Discussion in 'Economy' started by Billo_Really, Aug 17, 2005.
Here's the Neo's gift to America if we keep going the way we are.
Your age? About the same as the amount of gas pumped in your pic? You bring nothing to the conversation.
Weren't these the same people that six months ago were saying "No War for Oil!"? It is amazingly obtuse of them to not realize that the reasons for opposing the war change even more often than they think the President's reasons for going do. Amazingly, I re-read the speech he gave before Congress before they voted us into the war, he definitely included spreading Democracy among his reasons therefore he has not changed his reasons, it is the anti-war people who keep changing theirs.
The price of oil has nothing to do with Iraq, we didn't buy from them before we went in there, if anything the price is lower now than it would have been had we not gone there. The rise in pricing has everything to do with the modernization of China, who have 10 times the amount of highway than they did just three years ago and more cars on the road than ever before. Their usage has increased exponentially causing the law of Supply and Demand to take effect and prices to rise.
But they keep throwing out different reasons to oppose the war hoping one will stick longer than three weeks. This reason too will go the way of the past ones, soon we will see the No War for Oil signs again.
Oil is a basic world commodity. Consumption and demand are the things that affect price. We in the US are HUGE consumers!!!!! The control of oil flow and pipelines in the middle east is a big deal. Bush and Cheney come from backgrounds is big energy conglomerates. Cheney to this day will not disclose the issues discussed in the big energy meeting he attented. why not??????? It is naive to believe that their prior associations and commitments are not strategic to their current policies. Oil is not the only reason that we are involved in Iraq but its significant role should not be ignored.
The question is which is it? During the election we hear he did this in order to lower the prices and thus insure re-election, of course they said that before the prices didn't go down. Now that they are rising they are saying it is because of the war, but again they are wrong. The largest increase in use of oil is in China, not here, yet the production is the same or higher in most of the OPEC countries. This shows that somebody is using the oil. Supply and Demand is stronger than any foreign policy.
Still, using oil prices against a political opponent is an age-old strategy that isn't about to be dumped regardless of the changing reasons of the anti-Bush protestors. (I am convinced that had Clinton started the same war the same people would be flush with excitement over the spread of Democracy, even if he gave the command to the French, and that most of the protest is simply against Bush rather than the actual war.)
The point I was making is, it is the reasoning of those protesting that is changing to fit the current oil market, not the reasoning of the President that got us into Iraq. Regardless of how much the anti-Bush protestors attempt to make it only WMD there were other reasons still being expounded that Bush proferred to take us there, one of them being the spread of Democracy. That people say this is a "new" reason is simply relying on the short memory of Americans and the unreasoning ability to ignore facts in order to put forward a partisan political agenda. Whatever works is worth the price for people who are more loyal to a Party than their supposed ideals.
I wont argue your stats.....that China might have the largest increase in consumption, but per capita they are still far behind the US. They will eventually catch up as all developing nations hope to, and as they do demand will skyrocket, all the more reason that controlling the flow and access to the oil is what is the issue. As the demands for oil world wide increase, (yes new deposits in shale and as yet untapped reserves exist but prove to be EXPENSIVE to exploit) the control of availability will prove to be a most powerful advantage, one the US and its energy conglomerates want for their very own. I dont know what Clinton thought of Saddam, Clinton was/is a master with words and can make a point without making one, but I do not think he was so closely bound to the energy powers that be, and thus had a more open ended agenda. Too bad he was such a fool and wasted his great opportunity.
Separate names with a comma.