For all those MORONS who doubted Saddam had WMD's

[KarlMarx]

Look on the bright side! The price of fuel is through the roof! The oil companies are rich - sorry, I mean, getting richer! And so are their associates like Halliburton! Be happy!

You have a point... the President is responsible for the price of oil going up.

Every time the President of Iran opens his mouth and says he is going to wipe Israel off the face of the map, the price of oil goes up. Everytime the Iranians have another go around with the U.N. on nuclear weapons, the price of oil goes up.

If this destabilizing influence exists in the Middle East and has helped push the price of oil up, imagine what we'd be paying now with a second regime with WMD capabilities operating freely!

At this point, everyone objects.... "Wait Karl! Saddam Hussein was under sanctions! Remember the Food for Oil Program? Remember the arms restrictions?". To which I say, "Yes, but unbeknowst to most people, China, Russia and other countries were lobbying the U.N. to lift those sanctions against Iraq. It would only have been a matter of time before Saddam's regime would be back in the saddle, creating WMDs, launching SCUD missiles at Israel, shooting at our aircraft and probably just causing a lot of uneasy feelings in the Middle East. My guess is that we probably are paying 50 cents to 75 cents less per gallon of gasoline than if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Now... what about Haliburton and those devilish oil companies? Well... how Haliburton gets mixed up with oil companies is beyond me..... Haliburton is not an oil company. But, hey! Ignorance of economics is a hallmark of the Left!

The price of oil is determined by the futures market, not by the oil companies. In fact, according to the DOE (Department of Energy), oil refining costs + oil profits make up less than 18% of the price you pay at the pump. Taxes on the other hand make up well 23%-27% of the price you pay at the pump....

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

SO!!!!!! It's that evil Federal Government that's behind the rising price of oil!!!!!!

And to make matters worse, the Democrats wanted to tax the oil companies for making too much profit!!!!!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Look on the bright side! The price of fuel is through the roof! The oil companies are rich - sorry, I mean, getting richer! And so are their associates like Halliburton! Be happy!

Yep. There's that sound again. The bottom of the barrel being scraped.

 

[Hobbit]

Look on the bright side! The price of fuel is through the roof! The oil companies are rich - sorry, I mean, getting richer! And so are their associates like Halliburton! Be happy!

Actually, they're making money because they're selling more gas, not because they're selling gas for more money. Exxon makes about eight cents a gallon, less than a third of what the federal government makes, and that's before you calculate how much the government gets in income taxes.

 

[T-Bor]

Do you honestly believe that the main reason we really went to war was because of the WMD argument ? Oh sure thats what our bonehead president said, but everyone knows that the real reason was because we wanted control of the oil fields and we wanted a constant american presence in IRAQ that will stay for a VERY long time. Everyone knows we will NEVER be able to pull out because once we do the govt we put in will collapse in a week.

Its not that he lied about the WMD's, Its that he lied about the real reason we wanted to go in and overthrow the Saddam govt and establish an American presence in the heart of the Middle East.

So they finally find a stockpile of OLD ass weapons non functional WMD's. Whats he gonna do , use a slingshot and launch them our way ? You people are sheep blind loyalists.

Let me ask you something ? If Clinton had attacked IRAQ because of the attempted bombing on the WTC would you have agreed with it ? The answer is no you would not have because Clinton was in office. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

You nailed it. Whats so ridiculous about all this is they keep claiming President Bush lied about Weapons of Mass destruction.

The UN said he had them
The intelligence from multiple nations including the ones opposed to this war said he had them and was pursuing more
Our intelligence said he has them
Saddam said He had them
His Generals said He had them and some have given details how some of the weapons were shipped to Syria.

And most important of all. Stockpiles of WMDs have been found.

Yet despite all that Bush lied. The war wasnt worth fighting for.

Does anyone honestly believe that these are the only WMDs out there? I dont. My guess is the adminstration doesnt either or they would declassify all this information. The only reason to keep them classified would be to keep the terrorist from knowing how many are actually out there. or else they will start looking for them too.

And you know what, if terrorists get WMDs because of this, Im blaming the people who have done everything in their power to pretend they didnt exist and undermine our effort to find them and stop these terrorists. Because thats exactly whose fault it will be.

How many times does the left need to be responsible for the death of countless people before they stop promiting the garbage they promote? Is your quest for power worth the lives of millions?

