Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
It really is about oil: The Resource Wars have begun
This speaks for itself: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece .
This has been a straight up resource war. Except for all the lying to convince us it was necessary.
This has been a straight up resource war. Except for all the lying to convince us it was necessary.
Comments
I don't know why so many people jump all over American oil companies. There is no more Standard Oil. A vast majority of the oil in the world is controlled by nations and not oil companies.
So they get to keep 20% rather than 10% of the profits... big deal! Do you know how much profit banks make every year on money that is borrowed from your bank account? How much does Visa make every year in profits as a percentage?
The only reason "Big" oil is seen to make huge profits is because they are so huge! If you make ten cents on every dollar of sales you are making a 10% profit. So, why is making $10B off of sales of $100B so wrong?
Initial condition: Iraq owns its oil. American companies own 0% of that oil.
Final condition: American companies own 75% of that oil until they "recoup" costs. How long will that take? I think the companies will be in charge of defining when they recoup their costs. They own double what companies usually own after that.
Sounds like a takeover to me.
Your argument about Visa is irrelevant.
As for profit, the point is not that they will make a profit. The point is they owned nothing before. Now they will own at the least double the industry average. They have gained assets. How did they gain those assets? Through a war for resources.
When a government runs the entire operation you have far more corruption and waste than when a government watches over a private company doing the same work. Sort of the "takes a thief" mentality at work.
The Iraq government will want their fair cut of the oil money and they WILL get it. I do not think they will tolerate an American oil company cooking the books to avoid paying money.
This is not that big of a deal and profit is not a bad thing!
Do you have an alternate (and realistic) plan for Iraq to upgrade it's oil infrastructure?
Also, you say that Iraq owned 100% of it's oil money in the past... Are you trying to tell me that the oil money was given to every Iraqi? Are you saying the revenue was used for the "good of the people"??? Ever hear of the Iraq/UN oil for food scandal? Where do you think Saddam got the money to build palaces all over the country with gold plated bath fixtures?
Iraq won't tolerate what? What can they do?
I agree that profit is not a bad thing. Stealing a country's resources through war is a bad thing.
I don't have a plan for Iraq to upgrade it's infrastructure. Mainly because it's supposed to be THEIRS. I'm sure Scrym doesn't have a plan to change the power steering fluid in my car. Why would he? It's mine.
Owayt - Iran has the same problem, you say? Are they next then?
If the war was over oil then the American companies would be claiming the 75% rate for ever!
Me: Scott, please pay my Visa bill.
Scott: Why, whatever for?
Me: If you don't, I will be in serious financial trouble
Scott: HA HA. You can die in a fire, because I don't care.
Similarly, who cares if Iraq would be in trouble? It's their trouble. Any deleterious affect we might have felt would have been better mitigated through aid, diplomacy, or some such.
As for the companies claiming 75% forever - they get to say when they "recoup" their costs.
Oil supplies matter to the entire world! One of the reasons Japan jumped into WW2 was because we were getting ready to cut off their oil and scrap metal shipments!
No man is an island! Are you so naive as to think otherwise?
The 1941 U.S. embargo cut off a substantial portion of Japan's resources, crippled their economy, and threatened to cripple their military. The Japanese government viewed the embargo as an act of war. Nothing like that can be said to have happened in the U.S./Iraq situation.
Deleterious world economic effects caused by one country can be solved in more efficient ways than resource wars.
Say, why was Somalia bombed? Weren't they just beginning to become stable again? We can't let them do that! They might want to keep their oil for themselves! More oil shenanigans: http://www.alternet.org/story/46424/ and http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivejuly/000922601.htm
The oil conspiracy is also silly, considering that the oil companies have profited from both limited supply and higher demand. Introducing a new source of cheap crude would mean plummeting pump prices, which would have an adverse affect on the record profit reports we've seen in the past two years. Why would they give up this edge?
If you want to understand the real conspiracy behind Iraq, here it is: GWB was seeking to procure a lasting presidential legacy by wiping up an old foe over an existing problem that was causing the UN some headaches. He thought it was a safe target. He also believed -- and for a very brief time did, in fact -- that he had the support of both Congress and the public. But he's not so great with the foreign policy, jumped a few steps. He thought he'd be able to wrap up Iraq within a five-year span and claim success during a two-term stay in the Whitehouse, further shoring up the Republican power base.
That's when things went wrong.
In the end, the Iraq War will be remembered not as some wacky blood for oil campaign by crooked business men, but a failed political gambit piggy-backed on the new-century obsession with terrorism. Bush will be remembered as a modern Nixon, who tried to fear-monger his party's way into the hearts of America but painfully misjudged public sentiment. It was about power, not money.
I can tell you from experience that, in the normal course of events, this is enough probable cause (a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the crime) for an indictment.
Reliance on circumstantial evidence is not necessarily enough to cause an argument to fail. The prosecution needed to rely on circumstantial evidence in most of he criminal trials I've defended. In voir dire they usually say something along the lines of: "If you wake up in the morning and see there's snow on the ground, then you can reasonably conclude that it snowed during the night." The mere fact the the conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence does not make it false. Also, please remember we use a reasonable doubt standard of proof in criminal cases (there are even more forgiving standards in civil cases, such as "preponderance of the evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence"), not the mathematical or scientific proof we've spoken of here in this forum. Sadly, I've see many criminal defendants convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
So, I think that there is probable cause to call shenanigans.
