so quick to blame everything upon the Democrats, or the Liberals, go deeper than the surface, go as deep as is the Black Gold, keep your mind as your mind, use logic. Never allow others to think for you, think for yourself. You already almost know the real problem, now find those responsible.
I know, but I am only one woman, many of you know but have closed you eyes.
Suzanne
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Sean,
So now you are contradicting the quotes of Bush and Chenney themselves. They disagree with you. They think that controlling oil resources is necessary for our national security. It is reasonable for them to think this, given the structure of our economy and its total dependence on oil. I don’t care what you think about me, I just wish you would actually give the facts a chance to enter your mind. The pro-Bush mindset is to seal off any inconvenient facts and assume the ostrich position when anyone presents a perspective that differs form your’s.
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Sean,
I didn’t say that we have taken control of Iraq’s oil resources. You are thinking too simplistically. My view is that the administration wants to control middle eastern oil supplies by putting governments in power that will be friendly to us. That’s the real motivation behind the administration’s change of course in geopolitical policy over the past several years. The administration now thinks that “democracies” may support our interests better than the sorts of folks that the administration has traditionally preferred to do business with. I think that it remains to be seen whether the administration can play this chess game effectively. So far they have positioned themselves poorly and have had to give up important pieces because they aren’t adept at looking several moves ahead in the game.
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Suzanne, I want to say amen to the “learn the truth” comment. My point exactly.
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Sean, Thought I should tell you that I don’t read the stuff in ALL CAPS.
Julian Says: February 10th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
When Bush said, in May of 2001, 4 months before 9/11, that “What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America” and Cheney said “the dependence on foreign oil makes it easy for a regime such as Iraq to hold us hostage” what do you think they were getting at?
In April 2001 Cheney said “The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear to be endemic. Among the most extraordinary of these losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.” Cheney also has said that we need to increase production from 80 million to 130 million barrels per day to meet the projected oil demands by 2010. But 80 million barrels per day appears to be close to the maximum possible daily oil production. To me it seems reasonable to believe that the administration perceives the growing oil crisis as a major threat to the US.
The ANWR could produce 0.75 million barrels per day, so that wouldn’t help much – a drop in the bucket, as they say. We need oil from places that can really put it out (in addition to what we get from Suzanne’s back yard).
Sean Says: February 11th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Suzanne, I’ve already outlined who is responsible. Re-read my comment. It’s all there. I DO know the problem and I DO know the truth. We are dependant on foreign oil, because we have been restricted, primarily by those on the left, to develop our own oil resources.
Sean Says: February 11th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Julian you don’t read comments…PERIOD. Many times you have mis-represented or incorrectly responded to my comments. The last one is a great example. I never said it was small rag-tag environmental organizations that have restricted oil development in this country. I DID say it was the Environmentalists in the Democrat party and the E.P.A.
julian Says: February 11th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
But what about the question posed in comment #19?
Suzanne Says: February 12th, 2005 at 8:29 am
This is to both Sean and Julian.
I have a few questions, and your answers would be appreciated.
First – please define who and what the “Environmentalists in the Democrat Party” are.
Second – I have read the comments each of you have written. Both or you are sure of your facts, seems both of you have received your information from somewhere. So, what I would like to know is from where. I have read one source listed, but to be so sure you are correct your sources must be in your mind very truthful.
I would love to know these sources so I can read them my self.
A little comment from me – regarding the E.P.A. and the environment; it is my belief that with President Bush, we might as well throw the environment to the wind. Now, I do not know where either of you live, or do I know your feelings on the environment or on protecting the environment; I only know what my personal feelings are on this subject.
I do understand that something must give in the constant need for energy. I also understand that all open land and all mountains, and all of nature can not be kept forever. Although to destroy the earth we live on because we are energy hungry people, will just end in disaster.
So, where does it all go, if both of you are right in what you are saying. (This is possible you know.) Then what is the hope for the future of this world. If it is taking over other countries for their oil, as one of you state that we are doing, or if it is destroying the very Earth we live on. Thus in reality, either way there is no future.
Actually, I do not understand why it is either the fault of The Left, The Right, The Up or The Down, The Democrats, The Republicans, or The Liberals. It is the fault of everyone, you, me them and all others.
Why? Because look at the way we live, look at the destruction of our land, look at our homes filled with energy consuming goodies.
Are either of you willing to go without your electricity, gas or fuel? I am not willing, nor are others. So it is not the fault of just one group of people it is the fault of the entire world. The solution is also up to the entire world. The United States can not solve this problem nor can any country solve it alone. This is an Earth Problem to be solved by all humans who live on this earth.
Neither of you have all the answers, neither of you have all the reasons. Neither does any one group or one country or one person have all the answers or all of the reasons.
This government will not solve the energy problem, just as it will not solve the SSS problem or the Medical Insurance problems or the problems of the poor. Just the opposite, this government will only make worse the energy problem and the environment problems and the SSS problem and the financial problem and all the problems that the middle class and the poor have today and had yesterday.