 

[GotZoom]

Let me ask you something ? If Clinton had attacked IRAQ because of the attempted bombing on the WTC would you have agreed with it ? The answer is no you would not have because Clinton was in office. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

How wrong you are.

I, for one, don't give a rat's ass who is in offfice. You attack MY country. You come to MY house and kill MY fellow citizens, you will pay the price.

Perhaps I should ask you the same thing. Are you only against the war in Iraq because it's Bush? What if Clinton declared war because of the WTC?

 

[Annie]

Do you honestly believe that the main reason we really went to war was because of the WMD argument ? Oh sure thats what our bonehead president said, but everyone knows that the real reason was because we wanted control of the oil fields and we wanted a constant american presence in IRAQ that will stay for a VERY long time. Everyone knows we will NEVER be able to pull out because once we do the govt we put in will collapse in a week.

Its not that he lied about the WMD's, Its that he lied about the real reason we wanted to go in and overthrow the Saddam govt and establish an American presence in the heart of the Middle East.

So they finally find a stockpile of OLD ass weapons non functional WMD's. Whats he gonna do , use a slingshot and launch them our way ? You people are sheep blind loyalists.

Let me ask you something ? If Clinton had attacked IRAQ because of the attempted bombing on the WTC would you have agreed with it ? The answer is no you would not have because Clinton was in office. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

You are full of it! I thought, even so late in his presidency, that he was finally going to act after the USS Cole. Of course, I was wrong.

 

[Dr Grump]

I, for one, don't give a rat's ass who is in offfice. You attack MY country. You come to MY house and kill MY fellow citizens, you will pay the price.

Which has got what to do with Iraq?

 

[Annie]

Which has got what to do with Iraq?

Why don't you look at what he was responding to?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why don't you look at what he was responding to?

I'm going off on a tangent. I know...

 

[GotZoom]

Which has got what to do with Iraq?

Hey Dipwad...keep up.

If you look at Post # 25, you will see that little box that says:

Originally Posted by T-Bor

If you read that, then read my reply..you will see that I was responding to his post.

This can't be that hard for you.

Can it?

 

[Max Power]

Actually, they're making money because they're selling more gas, not because they're selling gas for more money. Exxon makes about eight cents a gallon, less than a third of what the federal government makes, and that's before you calculate how much the government gets in income taxes.

That's incorrect. They aren't making record profits because they are selling more gas. Also, Exxon doesn't make 8 cents a gallon, Exxon stations make that (or less), but Exxon makes a lot more, because they drill it, refine it, and then retail it.

Exxon's profits are up, because their business was designed to be profitable when oil sells for $30 or $40 per barrel. When it's selling for $70, the very same business model becomes a lot more profitable.

 

[Max Power]

Hey Dipwad...keep up.

If you look at Post # 25, you will see that little box that says:

Originally Posted by T-Bor

If you read that, then read my reply..you will see that I was responding to his post.

This can't be that hard for you.

Can it?

It appears that you're insinuating that Iraq attacked the U.S. "You attack MY country. You come to MY house and kill MY fellow citizens, you will pay the price."

I don't think he's the one who's confused. When did Iraq attack the United States?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If this destabilizing influence exists in the Middle East and has helped push the price of oil up, imagine what we'd be paying now with a second regime with WMD capabilities operating freely!

At this point, everyone objects.... "Wait Karl! Saddam Hussein was under sanctions! Remember the Food for Oil Program? Remember the arms restrictions?". To which I say, "Yes, but unbeknowst to most people, China, Russia and other countries were lobbying the U.N. to lift those sanctions against Iraq. It would only have been a matter of time before Saddam's regime would be back in the saddle, creating WMDs, launching SCUD missiles at Israel, shooting at our aircraft and probably just causing a lot of uneasy feelings in the Middle East. My guess is that we probably are paying 50 cents to 75 cents less per gallon of gasoline than if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

I think you have what the Jews refer to as "chutzpah". First, your theory raises gasoline prices when put into action, but then to top it, you claim that higher prices would be even higher with Saddam.

You're ignoring the 1980's, when Saddam had WMD's, and he was waging war on Iran with our support and blessing. Gasoline was relatively cheap in the 1980' and 1990's too (except during times of war).

If Saddam shoots SCUDs at Israel, they can quite easily defend themselves. And "uneasy feelings" are not a reason to send our soldiers to die in some durka-durka sinkhole in the armpit of the world. Neither is high gas prices. Let the market work.

