Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground

In article
<5702aafc-372e-4272-b41f-16e27d62adb3@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The top two providers of oil to the US are Canada and Saudi Arabia.
> Mexico's third.

Well, since the turn of the millennium, it seems suppliers change places
in the list a couple of times a year. Before Chavez, for instance,
Venezuela was the number one foreign supplier to the US.

As of this month:

1. Canada
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Mexico
4. Nigeria
5. Venezuela
6. Iraq

> The question posed in the AlterNet post is ridiculous.
> The US didn't invade Iraq in order to exercise some control over world
> oil supply and prices.

When you put it that way, I think your conclusion is obviously incorrect.

A good case can be made that OIF was, indeed, initiated in part to
"exercise some control over world oil supplies,"--though the pricing
issue is far too complex to predict--OIF was no guarantee for future
pricing.

For certain, none of the planners or advocates of OIF were blind to what
it would mean to oil supplies to the West, nor what it might do for
pricing in general.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
In article <cognac756-BF10E1.19563916042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and
> > > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized
> > > (stolen) the company.
> > >
> > Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts
> > out of your ass again?
>
>
> "But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.
> Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a
> statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for
> reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas
> station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to
> break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax
> incentives for oil companies."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020
> 100714.html
>
Hmmm, smellin a snow job here, let's take them one by one. So you think
rolling back unnecessary tax incentives equates to "demanding the right to
set profits and salaries." I don't think soooo! You yourself said the "only"
way to set profits and salaries is to nationalize the oil industry. You're
parroting hate-talk radio and you sound like an idiot.
 
I stand corrected....Saddam actually made 2,951 barrels for one
year(1989).

Who was better on average?
http://tinyurl.com/46n5o2

Let's see, just off the top of my head:
Saddam avg 1.5 mbpd(1980 - 2002)
US avg 2.0 mbpd (2004 - 2007)
Note: 2008 expected to be between 2.5 - 3.0 mbpd.

[Again, Conspiracy debunked]

Good day to you sir.
 
On Apr 16, 8:28 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I stand corrected....Saddam actually made 2,951 barrels for one
> year(1989).
>
> Who was better on average?http://tinyurl.com/46n5o2
>
> Let's see, just off the top of my head:
> Saddam avg 1.5 mbpd(1980 - 2002)
> US avg 2.0 mbpd (2004 - 2007)
> Note: 2008 expected to be between 2.5 - 3.0 mbpd.
>
> [Again, Conspiracy debunked]
>
> Good day to you sir.

Some experts believe Iraq has as much or more oil than Saudi Arabia
which is capable of producing at 15 million/barrels per day, or more,
and if the Bush family would leave them alone, they might be able to
do that someday.
 
"Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground?"




JUST UNTIL ... the world's biggest "oil companies" have prepared their
bids to compete for drilling licenses to be awarded by Iraq to explore
SIX BIG OIL FIELDS!

This development is the final part of the answer to the question:
"WHEN WILL OUR TROOPS BE COMING HOME?"

ANSWER: MOSTLY NEVER -- as long as the oil holds out.

------------------------------
"Iraq to Open Oil-Field Bidding"

"Big Companies to Compete for Exploration, Production Rights"

By Jonathan Stearns and Glen Carey
Bloomberg News
Thursday, April 17, 2008; D06



Iraq will open at least six major oil and natural-gas fields for
exploration and production in the first bidding for licenses since the
U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Iraq, which pre-qualified international oil companies this week for
the bidding, will open the southern fields of Rumaila North, Rumaila
South, West Qurna and Zubair for exploration, Oil Minister Hussain al-
Shahristani said in an interview in Brussels yesterday. In the north,
international oil companies will be invited to develop the Kirkuk oil
field and the Akkaz gas field.

"At least six giant fields will be included, including some gas
fields," Shahristani said. "There will be other bid rounds next year,
and more companies will be qualified as we go along."

Iraq aims to nearly double oil production to 4 million barrels a day
in the coming years with the help of international companies, many of
which have refused to invest in the country because of a lack of
security and the lack of a federal energy law. No legislation has been
passed because of disagreements over revenue sharing and oil-field
development.

