Can someone please explain the whole blood for oil/invade iran shit?

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

First of all I don't see the US getting any more oil from Iraq. Seems to me the rising oil prices and gouging is unrelated from oil in Iraq. Logically the fact they are selling more to us should bring oil prices down and if the oil companies wanted to raise prices artificially blaming Saddam seems like a better idea. The no bid Halliburton contracts are the problem, the oil money is going straight back into Iraq More then when Saddam was in power, sadly their government has not yet got a good plan to divide it.

Then there is the Iran thing. No one has suggested invading Iran. No one could win the votes needed to go into Iran. When McKain was asked about his Beach Boys parody joke a while back he replied "grow a sense of humour" You have to be a retard if you believe anyone has plans to invade Iran.

Every one knows Iran has nuclear capability, has been selling weapons, and allowing insurgent troops to skip the border. The most ANY politician has suggested is talks, and most are waiting it out as Ahmadinajad's party is losing favor with the people and the last time they held local elections they voted his party out in massive numbers (see a correlation?)

We should really focus on ISSUES, here. REAL ones not Bullshit Geggy and Rosie O'donnel make up.

[Sethomas]

In serious pre-war dialog, "blood for oil" was staw-man argument that conservatives could easily use because it made for a popular slogan among the unwashed masses who happened to be against war in general. At an anti-war rally I attended in Rockafellar Chapel, a decorated military specialist spoke at lengths about why war with Iraq was a bad idea. College Republicans asked him about "blood for oil", and he kindly referenced the fact that they were morons because he never said a word about oil.

I took the opinion, however, that the oil connection did exist but it was not a simple "Iraq has oil, let's take it" equation nor a large deciding factor in going to war--it was just icing on the cake. It was my estimation that the oil reserves would be manipulated in such a way that the price could easily be inflated within our borders while the supply didn't change for shit. I saw a sign for $3.19/gallon tonight. Oil was $0.95 on a pricey day where I live back in 2000. Do you think inflation accounts for that? Oil reserves? It's not about us stealing oil, it's about using the fact that Iraq has oil to misdirect for sake of more easily-manipulated domestic markets.

[Perndog]

Someone needs to tell that to all of the asshole hippies in my city then, because they've been bitching for the better part of four years about how oil is the entire reason for the war.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

They're all Republican plants.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

In serious pre-war dialog, "blood for oil" was staw-man argument that conservatives could easily use because it made for a popular slogan among the unwashed masses who happened to be against war in general. At an anti-war rally I attended in Rockafellar Chapel, a decorated military specialist spoke at lengths about why war with Iraq was a bad idea. College Republicans asked him about "blood for oil", and he kindly referenced the fact that they were morons because he never said a word about oil.

I took the opinion, however, that the oil connection did exist but it was not a simple "Iraq has oil, let's take it" equation nor a large deciding factor in going to war--it was just icing on the cake. It was my estimation that the oil reserves would be manipulated in such a way that the price could easily be inflated within our borders while the supply didn't change for shit. I saw a sign for $3.19/gallon tonight. Oil was $0.95 on a pricey day where I live back in 2000. Do you think inflation accounts for that? Oil reserves? It's not about us stealing oil, it's about using the fact that Iraq has oil to misdirect for sake of more easily-manipulated domestic markets.

That is a very intelligent post. I do believe i agree with it.

Obviously our US oil prices really screwed up. Iraq is now selling and producing MORE oil then ever befor yet the price goes up. I blame the fact the OPEC is essentially a bunch of companies entered into a pact to form a defacto monopololy. Sadly oil donates to BOTH parties so don't expect laws about it any time soon.

We are being fucked by this and the sad thing is I see no solution to our gas raping.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Courage the Cowardly Dog

That is a very intelligent post. I do believe i agree with it.

Obviously our US oil prices really screwed up. Iraq is now selling and producing MORE oil then ever befor yet the price goes up. I blame the fact the OPEC is essentially a bunch of companies entered into a pact to form a defacto monopololy. Sadly oil donates to BOTH parties so don't expect laws about it any time soon.

We are being fucked by this and the sad thing is I see no solution to our gas raping.

the price of oil is relatively static. the gasoline prices are going up. this has nothing to do with opec. you are a sped.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

okay so it's the refineries screwing us?
What's a sped?

[kahljorn]

I would also like an explanation of why gas prices are so high, when they used to be so low.

I just don't understand why gas prices should have increased. There's no causal connection between the war in Iraq and oil prices -- or there shouldn't be any, legitimately. Unless it caused a problem with US foreign trade relations. Or if it's just some type of general economic problem that just happens to influence gas prices. Maybe gas prices were rising before the Iraq war, and I am just assuming that they supposedly have a connection -- that could be a possibility.
Do wars always make gas prices go up? is it basically a tax? has gas or oil gotten more expensive to produce/get? is there a lot less of it because of foreign trade relations? I don't really get it :O

[Preechr]

Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are just now getting up the record high set in 1981. The American government is imperialistic when it meddles in the affairs of other countries, but meddling in the affairs of other countries is what kept oil prices so artificially LOW in the 80s & 90s. Since you guys aren't willing to go read things, I'll keep this pithy and you can just not believe it: Manipulating the oil market was a Cold War tactic used by us to fuck with the USSR and China. Now, we want China and the former Soviet States to grow and flourish, so we are starting to inch closer to paying full price at the pump.