Now... what about Haliburton and those devilish oil companies? Well... how Haliburton gets mixed up with oil companies is beyond me..... Haliburton is not an oil company. But, hey! Ignorance of economics is a hallmark of the Left!

Ahhh....what?

Are you seriously suggesting that Haliburton does not benefit enormously from high oil prices, and suffer when they go down? Not that this correlation is proof of conspiracy, of course.

 

[KarlMarx]

I think you have what the Jews refer to as "chutzpah". First, your theory raises gasoline prices when put into action, but then to top it, you claim that higher prices would be even higher with Saddam.

Maybe you're too young to remember that we had to escort oil barges up and down the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s? Yeah, that was the Iran-Iraq war.

You're ignoring the 1980's, when Saddam had WMD's, and he was waging war on Iran with our support and blessing. Gasoline was relatively cheap in the 1980' and 1990's too (except during times of war).

Then he invaded Kuwait in 1991, and the price of oil went up.

If Saddam shoots SCUDs at Israel, they can quite easily defend themselves. And "uneasy feelings" are not a reason to send our soldiers to die in some durka-durka sinkhole in the armpit of the world. Neither is high gas prices. Let the market work.

Saddam already has shot SCUDs at Israel. During the early days of the Desert Storm.

Ahhh....what?

Are you seriously suggesting that Haliburton does not benefit enormously from high oil prices, and suffer when they go down? Not that this correlation is proof of conspiracy, of course.

No more so than any other company. Where does "oil" become synonymous with "Haliburton"? Except in the logical morass we can the liberal mind?

 

[manu1959]

Maybe you're too young to remember that we had to escort oil barges up and down the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s? Yeah, that was the Iran-Iraq war.
Then he invaded Kuwait in 1991, and the price of oil went up.
Saddam already has shot SCUDs at Israel. During the early days of the Desert Storm.
No more so than any other company. Where does "oil" become synonymous with "Haliburton"? Except in the logical morass we can the liberal mind?

spot on.....scuds hit israel

halliburton is aconstrcution company high gas prices hurt construction companies......this person should check clinton's 8 year record abiut who they gave no bid contracts to......

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Maybe you're too young to remember that we had to escort oil barges up and down the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s? Yeah, that was the Iran-Iraq war.

Why should we use taxpayer dollars to escort privately-owned ships through dangerous foreign waters?

Then he invaded Kuwait in 1991, and the price of oil went up.

And it would have gone back down, just as it did anyway after the war. Saddam was never going to cut off oil, that's all he has to sell.

Saddam already has shot SCUDs at Israel. During the early days of the Desert Storm.

Yeah, after we got involved. Doing damage to our ally was easier than doing any substantial damage to our troops. Defending Israel should not be a concern of the US.

No more so than any other company. Where does "oil" become synonymous with "Haliburton"? Except in the logical morass we can the liberal mind?

Hay guyz, it's not an "oil company" unless they have convenience stores where you can pump gasoline into your car, am I rite???

:rotflmao:

Halliburton Energy Services(NYSE: HAL) is a multinational corporation with operations in over 120 countries, and is based in Houston, Texas. Halliburton operates two major business segments: The Energy Services Group provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production, and their KBR subsidiary is a major construction company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants.

 

[GotZoom]

It appears that you're insinuating that Iraq attacked the U.S. "You attack MY country. You come to MY house and kill MY fellow citizens, you will pay the price."

I don't think he's the one who's confused. When did Iraq attack the United States?

You too Max? I had no idea that the English language was so difficult for some people. If you had an even basic comprehension of the conversation you would have never asked your "When did Iraq attack the United States" question

Let me break this down. Make special note to the words highlighted in red. Keep in mind that my answer was to his specific example/question.

If Clinton had attacked IRAQ because of the attempted bombing on the WTC would you have agreed with it ?

His question was asking if I would have agreed with CLINTON if he ATTACKED IRAQ because of the attempted bombing on the WTC.

My answer was: Yes...if Clinton had attacked IRAQ because of the attempted bombing of the WTC, I would agree with him.

He didn't ask if I could prove IRAQ was behind the attack of the WTC. He didn't ask if I could prove IRAQ was behind anything.

He asked if I would have agreed with Clinton attacking IRAQ because of it.

 

[Hobbit]

That's incorrect. They aren't making record profits because they are selling more gas. Also, Exxon doesn't make 8 cents a gallon, Exxon stations make that (or less), but Exxon makes a lot more, because they drill it, refine it, and then retail it.