Iraq pre-qualified 35 of 120 U.S., European and Asian companies that
submitted documents between Jan. 9 and Feb. 18 to participate in the
licensing round, Oil Ministry spokesman Asim Jihad said Monday.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, and Europe's two
biggest, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were among the 35, as were
ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Others included Russia's Gazprom,
the world's largest natural-gas producer, and Lukoil, the Russian oil
producer with the most overseas assets. Mitsubishi and Inpex Holding
of Japan and China's Sinochem were also accepted.

The southern oil fields up for exploration have a production capacity
of 1.71 million barrels a day and as much as 43 billion barrels in
estimated reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Kirkuk has a production capacity of 250,000 barrels a
day and reserves of 10 billion barrels.

Iraq produced 2.38 million barrels of oil a day in March, according to
data compiled by Bloomberg. The nation has an estimated 115 billion
barrels of proven oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Iran,
according to BP figures.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is visiting Brussels, told
the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that the
government is close to completing an agreement on an oil and gas law.

This would help with the country's economic development, Maliki said
without providing more information. He also called for more
cooperation on energy with Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603115.html
 
"Drooler" <perryneheum@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb8a4c83-b5a0-4a2b-80f8-d5e3aedbf1df@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> "Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground?"
>
>
> JUST UNTIL ... the world's biggest "oil companies" have
> prepared their
> bids to compete for drilling licenses to be awarded by
> Iraq to explore
> SIX BIG OIL FIELDS!

Given the corruption in Iraq, and the country's occupation
by Bush's oil Nazis, do you really think the Iraqi or
American people can count on the government to select oil
companies based on anything except who pays the best bribes
and/or makes the most intimating threats?

And then when they do get the contracts, how do we know they
won't restrict production like they did before?

Iraq is supposed to have an election coming up in the near
future. If Bush and his puppet government in Iraq were
honest, they would put the issue of whether Iraq should
privatize its oil on the ballot.

>
> This development is the final part of the answer to the
> question:
> "WHEN WILL OUR TROOPS BE COMING HOME?"
>
> ANSWER: MOSTLY NEVER -- as long as the oil holds out.
>
> ------------------------------
> "Iraq to Open Oil-Field Bidding"
>
> "Big Companies to Compete for Exploration, Production
> Rights"
>
> By Jonathan Stearns and Glen Carey
> Bloomberg News
> Thursday, April 17, 2008; D06
>
>
>
> Iraq will open at least six major oil and natural-gas
> fields for
> exploration and production in the first bidding for
> licenses since the
> U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
>
> Iraq, which pre-qualified international oil companies this
> week for
> the bidding, will open the southern fields of Rumaila
> North, Rumaila
> South, West Qurna and Zubair for exploration, Oil Minister
> Hussain al-
> Shahristani said in an interview in Brussels yesterday. In
> the north,
> international oil companies will be invited to develop the
> Kirkuk oil
> field and the Akkaz gas field.
>
> "At least six giant fields will be included, including
> some gas
> fields," Shahristani said. "There will be other bid rounds
> next year,
> and more companies will be qualified as we go along."
>
> Iraq aims to nearly double oil production to 4 million
> barrels a day
> in the coming years with the help of international
> companies, many of
> which have refused to invest in the country because of a
> lack of
> security and the lack of a federal energy law. No
> legislation has been
> passed because of disagreements over revenue sharing and
> oil-field
> development.
>
> Iraq pre-qualified 35 of 120 U.S., European and Asian
> companies that
> submitted documents between Jan. 9 and Feb. 18 to
> participate in the
> licensing round, Oil Ministry spokesman Asim Jihad said
> Monday.
>
> Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, and Europe's
> two
> biggest, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were among the 35, as
> were
> ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Others included
> Russia's Gazprom,
> the world's largest natural-gas producer, and Lukoil, the
> Russian oil
> producer with the most overseas assets. Mitsubishi and
> Inpex Holding
> of Japan and China's Sinochem were also accepted.
>
> The southern oil fields up for exploration have a
> production capacity
> of 1.71 million barrels a day and as much as 43 billion
> barrels in
> estimated reserves, according to the U.S. Energy
> Information
> Administration. Kirkuk has a production capacity of
> 250,000 barrels a
> day and reserves of 10 billion barrels.
>
> Iraq produced 2.38 million barrels of oil a day in March,
> according to
> data compiled by Bloomberg. The nation has an estimated
> 115 billion
> barrels of proven oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia
> and Iran,
> according to BP figures.
>
> Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is visiting
> Brussels, told
> the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that
> the
> government is close to completing an agreement on an oil
> and gas law.
>
> This would help with the country's economic development,
> Maliki said
> without providing more information. He also called for
> more
> cooperation on energy with Europe.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603115.html
 
> and if the US would just leave them alone, they might
Just decide to wipe themselves out Balkens style.