If Exxon Mobil were to "refund" all of it's evil, heinous profit by way of lowering the pump prices for gas, you'd see about a nickel per gallon difference. If that happens, BTW, get ready for prices to double within a year... If you really must be mad at somebody about this relatively minor price adjustment* then start asking your elected officials to kindly remove some of the evil, heinous TAXES they add to each gallon you pump in your beater.

*Prices are set by the law of supply and demand. Once the price controls were removed the price of gas began to rise, and will do so until the demand begins to fall. That has not happened yet. When that day comes, the pump price will be fair. I predict it will look much more like $4 per gallon than today's $3, which is still less per unit than we pay for beverages.

[Archduke Tips]

Oil is not the issue.

War is ingrained in the hearts of mankind. We are all to blame for choosing a violent solution. It is the solution that we desire, and it is our trap because we can not let go of our selfish desires. The only thing that keeps us in this trap is that we are not willing to relax our grip and embrace a peaceful world.

My only hope is that we do use up every last drop of oil. Then we will be so desperate for energy that we will not be able to waste our resources on war anymore. Maybe then our great minds can be dedicated to something other than building war machines. Our natural resources can be used to propogate a sustainable future.

But more than likely we will just find new ways to use what little we have to kill eachother until there is nobody left to kill. We are on the path to self destruction, and it is because we continue to harbor the evil within ourselves.

The solution to our problem will not be found by looking towards science or politics. No manner of intelligence can overcome evil, and no slick talker can guide us from it. Every individual must look upon themself and accept their evils, then overcome them.

It only takes one act of evil to inspire more. It takes all of us to begin peace.

[kahljorn]

so basically the American relationship with Saudi Arabia/other countries made it possible for us to get low oil prices? and then other countries that we didn't like were basically paying for 2/3s of our gas -- that, and inflation?

taxes on gas that I've seen are only 36.5 cents. Maybe there is hidden trade taxes or something that isn't seen by the consumer...
i suspect gas prices will be at 4 dollars a gallon by the end of summer, especially if "Supply and Demand" is now in effect...

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

so basically the American relationship with Saudi Arabia/other countries made it possible for us to get low oil prices?

Basically, Ok yes. It's not as simple as they are our buddies, so we get better prices, though. When you say "relationship," think trade. We give them stuff and they give us stuff. We have many, many things to give where they have basically oil, sand and crazy. So, when we give more in trade than we need in oil, we can drive the price down on the oil we need.

When I talk about what we give, I'm not just talking about money or stuff. Our government offers security, protection and political influence, and that has a value. When our government offers these services to some rathole that cannot provide these things for itself sufficiently, all it has to give in return is more oil or a lower price on oil or a guarantee of supply... or also if the terms are sweet enough, an embargo against some other rathole we don't like.

Other trade scenarios with countries that also buy oil can include similar embargos against those ratholes we don't like, so not only could we buy loyalty from, say, Iran in our cold war with the USSR, we could also make an agreement with France that in exchange for a sweet package from us, France would refuse to buy oil from the Soviets. We could work those kind of deals with any commodity marketed by any of our enemies to weaken them. That's what cold war means. It's basically economic warfare.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

...and then other countries that we didn't like were basically paying for 2/3s of our gas -- that, and inflation?

Essentially yes. They weren't directly paying money to us as much as they were losing it in trade deals we shut them out of or otherwise influenced to our ends. They made financial alliances with other enemies of ours or with countries that didn't want to enter into trade alliances with us and thus became our enemies.

Let's leave inflation out of it for now, Ok? That's a financial constant that can also be manipulated similarly, but we're talking about variables, not constants right now.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

taxes on gas that I've seen are only 36.5 cents. Maybe there is hidden trade taxes or something that isn't seen by the consumer...

There are "hidden" corporate taxes, compliance costs, witholding taxes, SS and Medicare contributions, mandated expenses related to employee benefits, and countless other federal intrusions... not to mention state taxes and other strongarm, leeching tactics.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

i suspect gas prices will be at 4 dollars a gallon by the end of summer, especially if "Supply and Demand" is now in effect...

Could be.

[Preechr]

Russo, that's a neat way to go with the discussion. It's every decision we make on any level, whether an individual decision to wipe your butt after pooping or a UN sanction against Israel, valuable as either a decision based to some degree in both self-improvement and self-destruction?

Can war be waged in a destructive way to positive ends? Are good things worth fighting for? Further, if there can be a war that results in a better world for everybody left in it happens to also allow an opportunity for some opportunistic jackasses to hurt other people for profit, could we still be happy with a generally better thing having happened?

[kahljorn]

Well okay so that's the "Cold war trading" system in effect that thomas friedman always talks about, right?

