Anti-americanism explained

[kallend 1,648]

What makes you believe that the US government is NOT protecting its own financial interests in keeping the US dollar as the only currency accepted by OPEC.

Why do you believe every line the administration puts out without the appropriate skepticism, given the historical tendency of all administrations to lie to the American people and even to Congress?

The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom (except maybe in Illinois where we routinely sentence innocent people to death), but you are prepared to go to war on the strength of it?

Strange.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom

To think the Gov't is going to lay all of their cards on the table every time someone scream "show me the evidence" is absurd. The public doesn't have a need to know where some of that information is coming from because if they did the sources where the information came from in the first place would cease to exist. Believe it or not, a lot of this information is presented to Congress in closed sessions and decissions of agreement/disagreement are made. There is very real evidence,even though it isn't being shown to everybody on CNN(which everyone seems to believe is the ground truth), and I can tell you that it does exist because I've seen it with my own two eyes in person and there is enough to satisfy any court. Thats all I have to say about this.

Continue your conversations/arguements amongst yourselves, be it politely or mudslinging. At the end of the day the words that you type and the "facts" that you present here(or lack there of) aren't going to change one thing or influence one decission because the people in the decisson making process don't read this forum. It's like trying to carry on a coversation in freefall, a lot might be said but nothing is being heard.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[gemini 0]

I believe the US is protecting my financial interests and the world needs a base currency so why not the $ ?

Why do you believe every spin the media puts out, given the historical tendency of the media to lie to the American people to further their own political beliefs and agenda?

Yes.

And to answer your earlier question AGAIN. It is not right for a father to obtain an Air National Guard position for his son. But I would do the same for my son! It is not right for the son not to fulfill his obligation to his unit and get away with it due to political pressure.

Now where are the facts documenting the influence that you have been asked for several times?

Blue skies,

Jim

[Michele 1]

Quote

What makes you believe that the US government is NOT protecting its own financial interests in keeping the US dollar as the only currency accepted by OPEC

I haven't said that. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth (or "text in my post", should you prefer).

Quote

Why do you believe every line the administration puts out without the appropriate skepticism, given the historical tendency of all administrations to lie to the American people and even to Congress?

Why would you think I am accepting every line? Why would you think I haven't approached this with "appropriate skepticism"? Why do you seem to believe that it is only the US government which "lies" to their constituency?

Quote

The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom

There was plenty of evidence in many courtrooms which have not convicted people (somehow, People. V. Simpson jumps to mind). Further, I don't believe I need to know absolutely everything all the time about everything. I do my research, I ask my questions, and I make up my mind.

Which begs the questions:

Kallend, why have you not provided me with answers to my questions in the past? Why are you so opposed to the war? Why are you so persistent in not answering direct questions? What, to you, constitutes "appropriate skepticism"? And why should I apply your standards of "appropriate skepticism" to my own life?

Quote

Strange.

Yes, Kallend. Perhaps I am strange. And perhaps not. I don't think that my "strangeness" factors in to the conversation much.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rhino 0]

Quote

To think the Gov't is going to lay all of their cards on the table every time someone scream "show me the evidence" is absurd.

Agreed... The public CAN'T HANDLE the truth. Giving the public the truth would endanger our intelligence sources. That simply can't be allowed to happen.

Rhino

[VivaHeadDown 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

1. This war is not about oil.

You really believe this???

I don't know why people pretend this is just about terrorism...

Who said anything about terrorism? This war is about many things, oil is at the bottom of the list, terrorism is much higher, but just a factor, not a reason. Our Gov't has set itself on a path of retaliation for 9/11. We ousted the Talliban as a direct result terrorism. But rather than let the swell die down, the current administration decided to continue to push forward and naturally chose Iraq. For family reasons, for historical reasons, for both genuine and not so genuine reasons. Bush will probably be defined as the President who tried to police/save the world, because I honestly believe him to think that's what he's doing. But it's not going to work, the people worldwide don't support the cause, the people in his own country are divided over it. We can not do this because the world is split into many different nations that resent any other nation for critisizing them.