These problems are not just getting bigger, but are becoming a threat to the existence of a democratic America. How long can one go on living with working two jobs, and still not being able to pay for fuel, medical insurance, medical bills, rent, and food and so on and so forth. While the President passes bills to take away funding for programs that people’s lives depend upon, and increase taxes on those who can least afford to pay more taxes, while companies like Microsoft does not pay any taxes. And the oil companies do not pay taxes, and 90% of all large Corporations do not pay taxes. While you and me and others like us pay all the taxes, and receive the least return for our money.
If the Large Corporations paid their fair share of taxes, then finding other means of energy would be affordable, but as long Big Business and Big Government walk hand in hand there is no solution to the energy problem.
Face the fact; neither of you know the entire truth, both of you know some of the surface, both of you are right and both of you are wrong. Neither or you have the answer or the solution to the problem, it is the solution we need, not the back and forth fighting as to the cause. Although this is a cause and effect problem, so to find the cause and to cure the effect, you must go deeper than the surface.
Exactly as I wrote in my next to the last comment, go as deep as is the Black Gold.
That is where you will find the true facts, neither do I, though I have gone deeper, and it just gets scarier the deeper you go.
Final – the oil I mentioned is not in my back yard, it is in Oklahoma and I do not live in that state, and it also does not as of now belong to me. Though because of the fact it is family oil or from my Grandpa, this is the reason I have gone deeper into this problem than either of you have. Though as I stated above, I have not found any one answer or solution to this problem, I have come up with the solution to finding other means of energy, but as stated above, as long as Big Business does not pay taxes this will never take place.
In the end, we all must understand, this is an Earth Problem, and must be solved by the entire population of the Earth. One day even foreign oil will unavailable, dry wells – that is the name given when the oil no longer exists under the well, we used it all. Have either of you ever driven in the South Western part of New Mexico? There in the lower desert you will see 100’s or oil rigs pumping and pumping, each about 50 feet apart. Then suddenly you will come upon about 20 rigs that are not moving. The reason is they are dry wells, and each day more and more are becoming dry. Though there are many other places to drop a rig, we would rather import oil, but the oil we import is also pulling the oil out of the same earth as we are in America. Do either of you think that the oil we import is a never ending supply? Just because it is foreign oil, does not means it comes from a different planet. The oil under the ground belongs to the entire earth, it flows from the past, and it comes from a time when man did not walk this earth. The events of time of the past that created this oil will never be repeated nor will this oil last forever. There is only so much under the ground and when it is gone it is gone and never can be replaced.
I wonder, it that what it will take for people to wake up, for their lights to go off forever, for there to be no fuel for their cars, no heating in the winter, then can we make Microsoft pay taxes so we can find other means of energy?
. . . . I wonder, I really do wonder what it will take to correct the real problem and stop blaming the problem on a group of people.
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: February 12th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Suzanne; You bring up some interesting points. First and foremost, you speak of a “middle class”? What is this “middle class” exactly? I read about it in history books sometimes.
Large corporations do pay taxes. They simply don’t pay as high of a percentage. To pay no taxes, they would have to write off as much as they profit. Microsoft, and many other large corporations, turn huge profits and pay huge dividends to shareholders. To say they pay no taxes is, as I take it, hyperbole to express the fact that they pay a relatively small percentage.
This works well (in theory) because it promotes economic growth and is why the tax laws favor the wealthy. The idea is that if they pay less taxes, that’s more money they can plug into the economy. Right? That only works when they plug it into the U.S. economy, not exporting jobs, trading for foreign currency during favorable exchange rates, etc. So perhaps the problem isn’t the fact that the wealthy pay a smaller tax percentage, the problem is that they use their economic gains to benefit only themselves and economies outside the U.S. (i.e., at present, places like China, the Middle East, and the EU).
Perhaps the government should give some incentive for people to benefit the U.S. economy and gasoline alternatives. If I make textiles, why shouldn’t I increase my profits by sending my capital to Asia? What economic advantage do I have to pay workers $17 per hour when I could pay them $0.10 per hour? What economic advantage do I have to pay $20 per sheet of lumber when I could buy it and ship it from overseas for $10 per sheet?
Similarly, if I am a board member of a huge oil corporation, what economic advantages do I have abandoning my cash-cow industry for a, comparitively, incentiveless industry like alternative fuels?
The point is this: If, as a CEO, board member, shareholder, etc., there is no economic advantage (and there are actually economic disadvantages), why should they do something? To be sure, ethics come into play, but only so much. If your job is to increase profits, there’s a point where you say, “Look, I’d love to help the world for tomorrow, but I have to eat Today.”
I wonder what the difference is between blaming a group of people and simply stating logical inferences? That is to say, is it blaming someone when you are robbed and you testify against the robber? Likewise, is it blaming the liberals that drafted the declaration of independance? Or is it stating a logical inference that there were a group of men who disliked foreign, absolutist rule and thought liberalism to be the answer so they drafted a declaration of independance? I believe the case to be that you can blame liberal, progressive thinkers, as a whole; that is, as a stereotypical group for making part of the North American continent free from foreign, absolutist rule.