[Preechr]

Allright Ok yes.

No wait not quite.

Fuck you Kahl.

[kahljorn]

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMY IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND

now that it's summer time Iwill finish reading that PM Barnett book

[Preechr]

I thought you finished that one already.

And, yes, it is, at least when you leave out the politics.

[kahljorn]

I had to read stuff for my classes so I never read it.

[Archduke Tips]

Preechr,
I just think that we are always trying to find scapegoats for why we are having problems. The government is just here to take the fall for the people, but it was the people who were motivated to go to war.
The American people don't like to accept responsibility for the decisions we make. We as a people are responsible for the actions of our nation, whether we admit it or not. It doesn't matter if you disagreed with the war. We are here, we are responsible, and we need to take the steps to clean up our mess.
This war is wrongly considered Bush's war. We can not maintain that mentallity and expect things to get better. This is OUR war.
Even if everyone understood that though, I think we would just continue to make it worse. We would almost be better if we were led by an intelligent dictator versus the dumb masses.

[Preechr]

Well, there is a middle way, young Anakin. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration will you find the word "Democracy." Despite the modern fawning over that ideal, the founders recognized Democracy for what it is: Mob Rule. Did you know there is no Constitutional "Right to Vote" for President, or that originally Senators were elected by the State Legislatures? Some State Constitutions established more Democratic voting rights, and the 17th Amendment made elections of Senators subject to popular vote, but in the beginning, when we still had a Republic, Mob Rule was something to be avoided.

Instead of a "benevolent dictator," wouldn't it be better to have a system where the President is selected by a few individuals from each state, each accountable and known to have brains in their skulls, each taking a nod from the popular opinion polls conducted in their home regions? What if our Legislative Branch was composed of two bodies, the larger the product of popular election where localities all had a voice, and the smaller represented the needs of the state governments themselves? You could probably find fault with that system, but can you at least recognize that form as being oriented against Democracy?

Any political system is subject to corruption. In a monarchy or dictatorship, all it takes is for one person to fall. In the original American system, we had two branches of the government composed of three groups of people that represented three very different "interest groups" that had a valid claim on how our federal government was run. Those three competitive bodies had to agree on the people that would make up the Third Branch, which was supposed to assure that all three points of view would be considered in the decisions of the Courts.

That system was the highest form of checks and balances delineated in the Constitution, and they were destroyed... to be replaced with the infection called "Democracy." At least when you have a dictatorship you run a slim chance of having a benevolent dictator. Under a system of Mob Rule, each citizen has a 100% chance of being imposed upon unfairly by her neighbor. "What is Right" is replaced by "What the People Want" and is quickly transformed in private to "What We can Sell Them."

Back to the original topic, a new set of laws is being passed right now that sets up an investigative body that is supposed to punish "Price Gouging" at the Exxon/Mobil corporate level. Price gouging has never been proven to have ever happened at that level... in fact, state studies show only rare instances at the level of the individual stations... but now "The People" and their irrational fears (based entirely in ignorance) have earned one more buttress against the Free Market System. Thanks to Democracy, we are quickly sliding into the brand of government known as Fascism, or government control of commerce at every level.

In fact, we may already be the most complex, advanced and mature version of Fascist government that can claim the name. I bet Mussolini would've jizzed at the opportunity to have been born a modern American. We have structured a society were "The People" want whatever they are told is best, and or government is subject only to "The Will of the People." So, basically, as long as you can secure a method for entertaining the masses and influencing them in some way, you have power. We are all potentially Caesar if we choose. That's the new American Dream, right?

[Girl Drink Drunk]

Oh come on
Close the city and tell the people that something's coming to call
Death and darkness are rushing forward to take a bite from the wall, oh

You've nothing to say
They're breaking away
If you listen to fools
The mob rules
The mob rules

Kill the spirit and you'll be blinded, the end is always the same
Play with fire, you burn your fingers and lose your hold of the flame, oh

It's over, it's done
The ending began
If you listen to fools
The mob rules

You've nothing to say
Oh, they're breaking away
If you listen to fools

Break the circle and stop the movement, the wheel is thrown to the ground
Just remember it might start rolling and take you right back around

You're all fools, fools, fools, fools
The mob rules

[kahljorn]

This thread has been taken directly from Plato's republic :O :O :O :O :O :O :O

seriously though fuck democracy. I posted that story in the other thread in which the University of Maryland did a study to find out what people knew about the person they had voted in. The Majority of Bush voters didn't know his stance on any of the chosen issues. Probably the only things they knew were, "HE HATES GAYS AND ABORTION AND HES A GOOD CHRISTIAN."

"PLUS HE FIGHTS WAR ON TERRORZ!"

[Sethomas]

One of my old professors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elshtain) gave us a writing prompt to argue what Saint Augustine would have to say about establishing an intelligence-based meritocracy in a hypothetical advanced society. I dislike the idea on aesthetic grounds, but damned if it probably wouldn't work wonderfully. I opted for a different prompt, though.