Oil is the dumbest reason I've heard so far for all of this. Oil is the reason NOT to go to war. Have you noticed the prices lately, and which way they're going? UP! And that's because people are afraid that a war will hurt our supply. The last time we went to war I was paying $1.25 a gallon here in San Diego, now I'm paying $1.79 a gallon. Unless we actually make Iraq the 51st state, that's not going to change. Keeping good diplomatic ties with the government and the people of Iraq will affect those prices, but would you really want to declare the Iraqi government our political allies? NO. So, given the momentum that Bush has going after 9/11, given the family history and national history we and our leader have with Iraq, I don't see how there can be so much debate about what this war is really over. A whole lot of shit, ranging from terrorism to ego.

Whether you support this war for the reasons it's being fought, or your own, or not at all, it doesn't matter. America is distancing itself from the rest of the world every day, the ground battle will happen, and in the end the only way we're going to be anything but the bad guy in this is if whoever we get to replace Sadam acually works. But what are the chances of that happening?

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I though I should post the following link in defense of my country:

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom

To think the Gov't is going to lay all of their cards on the table every time someone scream "show me the evidence" is absurd. The public doesn't have a need to know where some of that information is coming from because if they did the sources where the information came from in the first place would cease to exist. Believe it or not, a lot of this information is presented to Congress in closed sessions and decissions of agreement/disagreement are made. There is very real evidence,even though it isn't being shown to everybody on CNN(which everyone seems to believe is the ground truth), and I can tell you that it does exist because I've seen it with my own two eyes in person and there is enough to satisfy any court. Thats all I have to say about this.

C

What you say may well be true. If it is true then the administration is doing a very poor job of PR. Why haven't they given the information to Hans Blix? He pretty effectively shot holes through the US case last week.

You also may not be old enough to remember Nixon's "secret" plan to end the Vietnam war. Enough people believed in it to get him re-elected, but it turns out there wasn't one.

My point is that US administrations have lied to their own citizens and to Congress with sufficient regularity that anyone who now accepts information from them without supporting evidence has to be crazy.

PS Hope you got your duct tape and plastic sheet!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

What makes you believe that the US government is NOT protecting its own financial interests in keeping the US dollar as the only currency accepted by OPEC

I haven't said that. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth (or "text in my post", should you prefer).
***

I didn't. My words were a response to your statement which I quote below

Quote

what seems to
be occurring with France, Germany, and yes Russia are all protecting
their financial interests and economic treaties in Iraq, some (it would
seem) against the embargo. In November 2002, there was unanimity in
the Security Council. February 14, 2003 there is not. What has changed
in the meantime is that France, Germany and Russia have figured out
that the US is serious - unlike perceptions prior - and are making a move
to protect their own vital interests.

You seem to consider France and Germany's defense of their economic interests as somehow venal, while making no value judgement about the US acting in its economic interest. I simply pointed out that the US is defending its economic interests too. That is all.

Very few wars in history have been about anything other than economic self interest, when you get to the bottom of things. This one will be no different, IMO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

Oh hell yeagh!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Makes part of you wanna stand up and salute, doesn't it?

Ten-HUT!!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Oh hell yeagh!!

Well, there are some things we agree on.

Got your duct tape yet?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

For those of you who don't understand all the anti-americanism in Europe, just take a look at any of the anti-french threads floating around. Nothing wrong with slamming the french, but don't get your knickers in a knot when someone else does the same to the US. People who live in glass houses and all that.

I've concluded that a lot depends on whose ox is being gored.

I fly large rockets (somewhat bigger than the Estes stuff most kids build at some time or other) as another hobby, and I read the internet rocketry list. The rocketry folks are largely gun enthusiasts too, and are mostly Republican in outlook.

However, as part of the homeland security the BATF is clamping down heavily on model rocket motors. Most of the new restrictions are pretty dumb (not unlike the "duct tape" recommendations to protect against terrorist attacks), and these rocketry guys (nearly 100% male hobby, many of them veterans) are really up in arms against the administration despite the fact that most of them voted for it. You can read far more virulent anti-administration stuff on their list than you've ever seen here, nearly all written by Americans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Michele 1]

Quote

You seem to consider France and Germany's defense of their economic interests as somehow venal, while making no value judgement about the US acting in its economic interest. I simply pointed out that the US is defending its economic interests too. That is all.