<snip morally paralyzed relativist bs that fails to take reality into
account>
 
<snip al Qaeda wannabe Figaro>
>
> This is an appallingly stupid idea.
So it would be better for if the Iraqi government just turned down
Israeli money? [How are they going to buy food for their people?]
>
> Piping oil from Iraq to Israel
> would inflame the Muslim world like nothing you've ever seen before.
The Iraqi government doesn't seem that angry....
>
> It would cement the view that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil and
> that the U.S. is an occupier, diverting resources from Arab lands to
> the hated Israelis over the objections of virtually all Arabs.
No, because the American government isn't the one that made that deal.
[Iraqi government did]
>
> How could anyone propose something so dumb?
Would you have had the American government nix this deal and tell the
Iraqis that they can't deal with Israel?

Good day to you, sir.
 
In article
<7449d12f-bd26-4381-abc3-5000780ed54b@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 9:12
 
In article <MPG.22704d1f79c7ab9198a19e@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

> In article <cognac756-BF10E1.19563916042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> cognac756@gmail.com says...
> > In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and
> > > > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized
> > > > (stolen) the company.
> > > >
> > > Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts
> > > out of your ass again?
> >
> >
> > "But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.
> > Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a
> > statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for
> > reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas
> > station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to
> > break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax
> > incentives for oil companies."
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020
> > 100714.html
> >
> Hmmm, smellin a snow job here, let's take them one by one. So you think
> rolling back unnecessary tax incentives equates to "demanding the right to
> set profits and salaries." I don't think soooo! You yourself said the "only"
> way to set profits and salaries is to nationalize the oil industry. You're
> parroting hate-talk radio and you sound like an idiot.

What tax incentives, dummy? Exxon paid over $30 billion in US taxes last
year. That's about a 41% rate.

If the "tax incentives" are removed, does that mean that your government
can then take 75%?

What Democrats and socialists abhor is when the horse wins the race,
even though they've hitched a giant railroad car filled with 100 tons of
concrete to his back.

The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
of gas.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
In article <cognac756-943B0F.15283218042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.22704d1f79c7ab9198a19e@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <cognac756-BF10E1.19563916042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > cognac756@gmail.com says...
> > > In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and
> > > > > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized
> > > > > (stolen) the company.
> > > > >
> > > > Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts
> > > > out of your ass again?
> > >
> > >
> > > "But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.
> > > Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a
> > > statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for
> > > reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas
> > > station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to
> > > break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax
> > > incentives for oil companies."
> > >
> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020
> > > 100714.html
> > >
> > Hmmm, smellin a snow job here, let's take them one by one. So you think
> > rolling back unnecessary tax incentives equates to "demanding the right to
> > set profits and salaries." I don't think soooo! You yourself said the "only"
> > way to set profits and salaries is to nationalize the oil industry. You're
> > parroting hate-talk radio and you sound like an idiot.
>
> What tax incentives, dummy? Exxon paid over $30 billion in US taxes last
> year. That's about a 41% rate.
>
> If the "tax incentives" are removed, does that mean that your government
> can then take 75%?
>
> What Democrats and socialists abhor is when the horse wins the race,
> even though they've hitched a giant railroad car filled with 100 tons of
> concrete to his back.
>
> The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
> government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
> of gas.
>
>
I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's
the best one available. I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
however.

What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for
the ****ing oil companies. All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from
the Middle East. It's only the oil companies and defense contractors
that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq.

Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they
in fact didn't get any:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> >
> > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
> > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
> > of gas.
> >
> >
> I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's
> the best one available.

Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system.

It's the only system that is what you make of it.

If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame.

> I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
> however.

Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert
Speer.

To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you
use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies.

You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist
of them all...
>
> What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for
> the ****ing oil companies.

Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care?
What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their
successes?

Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough
food if it weren't for oil.

You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your
computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets
you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the
summer.

Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil.

Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that
it?

Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you.

> All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from
> the Middle East.