Finally, even if I can be persuaded that I am wrong, I like to cling to the belief (as some like to cling to a belief in a supernatural being) that the President is smarter than he seems. I'm actually a lot happier thinking he's a scheming bastard than being scared he doesn't know what he's doing.
In addition, the fact that the world might need an additional 50m barrels per day by 2010 does not mean we do not have those resources; it means we are not producing those resources. Though it is definitely a finite resource, it is still an artificially inflated one, as oil companies make conscious decisions to limit supply in a high-demand economy to boost the prices.
You've still failed to address why any oil company would be willing to flood the market with new, cheap oil from Iraq, as it would mean falling pump prices (due to the inversely proportionate relationship between supply and demand). That is an illogical business model.
No. There is nothing circular about my actual statements. I never said my suspicions were true. I said that I believe my suspicions constitue probable cause. Probable cause is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt just as proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not mathematical proof. I've seen guys spend time in jail for the same probable cause or less. For instance, I had a client once who was a chronic ne'er do well. He was in and out for a lot of petty stuff. One morning he called me and said he was in and needed me to come get him out. I went to arraignment court, found his jacket, looked at the citation, and I could see before I read it he was in big trouble - they took the time to TYPE the citation. It turned out that a guy was shot the night before. Someone said they heard a guy say that "Red" was the shooter. My guy's nickname (one of them, anyway) was "Red", so he was tracked down and arrested. He was subsequently indicted for murder. He spent a year and a half in pre-trial confinement before it turned out through further investigation that another "Red" was the shooter and the case was dismissed. To be fair, I started with a strong statement, but it still doesn't mean that I believe it's true. Suspicious yes - very, very suspicious. As in when you find one morning that the door to the chicken coop is open and there are dead chickens littering the floor you can be very suspicious that a fox got in last night.
Read the Cheney qoute again. "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said." More suspicious still.
Just as the grand jury did not need eyewitness evidence to indict Red, I do not have to "address why any oil company would be willing to flood the market with new, cheap oil from Iraq". That sort of evidence might arise through further investigation. Personally, I don't think the new oil from Iraq would be cheap. I have a strong suspicion that the Hubert peak has been reached or will soon be reached and that new oil from Iraq would be replenishing contemporary supply level, not substantially add to them. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1682899.htm
Cheney's statement is true, the easiest oil to get lies in the Middle East. Not the MOST oil but the EASIEST oil to get.
As to flooding the market with cheap oil... Why would anyone want to flood the market with a product when they can get more money for it by NOT flooding the market? Have you never heard of the diamond market?
Peak oil is years and years away. Peak oil in regards to "easy to get oil" may be close at hand though. I, however, am not a geologist and not qualified to speak on that subject.
I said - it turned out not to be my "Red". He wasn't found not guilty. The cops actually found another guy. Also, the mere fact that a person has had problems in the past doesn't make it any more or less likely that he committed a new crime. A person's criminal history may be used to show motive, knowledge, absence of mistake and such under FRE 404(b) and KRE 404(b), but it specifically may not be used as evidence to show he committed the crime at bar.
You're making an unjustified assumption about the new oil being cheap and that the market would be flooded. Merely saying it doesn't make it so. Thus your question regarding why anyone would want to flood the market with cheap oil is pointless. Even if the question had merit - going back to the "Red" example, the commonwealth attorney wouldn't have to prove why Red shot that guy. Just that the act was done and the Red was the actor. Similarly, I don't have to answer "why" the companies do what they do. I'll agree such an answer would be nice to have, but it would most likely only arise from further investigation.
You read the article and the expert said nothing like, "He says OPEC is already producing as much as it can and new discoveries are small."? New. Discoveries. Are. Small.
Peak oil is years and years away? Okaaay. If it makes you feel better to believe that, then by all means do so.
And what sort of arguments are to be made that crimes were and are being committed? If investigations were done and grand juries convened (please, please), the companies would find themselves dealing with the legal system.
Cold, hard facts are not required for probable cause. Greene v. Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101 (6th Cir. 1996) construes Kentucky law on the issue by stating, "The Supreme Court has never quantified the degree of certainty required for a determination of probable cause. The closest the Court has come to doing so was in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), when it commented that probable cause means something "less than evidence which would justify . . . conviction" but "more than bare suspicion." Id. at 175. The Court later commented that "probable cause determination . . . does not require the fine resolution of conflicting evidence that a reasonable-doubt or even a preponderance standard demands." Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 121 (1975)." The Court in Gerstein went on to say that "[t]here is no single preferred pretrial procedure and the nature of the probable cause determination usually will be shaped to accord with a State's pretrial procedure viewed as a whole. While we limit our holding to the precise requirement of the Fourth Amendment, we recognize the desirability of flexibility and experimentation by the States." Gerstein at 123.
I wouldn't need cold, hard facts if I could get the bastards in front of a grand jury. You're right that mere suspicion is not enough, but it's substantially more than half the battle. That plus a little argument and a grand jury would indict.
Of course, to be honest, Jim Garrett convinced a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for the murder of JFK.
If it makes any difference, I'll amend my previous statements by saying that I am very suspicious that shenanigans ensued. How about that?
Plus, I've already introduced weasonable doubt by citing the disparity between supply and demand structures in record profit years.
This guy was innocent.
These guys were, too.
Same here.
Gee, here's more.
The legal system is flawed. It cannot be used as a direct correlating proof of a logical argument. God damn, I hate repeating myself.