Actually, the phrase you seem to be referencing was in a discussion of the position switch of the French and German from November 2002 UN Security Council's Resolution 1441 and it's unanimous passing, to the current rift in the UN SC members. Therefore, as I was not discussing any moral/value judgment on them, but rather articulating a thought as to the changing of stances, there was no need to include any commentary on the US's position, as we have not changed it midstride.

That being said, I am still quite curious as to your position on appropriate skepticism. And I am also now quite curious as to your continual refusal to answer direct questions. IMHO, that's rude and demonstrates a position of arrogance. I respect you, Kallend. Please don't create a need for me to look at that personal opinion with "appropriate skepticism".

My questions above still stand, and I am patiently waiting for your response.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

You seem to consider France and Germany's defense of their economic interests as somehow venal, while making no value judgement about the US acting in its economic interest. I simply pointed out that the US is defending its economic interests too. That is all.

Actually, the phrase you seem to be referencing was in a discussion of the position switch of the French and German from November 2002 UN Security Council's Resolution 1441 and it's unanimous passing, to the current rift in the UN SC members. Therefore, as I was not discussing any moral/value judgment on them, but rather articulating a thought as to the changing of stances, there was no need to include any commentary on the US's position, as we have not changed it midstride.

That being said, I am still quite curious as to your position on appropriate skepticism. And I am also now quite curious as to your continual refusal to answer direct questions. IMHO, that's rude and demonstrates a position of arrogance. I respect you, Kallend. Please don't create a need for me to look at that personal opinion with "appropriate skepticism".

My questions above still stand, and I am patiently waiting for your response.

Ciels-
Michele

I thought I'd stated that previously in response to someone else. Here it is again.

US administrations have lied to their own citizens and to Congress with sufficient regularity (examples on request, but I'm sure you know them as well as I) that anyone who now accepts information from the administration without independent verification has to be crazy. I would suggest, for example, a statement from the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (who has security clearance) that the committee has inspected the actual evidence and is convinced that it is genuine. Even better would be if the administration gave its evidence to Hans Blix, a statement from whom I would find more credible than a statement from President Bush.

That is what I mean by an appropriate level of skepticism.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

To think the Gov't is going to lay all of their cards on the table every time someone scream "show me the evidence" is absurd. The public doesn't have a need to know where some of that information is coming from because if they did the sources where the information came from in the first place would cease to exist. Believe it or not, a lot of this information is presented to Congress in closed sessions and decissions of agreement/disagreement are made. There is very real evidence,even though it isn't being shown to everybody on CNN(which everyone seems to believe is the ground truth), and I can tell you that it does exist because I've seen it with my own two eyes in person and there is enough to satisfy any court. Thats all I have to say about this.

Pretty much the entire world is shouting "show me the money", including some of the US's strongest allies. You don't think Bush should be honest and upfront with them? That's really what this is all about, not showing ME, or showing anyone else, but showing the security council, France, Germany, Russia, Canada. Just last week, the Canadian Prime Minister, in a speech in Chicago, questioned the motives for Bush wanting to go into Iraq. That's HUGE.

The entire world is shouting "show me the money", and so far, bush has refused.

Quote

Continue your conversations/arguements amongst yourselves, be it politely or mudslinging. At the end of the day the words that you type and the "facts" that you present here(or lack there of) aren't going to change one thing or influence one decission because the people in the decisson making process don't read this forum.

That is a throroughly depressing idea, and we are all fortunate most Americans don't believe it. The principles of democracy are at stake.

If you don't like informed opinionated debate, stay out of it. Just don't belitle those who see that change is important.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

That is a throroughly depressing idea, and we are all fortunate most Americans don't believe it. The principles of democracy are at stake.

If you don't like informed opinionated debate, stay out of it. Just don't belitle those who see that change is important.

