Do the Right Thing - Start Drilling

[rebeccajo 14]

Hey Dems! What happened to the old "Bush went to Iraq for oil" statement.

No.

Bush went to Iraq because he was pissed off that they had tried to assassinate his Daddy.

[mawilson 2,133]

Hey Dems! What happened to the old "Bush went to Iraq for oil" statement.

Well... I think its correct to say that he went in for a host of geopolitical reasons, once of which was the Iraqi oil supply... What makes you think that would automatically translate into lower gas prices?

Headlines! " Iraq to pay debt to U.S. in oil" The price of oil would fall fast and hard. Speculators would be scrambling to get out of theyre trades!

But that isn't what is happening is it? Meanwhile - *someone* is making a massive killing from $4 gas, as well as the reconstruction contracts.

Not really, #6. The $4 is a subsidised price - it costs more than $4 to produce a gallon of gas.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hey Dems! What happened to the old "Bush went to Iraq for oil" statement.

No.

Bush went to Iraq because he was pissed off that they had tried to assassinate his Daddy.

I've never really bought that - there's no modern precedent for prosecuting a war over a purely personal issue. While I think he himself is clueless and his administration hopelessly self-serving and corrupt - I can't see how anyone would go along with the idea if that were the only reason he was doing it. It would surely be the biggest scandal in American Presidential history.

I think the assassination thing is the least plausible reason for the war - much more likely that it was about establishing some sort of beachhead in the ME, and having a pliable, US-friendly government to deal with. After all - we buttered up Saddam for that purpose, until he proved himself to be unstable and dangerous to US interests (specifically the relationship with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia).

[tdegrenier 1]

What I really love is the car companies saying that it will take millions of dollars in research and development to produce a vehicle that is more economical with fuel. In 1988, I bought an American made car, with some Japanese parts, that got 58 mpg. Granted, it was a sub-compact, but still . . . 58 MPG and I put almost 200,000 miles on that car driving back and forth from Boston to Austin.

I the car industry starting trying rather than crying about how hard it is to improve effeciency before 2020, I bet we would be amazed at what they would come up with.

Just my 2 cents . . .

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hey Dems! What happened to the old "Bush went to Iraq for oil" statement.

Well... I think its correct to say that he went in for a host of geopolitical reasons, once of which was the Iraqi oil supply... What makes you think that would automatically translate into lower gas prices?

Headlines! " Iraq to pay debt to U.S. in oil" The price of oil would fall fast and hard. Speculators would be scrambling to get out of theyre trades!

But that isn't what is happening is it? Meanwhile - *someone* is making a massive killing from $4 gas, as well as the reconstruction contracts.

Not really, #6. The $4 is a subsidised price - it costs more than $4 to produce a gallon of gas.

I don't think the analysis is quite so simple - if it were the oil companies would surely be posting massive financial losses instead of the massive record breaking profits that we've been seeing.

[mawilson 2,133]

What I really love is the car companies saying that it will take millions of dollars in research and development to produce a vehicle that is more economical with fuel. In 1988, I bought an American made car, with some Japanese parts, that got 58 mpg. Granted, it was a sub-compact, but still . . . 58 MPG and I put almost 200,000 miles on that car driving back and forth from Boston to Austin.

1989 Geo Metro Gets 75 mpg

[tdegrenier 1]

What I really love is the car companies saying that it will take millions of dollars in research and development to produce a vehicle that is more economical with fuel. In 1988, I bought an American made car, with some Japanese parts, that got 58 mpg. Granted, it was a sub-compact, but still . . . 58 MPG and I put almost 200,000 miles on that car driving back and forth from Boston to Austin.

1989 Geo Metro Gets 75 mpg

Actually, mine was the Chevrolette Sprint Metro - Grandfather to the Geo!

It one the best gas mileage for three years! LINK

[alienlovechild 75]

Where have I suggested we stop drilling now? Engage me on the argument I make or move along.

Ok, so you decided to hold off on the master energy policy and the "big warning sign" line.

You probably believe in the peak oil and global warming theories; therefore, if we stop drilling now we can speed our change to alternative energy sources. Even a phased withdraw (sounds like Obama on Iraq, whatever) from oil is just a painful transition in slow motion. More drilling and production may lower prices and keep us addicted to our old oil habits so the faster we move on beyond oil and its greenhouse gases byproduct the better.

Bush went to Iraq because he was pissed off that they had tried to assassinate his Daddy.

An oldie but a goody from somebody still stuck in 1993. Believe it or not you're using thing called the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T. It's from the future and your people will to use it.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think the assassination thing is the least plausible reason for the war - much more likely that it was about establishing some sort of beachhead in the ME, and having a pliable, US-friendly government to deal with. After all - we buttered up Saddam for that purpose, until he proved himself to be unstable and dangerous to US interests (specifically the relationship with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia).

I concur on the dumb "assassinate daddy" premise. It did happen when Clinton was president and Pres. Clinton reacted so much for that theory.

We already had military bases in the Middle East and lot more of them after the Gulf War so that theory doesn't hold water or oil for that matter. We "buttered up" Saddam for bases- Wow, is that way off! There was the big bad Iran-Iraq War going on and most countries provided various degrees of aid mostly to Iraq but U.S. bases didn't exist then or after the war.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the assassination thing is the least plausible reason for the war - much more likely that it was about establishing some sort of beachhead in the ME, and having a pliable, US-friendly government to deal with. After all - we buttered up Saddam for that purpose, until he proved himself to be unstable and dangerous to US interests (specifically the relationship with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia).

I concur on the dumb "assassinate daddy" premise. It did happen when Clinton was president and Pres. Clinton reacted so much for that theory.

We already had military bases in the Middle East and lot more of them after the Gulf War so that theory doesn't hold water or oil for that matter. We "buttered up" Saddam for bases- Wow, is that way off! There was the big bad Iran-Iraq War going on and most countries provided various degrees of aid mostly to Iraq but U.S. bases didn't exist then or after the war.

Probably wasn't very clear there. We "buttered up" Saddam to have a pliable government to deal with - and provide a buffer against neighbouring Iran. You'll note that we previously tried a similar strategy with Iran back in the 50's (to prevent Iran from nationalising its oil industry), a strategy which backfired and snowballed into the Iranian Revolution - which continues to have knock-on effects to this day.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Number 6