You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States
buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were
shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in
availability and supplies.

Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to
believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this
doctrine for the United States:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force
to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such
an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980)

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml

What does he know that you don't?

> It's only the oil companies and defense contractors
> that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq.

Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to
rectify the mess it caused her.

But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American
anymore, and hasn't been for some time now.

The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany),
Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group
(Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK),
Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil
and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech
Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US).

As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner:

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg

> Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they
> in fact didn't get any:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay
record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to
continue safeguarding U.S. energy security."

---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp.

From your posted article which you didn't read.

They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes:

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm

It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get
worse. Just look who's running for office this year.

Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in
your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make
these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing
Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had
anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index.

And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there
is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be
here.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
In article <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, cognac756@gmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
> > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
> > > of gas.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's
> > the best one available.
>
> Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system.
>
> It's the only system that is what you make of it.
>
> If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame.
>
> > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
> > however.
>
> Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert
> Speer.

Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you.
>
> To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you
> use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies.
>
> You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist
> of them all...
> >
> > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for
> > the ****ing oil companies.
>
> Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care?
> What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their
> successes?
>
I'm tired of the US wasting all my tax money to kill Iraqi's. The ONLY
reason we're there is to help oil companies and defense contractors.
No one else benefits. The Middle East would sell the oil anyway, it's
their only export of any consequence.

Then we have Exxon funding junk science to deny global warming just so
it can make more money. What a worthless bunch of criminals.

>
> Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough
> food if it weren't for oil.
>
> You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your
> computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets
> you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the
> summer.
>
> Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil.
>
Nice straw man argument
> Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that
> it?
>
> Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you.
>
> > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from
> > the Middle East.
>
> You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States
> buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were
> shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in
> availability and supplies.

Oil is a world market, dumbass. This just proves how ignorant you are.
Don't you think someone would say, "Hey, we can get three times more
for our oil in Europe. What are we selling it here for??" Good God you
are a dumb ****!!
>
> Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to
> believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this
> doctrine for the United States:
>
> "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force
> to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
> assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such
> an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
> force."
> ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980)
>
> http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
>
> What does he know that you don't?
>
Little did he know we would be the ones to attack the Middle East.
His doctrine at least makes sense. What if Russia or China were dumb
enough (like you and Bush) to attack the Middle East and steal their
oil? That's not the same as condoning us doing it. You really are
retarded.

>
> > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors
> > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq.
>
> Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to
> rectify the mess it caused her.
>
> But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American
> anymore, and hasn't been for some time now.
>
> The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany),
> Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group
> (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK),
> Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil
> and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech
> Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US).
>
> As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner:
>
> http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg
>
> > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they
> > in fact didn't get any:
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
> "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay
> record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to
> continue safeguarding U.S. energy security."
>
> ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp.
>
> From your posted article which you didn't read.
>
> They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes:
>
> http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm
>
> It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get
> worse. Just look who's running for office this year.
>
> Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in
> your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make
> these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing
> Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had
> anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index.
>
> And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there
> is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be
> here.
>
>
Congratulations on knowing more than working scientists in the field. How
did you come to this conclusion? Quija board?
 
In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

> In article <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> cognac756@gmail.com says...
> > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
> > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
> > > > of gas.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's
> > > the best one available.
> >
> > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system.
> >
> > It's the only system that is what you make of it.
> >
> > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame.
> >
> > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
> > > however.
> >
> > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert
> > Speer.
>
> Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you.

Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It
will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism.

Which, of course, you can't.
> >
> > To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you
> > use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies.
> >
> > You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist
> > of them all...
> > >
> > > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for
> > > the ****ing oil companies.
> >
> > Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care?
> > What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their
> > successes?
> >
> I'm tired of the US wasting all my tax money to kill Iraqi's.

The US only wastes a small fraction of your money on OIF, silly. It's
only a small part of the federal budget. Maybe you should look into some
of these things before you blindly flail away at them and get so "tired."

In fact, the actual amount wasted on Iraq has never been identified,
since any meaningful figure would subtract the pre-war status quo.

It turns out that before OIF, there were already 30,000 troops stationed
in the Gulf region--they were there "containing" the harmless little
Saddam Hussein, who, after all, only wanted to sell his oil to the
world. US and UK fighter planes flew hundreds of sorties over Iraq every
month--yes not much has changed. So the actual costs are still unknown.