HAHA , thanks for the laugh. You pretty much proved my point, some people you just can't reach, even when you show them the evidence. This also holds true for the international dialogue that is on going. Other countries are only concerned with how this is going to effect them, evidence be damned, and they have been given the evidence.

I agree ,debate can be a good thing but to think that you can offer something up that will influence any administrations stance by posting to a skydiving BB is absurd. Wheather your "for this" or "against that", if you want resolution your not going to acheive it here on the internet. Debating topics like this thread and the others on the BB are akin to mental masturbation. There will be no resolution, no end state or closure. Everyone will continue to throw "facts" and "he said", "she saids" out there and the half truths and circular logic synonomous to political diatribe. Selective answering and passive agressive replies will continue to flow until everyone is tired of this thread and it is forgotten. What is ultimately accomplished?

Debate is healthy but what we have here is people firmly entrenched in their "side" trying to bring the others glass house down. Can you honestly tell me that if I gave you(showed you, short of taking you there) proof that you would change your stance and sing a different song and dance? Be honest, because I don't think you or anyone else here would. The truth of the matter is that the general public isn't informed, they are opiniated and thats about it. My statement was not to belittle, it was just the plain hard truth. Change can be a good thing, if it is needed and that can be based on ones perspectives.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[rhino 0]

LOL

[Michele 1]

Quote

US administrations have lied to their own citizens and to Congress with sufficient regularity (examples on request, but I'm sure you know them as well as I) that anyone who now accepts information from the administration without independent verification has to be crazy. I would suggest, for example, a statement from the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (who has security clearance) that the committee has inspected the actual evidence and is convinced that it is genuine. Even better would be if the administration gave its evidence to Hans Blix, a statement from whom I would find more credible than a statement from President Bush.

Thanks, Kallend. I read that previously, but appreciate being redirected.

While I do understand (and have considered quite before you brought "appropriate skepticism" into the debate) your position, and do agree with you on a level, I also offer the numerous times Iraq has lied, hidden, obfuscated, or obliterated the truth as part of the situation in toto. I do not believe everything handed to me as "fact". I do what I can to research and verify, ask and understand, and then formulate my position thereon. I also do not believe that the MiB are lurking in the hinterlands near Idaho, zooming around on silent helicopters and eviscerating cows randomly. In other words, Kallend, I do what I can to "trust but verify", and also add that I highly doubt that any government in the world, at any time, has been totally truthful with it's constituency...and I doubt there ever will be. The argument that the US government is lying to it's citizenry is isolationistic inasmuch as all governments do; and unless that is appreciated and acknowledged and factored into the equasion, singling out the US is spurious at best.

Further, I do not expect the average citizen to get the "show me the money" evidence, nor would I expect that all our allies - who are not necessarily "allied" any longer - get it, either. There are many reasons for not tipping our HumInt hand, nor all the satillite (I never could spell that word) etc and so on, a primary one being that as information is released, the information gatherer is put at risk.

For those who demand that we show everybody everything, I suggest that we consider this is NOT flashing to gain altitude, but rather far more serious and deadly a feat, and that sources are kept close to the belt, and should be so; I have not screamed at anyone to show me anything; rather, I have asked my questions, gathered information, thought about situations, and formulated my own opinion as to what I think. While I cannot say the same for all folks, I do believe a majority of people have done so.

If your sole issue with me is my position, please provide further information - not rhetoric, but information - which I can then take into consideration. I am not as young as you seem to think; I am not as naive as you seem to think; and I am not as ill-informed as you seem to think.

Should you have a piece of the puzzle for me to consider, please provide it. I always appreciate information additional to that which I had already considered, and have been known to change my mind (after all, I am a woman!).

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Thanks, Kallend. I read that previously, but appreciate being redirected.