Making a stereotype is rational as long as it fits. If you say, “Most Republicans are pro-life,” the statement is correct as long as more than fifty percent of Republicans are pro-life. Just as, if you said, “Most environmentalists are morons,” that would be a rational statement, if in fact, more than fifty percent of environmentalists had been examined and had been found to be morons, i.e. defined as mildly retarted, or what the APA defines as a person having an IQ between 50-80 or so. I trust this is not true, because it would be difficult to conduct the sweeping changes, apparently as stated by Sean, that environmentalists have made in U.S. domestic policy if they were, as a majority, mildly retarded. After hearing such facts from Sean, I’m led to believe that environmentalists are poised to take over the world. Fear the Weapons of Mass Greenery!
A stereotype of a group might not be politically correct, or favorable, but it might very well be rational.
That is not to say that every case where someone plays the ‘Blame an ideology’ game they are correct. I’m only stating that there is a possibility, at times, that one could blame one particular ideology for certain actions.
Julian Says: February 13th, 2005 at 4:34 am
Hi Suzanne,
I don’t have time to try to answer all of the questions you posed. They are very good ones though – but my wife is yelling for me to come watch “Ray”, the movie, right now. I think that I agree with your basic point. Our economic system is unsustainable and loaded with inherent contradictions. For one thing, our dependance on oil is so great and the oil supply must, in principle, be a vanishing resource. There is strong evidence that oil production has already peaked. But consumption is expected to increase. Therefore, conflicts over access to oil will increase. I don’t think that the US is trying to steal the world’s oil supply outright, as others on this site seem to think I believe. I think that we want to control our access to oil resources, build the infrastructure to pump, refine it, and pay for it. But other entities are not going to cooperate as readily as they did in the past to grant us access to resources that they control or at least think that they have the right to control. Our needs, as an energy craving system, will continue to be a root cause of conflict and will motivate our geopolitical strategies. As China and “developing nations” ramp up their oil use and industrial ambitions, I fear that the problems and conflicts will grow exponentially. I genuinely wonder why it is so difficult for the Bush administration to have this conversation with us. The “demoscarey is on the march” stuff is such a thin veil, but plenty of folks keep buying it. Off to the movies now. Best to ya. J I also want to add that I thought that K.Marx’s answer to your question was elegant. I envy his (or her) clarity of reasoning.
Julian Says: February 13th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Suzanne, Is your primary point the same as the one explained at the following website? http://www.oiltruth.com/
Suzanne Says: February 14th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Good artical and some good research.
Yes, that is very close to what I was trying to explain. What do you think after reading that information?
Suzanne
Julian Says: February 14th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Hi Suzanne, The piece at oiltruth.com presents very disturbing information that should significantly change the parameters of debate. It puts the Hatfield vs McCoy contest between the Republicans and Democrats into a different, diminished framework; makes the DNC vs RNC sorts of political differences seem like children just bonking each other on the heads with nerf bats – their differences are just a joke that distracts us from the real problems that we face. The challenges that warrant the attention of serious people are not the petty, superficial squables that receive the most media attention. There are critical problems in the foundation of our economic system that are emerging as fundamental resources grow more scarce. The piece at oiltruth.com highlights one such problem.
Suzanne Says: February 15th, 2005 at 4:42 am
Very well said, Julian. I could not have written it as well as you just did.
You are so right, and what is so sad, there are few who will open their eyes to the truth. They are so brainwashed by the this government and the religious right, that even if the truth hit them on the head they would not see it.
It does warm my heart that at least you see the truth. Now, how do we go about getting others to pull their heads out of their xxxx and face the facts.
Any Ideas?
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: February 15th, 2005 at 7:43 am
Suzanne; A person is less open to enlightenment if they are first told, “to pull their heads out of their xxxx.”
Suzanne Says: February 15th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
You are 100% correct. I accept the correction.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: February 16th, 2005 at 2:02 am
A restated comment to Julian.
Very well said, Julian. I could not have written it as well as you just did.
You are so right, and what is so sad, there are few who will open their eyes to the truth. They are so brainwashed by the this government and the religious right, that even if the truth hit them on the head they would not see it.
It does warm my heart that at least you see the truth. Now, how do we go about getting others to at least consider that this information could be actually true?.
Any Ideas?
Suzanne
Circe Says: June 27th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
I just read an article reviewing Matthew (“Matt”) Simmons new book in which he suggests that the Saudis actually don’t have nearly as much oil left to pump as we were lead to believe. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy if Simmons is correct. Simmons is not a militant environmentalist or anti-oil partisan; he is Chairman and CEO of one of the nation’s leading oil-industry investment banks, Simmons & Company International. For decades, Simmons has been pouring billions of dollars into the energy business, financing the exploration and development of new oil reservoirs. The article is at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=3832 for those who wish to read it.