> The ONLY
> reason we're there is to help oil companies and defense contractors.
> No one else benefits. The Middle East would sell the oil anyway, it's
> their only export of any consequence.
>
> Then we have Exxon funding junk science to deny global warming just so
> it can make more money. What a worthless bunch of criminals.

It doesn't surprise us that you can't identify the criminals, either.
Nor, apparently, can you discern science from "junk" science, whatever
that is.

No wonder you're so angry. Unable to identify friend from foe, ignorant
of even basic terms and historical context, you wildly attack anything
and everything.

> > Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough
> > food if it weren't for oil.
> >
> > You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your
> > computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets
> > you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the
> > summer.
> >
> > Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil.
> >
> Nice straw man argument

Thanks.

> > Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that
> > it?
> >
> > Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you.
> >
> > > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from
> > > the Middle East.
> >
> > You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States
> > buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were
> > shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in
> > availability and supplies.
>
> Oil is a world market, dumbass. This just proves how ignorant you are.
> Don't you think someone would say, "Hey, we can get three times more
> for our oil in Europe. What are we selling it here for??" Good God you
> are a dumb ****!!

That's not a good Straw Man Argument, but it does qualify.
> >
> > Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to
> > believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this
> > doctrine for the United States:
> >
> > "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force
> > to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
> > assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such
> > an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
> > force."
> > ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980)
> >
> > http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
> >
> > What does he know that you don't?
> >
> Little did he know we would be the ones to attack the Middle East.
> His doctrine at least makes sense.

In what way?--please elaborate.

> What if Russia or China were dumb
> enough (like you and Bush) to attack the Middle East and steal their
> oil?

Same thing that happened to Saddam Hussein, of course.

But then, neither Russia nor China have the means to "attack the Middle
East." Nor does the United States, which is why we only assisted in the
consolidation of Afghanistan and invaded only Iraq.

Any more than that, and you might have a point about having to sacrifice
for the war effort. At that point you actually would be sacrificing
something for it.

You haven't until now, though.

What if, rather than an actual attack, a loose confederation of
governments and non-governmental organizations were attempting to bring
the entire Middle East under a single totalitarian system? Would that
constitute a serious threat? Would that trigger the Carter Doctrine?

Would you want to wait to do something definitive about it--would you
wait, for instance, until you DID have to literally invade the Middle
East?

> That's not the same as condoning us doing it. You really are
> retarded.

Retarded or not, it's you who doesn't seem to have a grasp of any of the
facts of the matter.

> > > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors
> > > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq.
> >
> > Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to
> > rectify the mess it caused her.
> >
> > But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American
> > anymore, and hasn't been for some time now.
> >
> > The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany),
> > Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group
> > (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK),
> > Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil
> > and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech
> > Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US).
> >
> > As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner:
> >
> > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg
> >
> > > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they
> > > in fact didn't get any:
> > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
> >
> > "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay
> > record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to
> > continue safeguarding U.S. energy security."
> >
> > ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp.
> >
> > From your posted article which you didn't read.
> >
> > They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes:
> >
> > http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm
> >
> > It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get
> > worse. Just look who's running for office this year.
> >
> > Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in
> > your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make
> > these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing
> > Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had
> > anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index.
> >
> > And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there
> > is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be
> > here.
> >
> >
> Congratulations on knowing more than working scientists in the field. How
> did you come to this conclusion? Quija board?

There aren't any scientists still claiming that there's a "global
warming" trend.

There isn't one.

The global temperature index has been completely flat for a decade now.

As for Carbon Dioxide, Amen--this trace gas in our atmosphere was
/never/ shown to be a primary cause for the slight rise in the global
temperature index over the last century. Of course, forcing was a
partial cause of the slight increase, but man's contribution to this
trace gas was never thought to be more than background noise to natural
temperature fluctuation, anyway.

Besides, only half of the Carbon Dioxide, Amen, that man releases into
the troposphere actually ends up there. "Science" can't even determine
for certain what happens to the other half.

In any event, you're only talking about an increase from 0.03% by volume
to 0.04%, over a 250 year period, for crying out loud.

IPCC isn't composed of scientists, and what they do at IPCC isn't
science, anyway.