While I do understand (and have considered quite before you brought "appropriate skepticism" into the debate) your position, and do agree with you on a level, I also offer the numerous times Iraq has lied, hidden, obfuscated, or obliterated the truth as part of the situation in toto. I do not believe everything handed to me as "fact". I do what I can to research and verify, ask and understand, and then formulate my position thereon. I also do not believe that the MiB are lurking in the hinterlands near Idaho, zooming around on silent helicopters and eviscerating cows randomly. In other words, Kallend, I do what I can to "trust but verify", and also add that I highly doubt that any government in the world, at any time, has been totally truthful with it's constituency...and I doubt there ever will be. The argument that the US government is lying to it's citizenry is isolationistic inasmuch as all governments do; and unless that is appreciated and acknowledged and factored into the equasion, singling out the US is spurious at best.

Further, I do not expect the average citizen to get the "show me the money" evidence, nor would I expect that all our allies - who are not necessarily "allied" any longer - get it, either. There are many reasons for not tipping our HumInt hand, nor all the satillite (I never could spell that word) etc and so on, a primary one being that as information is released, the information gatherer is put at risk.

For those who demand that we show everybody everything, I suggest that we consider this is NOT flashing to gain altitude, but rather far more serious and deadly a feat, and that sources are kept close to the belt, and should be so; I have not screamed at anyone to show me anything; rather, I have asked my questions, gathered information, thought about situations, and formulated my own opinion as to what I think. While I cannot say the same for all folks, I do believe a majority of people have done so.

If your sole issue with me is my position, please provide further information - not rhetoric, but information - which I can then take into consideration. I am not as young as you seem to think; I am not as naive as you seem to think; and I am not as ill-informed as you seem to think.

Should you have a piece of the puzzle for me to consider, please provide it. I always appreciate information additional to that which I had already considered, and have been known to change my mind (after all, I am a woman!).

Ciels-
Michele

Did I ask to be "shown the money"? I just asked that some trusted source independent of the administration should be shown the money. I think you're putting words in my text now.

And I can't for the life of me imagine why the administration won't share the intelligence (if they really have it) with the UN inspectors. If Blix stands up at the UN and says he has caught the Iraqis red-handed, that's the end of the hors d'oevres and straight on to the entree. Not even France could obstruct then.

Unfortunately the stuff that Secretary Powell showed last week was not very convincing, not remotely as convincing as the presentation made by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, some of it was so unconvincing that some people are suggesting the CIA set him up to look bad.

You say you are not as young as I thought you were; maybe you remember Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war - a plan that couldn't be revealed for national security reasons. A plan that, after the election, turned out not to exist. Fool me once, shame on you, etc.

The UN inspectors are doing the job set them under the UN enabling resolution. Until they report back that Iraq is out of compliance, we should let them do the job. The administration wants it both ways - action endorsed by the UN, but freedom to ignore the UN defined process for triggering that action.

And continuing to piss on France doesn't help at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

US administrations have lied to their own citizens and to Congress with sufficient regularity (examples on request, but I'm sure you know them as well as I) that anyone who now accepts information from the administration without independent verification has to be crazy.

Your arguments are absolutely laughable. The average person tells the truth 90% of the time. That means they lie 10% of the time. Therefore, by your argument, we should not trust what anybody says without independent verification. Any independent verification is going to be from another human. Since all humans lie 10% of the time we're going to need independent verification of that also. Do you see where this is going? If you are truthful in your study of the US government you'll find that it tellls the truth more than the average person.

The current administration is composed of almost entirely different people from the administration that has lied to you in the past. Yet, since they work for the same organization you consider them liars by association. It seems hilarious to me that you will believe Iraq before you will believe the US government. What history is this trust based on?

And about the crazy comment. You are telling me that you don't trust anything the US government tells you without getting some outside agency to verify it? You have got to be kidding me. You need to get out of the classroom and experience the world.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

US administrations have lied to their own citizens and to Congress with sufficient regularity (examples on request, but I'm sure you know them as well as I) that anyone who now accepts information from the administration without independent verification has to be crazy.

Your arguments are absolutely laughable. The average person tells the truth 90% of the time. That means they lie 10% of the time. Therefore, by your argument, we should not trust what anybody says without independent verification.