Exxon's profits are up, because their business was designed to be profitable when oil sells for $30 or $40 per barrel. When it's selling for $70, the very same business model becomes a lot more profitable.

Every source I've ever seen says otherwise, including liberal ones. Their profit margin is lower than that of grocery stores, according to the Department of Revenue. Are grocery stores gouging, too? Is the Department of Revenue another cog in the huge Exxon conspiracy? Please enlighten me so I may realize what bastion of knowledge led you to the conclusion that gas companies are capable of charging more than just a couple cents a gallon less and remaining profitable.

Then there's the fact that Occam's Razor goes against your theory. Right now, most places sell gas for about the same amount. The simple solution is that all of them tried to undercut each other to get more business. If their prices could go any lower, they would, because one would try to undercut the other, and the price war would begin anew. The simple solution involves this being the natural price at which to sell gas according to economic theory.

Your solution involves hundreds of executives and all of their staff from the far-flung corners of the globe all managing to meet with each other and agree to set all of the prices artifically high, even though even one of them bucking the trend would bring in record profits for his company. This feat is nearly impossible and has only been accomplished in recent history by the RIAA member companies, all of whom were caught and fined...twice.

 

[Max Power]

Every source I've ever seen says otherwise, including liberal ones. Their profit margin is lower than that of grocery stores, according to the Department of Revenue.

Not so much.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM
Exxon-Mobil Profit Margin (ttm): 10.83%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=KR
Kroger Co Profit Margin (ttm): 1.56%

BP - 7.15%
Safeway - 1.48%

There, now you've seen a source that says otherwise. And you know what? I'm pretty sure you're fabricating your "statistics" there.

Are grocery stores gouging, too? Is the Department of Revenue another cog in the huge Exxon conspiracy? Please enlighten me so I may realize what bastion of knowledge led you to the conclusion that gas companies are capable of charging more than just a couple cents a gallon less and remaining profitable.

You seem to be confused.
Exxon could sell gas for 50 cents less per gallon and still remain profitable.
So, you ask, why don't they?
Because, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. There are people willing to pay $70 per barrel. They're futures traders.

Now, if you want to buy something on Ebay, it doesn't matter if what you're buying cost the seller $2 or $20, if someone else is willing to pay $50 for it, then you have to pay $50 if you want it.

Same thing is happening now. Oil companies are drilling for oil, it's costing them $40-50 per barrel. Futures traders are willing to pay $70, so if we want some, we have to pay $70 also.

Then there's the fact that Occam's Razor goes against your theory. Right now, most places sell gas for about the same amount. The simple solution is that all of them tried to undercut each other to get more business. If their prices could go any lower, they would, because one would try to undercut the other, and the price war would begin anew. The simple solution involves this being the natural price at which to sell gas according to economic theory.

Yes, there is competition on the supply side of things, but you're 100% ignoring the demand side. Like I illustrated earlier, if someone else is willing to pay $70, then you have to pay $70 as well.

Your solution involves hundreds of executives and all of their staff from the far-flung corners of the globe all managing to meet with each other and agree to set all of the prices artifically high, even though even one of them bucking the trend would bring in record profits for his company.

Not at all, it just requires a little common sense.

 

[Said1]

Why should we use taxpayer dollars to escort privately-owned ships through dangerous foreign waters?

Just a guess, but I think there was a lot of petro dollars tied to the sale of the oil, invested elsewhere - to name one thing off the top of my head? There's a lot riding on keeping the ports in the Gulf area safe, for some countires in North West Africa, shipping is their main non-agri source of income.

And it would have gone back down, just as it did anyway after the war. Saddam was never going to cut off oil, that's all he has to sell.

Of course he wouldn't, but he would have still had his choice of buyers, had things not worked out the way they did, in the end.

Hay guyz, it's not an "oil company" unless they have convenience stores where you can pump gasoline into your car, am I rite???

:rotflmao:

Halliburton Energy Services(NYSE: HAL) is a multinational corporation with operations in over 120 countries, and is based in Houston, Texas. Halliburton operates two major business segments: The Energy Services Group provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production, and their KBR subsidiary is a major construction company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants.

That being the case, you'd think they'd be invading....er, I mean investing more in Canada. Apparently we can't get the oil out of the ground fast enough. They can't even find enough skinners to prep drilling sites.