A cursory reading of the protocol for the UNCCC is quite enough to
determine THAT.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
On Apr 19, 8:42 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
> > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
> > > of gas.
>
> > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's
> > the best one available.
>
> Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system.
>
> It's the only system that is what you make of it.
>
> If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame.
>
> > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
> > however.
>
> Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert
> Speer.
>
> To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you
> use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies.
>
> You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist
> of them all...
>
>
>
> > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for
> > the ****ing oil companies.
>
> Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care?
> What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their
> successes?
>
> Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough
> food if it weren't for oil.
>
> You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your
> computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets
> you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the
> summer.
>
> Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil.
>
> Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that
> it?
>
> Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you.
>
> > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from
> > the Middle East.
>
> You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States
> buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were
> shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in
> availability and supplies.
>
> Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to
> believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this
> doctrine for the United States:
>
> "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force
> to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
> assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such
> an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
> force."
> ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980)
>
> http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
>
> What does he know that you don't?
>
> > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors
> > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq.
>
> Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to
> rectify the mess it caused her.
>
> But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American
> anymore, and hasn't been for some time now.
>
> The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany),
> Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group
> (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK),
> Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil
> and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech
> Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US).
>
> As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner:
>
> http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg
>
> > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they
> > in fact didn't get any:
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenew...
>
> "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay
> record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to
> continue safeguarding U.S. energy security."
>
> ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp.
>
> From your posted article which you didn't read.
>
> They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes:
>
> http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm
>
> It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get
> worse. Just look who's running for office this year.
>
> Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in
> your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make
> these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing
> Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had
> anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index.
>
> And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there
> is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be
> here.
>
> --
> NeoLibertarian
>
> http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg


You libertarians and your sanguine views of everything from the
economy to the environment really crack me up. Whether or not
capitalism is a "crappy" system, it has been guilty of a litany of
sins that were rectified only through government intervention, e.g.,
child labor, workers rights, workplace safety, air pollution, water
pollution, motor vehicle safety, wildlife protection, to name a very
few. Were corporations allowed to continue disdaining anything that
threatened their profit margins, we might all be dead now.

No such thing as global warming? That is truly idiotic. Even
scientists who doubt that it's anthropogenic (and there are very few
of those) acknowledge that it's happening.
 
In article <cognac756-18AAE6.13494819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, cognac756@gmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > cognac756@gmail.com says...
> > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal
> > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank
> > > > > of gas.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's
> > > > the best one available.
> > >
> > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system.
> > >
> > > It's the only system that is what you make of it.
> > >
> > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame.
> > >
> > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
> > > > however.
> > >
> > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert
> > > Speer.
> >
> > Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you.
>
> Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It
> will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism.
>
> Which, of course, you can't.

Ten Signs of Fascism:

1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people.
2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system.
3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will.
4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people.
5. Harass citizens groups.
6. Arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Dissent = Treason.
10. Martial law.

All looking like part of the Bush game plan.
 
In article <MPG.227505684ee81b5898a1c2@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

> In article <cognac756-18AAE6.13494819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> cognac756@gmail.com says...
> > In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > cognac756@gmail.com says...
> > > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the
> > > > > > federal
> > > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50
> > > > > > tank
> > > > > > of gas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but
> > > > > it's
> > > > > the best one available.
> > > >
> > > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system.
> > > >
> > > > It's the only system that is what you make of it.
> > > >
> > > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you,
> > > > > however.
> > > >
> > > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert
> > > > Speer.
> > >
> > > Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you.
> >
> > Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It
> > will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism.
> >
> > Which, of course, you can't.
>
> Ten Signs of Fascism:
>
> 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people.
> 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system.
> 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will.
> 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people.
> 5. Harass citizens groups.
> 6. Arbitrary detention and release.
> 7. Target key individuals.
> 8. Control the press.
> 9. Dissent = Treason.
> 10. Martial law.

You're just walking father out on the plank of your own making.

Nothing in your "list" is particular to fascism, dummy.

This is the internet age. Your excuses don't exist anymore.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 

Similar threads

A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
M
XEVIL 6: the best software for captcha solving is available !!
Replies
0
Views
125
MaryIntork0176
M
M
XEvil 6.0 [Beta-8]: the best application for ReCaptcha and hCaptcha solving is available !
Replies
0
Views
206
MaryIntork2556
M
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
Back
Top