"Trust, but verify."
President Ronald Reagan (of course, there's a 10% chance he was lying)

Quote

Any independent verification is going to be from another human. Since all humans lie 10% of the time we're going to need independent verification of that also. Do you see where this is going? If you are truthful in your study of the US government you'll find that it tellls the truth more than the average person.

The current administration is composed of almost entirely different people from the administration that has lied to you in the past.

negative - the current administration has a number of carryovers.

Quote

Yet, since they work for the same organization you consider them liars by association. It seems hilarious to me that you will believe Iraq before you will believe the US government. What history is this trust based on?

Please show me the post where I wrote that I trusted Iraq. If I wrote such a thing, I was drunk and I hereby retract it.

Quote

And about the crazy comment. You are telling me that you don't trust anything the US government tells you without getting some outside agency to verify it? You have got to be kidding me. You need to get out of the classroom and experience the world.

Don't misrepresent what I wrote. In this particular case there are very very many people that do not trust the administration. The administration is suspected of ulterior motives (quite reasonably, IMO), so the matter of trust is relevant in this case.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jfields 0]

Lou,

Although you weren't replying to me, I need to chime in. I agree with you that our debate will have no impact at all on our political leadership. But that in no way invalidates our having the discussion. We learn from each other. Through debate, we educate ourselves to new levels of thought that we wouldn't have come to on our own. It won't change what happens tomorrow, or next month. But it can change thing later, when we vote.

Where you criticize us for being entrenched in our opinions, you are only half right. Some people are. Others aren't. When you said that you doubted any of us would change our mind if confronted with hard evidence, you belittle us and exhibit the very inflexibilty you accuse the rest of us as having. Then we are up to the whole "glass houses and stones" thing yet again.

The bottom line for me on this whole issue is that I *hope* our government is doing the right thing, although I don't know that. As you said, I'm not privy to that much information. I *wish* our government was acting more openly, but I understand some reasons why they aren't. It doesn't much matter what any of us say today. All I can do is educate myself and continue going about my daily business. What's out of my hands is out of my hands, so while I might discuss it, I'm not really going to worry about it.

[sfc 0]

Quote

Quote

Our Gov't has set itself on a path of retaliation for 9/11. We ousted the Talliban as a direct result terrorism.

true.

Quote

But rather than let the swell die down, the current administration decided to continue to push forward and naturally chose Iraq.

naturally, Saddam and Osama get along so well they want to kill each other

Quote

Bush will probably be defined as the President who tried to police/save the world, because I honestly believe him to think that's what he's doing.

He might do, but I don't think he is that smart, I think the familiy connection is much stronger, he is trying to finnish up Daddy's work.

Quote

But it's not going to work, the people worldwide don't support the cause, the people in his own country are divided over it.

That's democracy for you. A lot of people don't seem to want to go to war, and you have to respect their views even if they don't make sense to you.

Quote

Oil is the dumbest reason I've heard so far for all of this. Oil is the reason NOT to go to war. Have you noticed the prices lately, and which way they're going? UP!

The strike in Venezuela is the main reason for the current oil shortage, they supplied more oil in the last 3 years to the US than Iraq did (about 10-15% I think), Nigerian oil workers (about half of what they produce goes to the US) have just gone on strike as well, so prepare for another price jump.
On a side note, I wonder how long it will be before DZOs put jump tickets up to cover the increase in gas prices.

I find the news reporters put things much better than I do, this is from the Guardian in England. A interesting view as to what this is all really about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,880445,00.html

A matter of life, death - and oil

Weapons of mass destruction are cited as the spur for action. Perhaps the real motive is something just as urgent?

Terry Macalister, Ewen MacAskill, Rory McCarthy in Baghdad and Nick Paton-Walsh in Moscow
Thursday January 23, 2003
The Guardian

One of the most popular themes on the placards of anti-war demonstrators across the US and Europe is that the looming confrontation is primarily about oil. US and British ministers dismiss such a charge as the stuff of conspiracy theorists, and instead argue that the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, has to be dealt with for one reason: the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.
And, yet, western powers have been fighting over Iraq's "black gold" for decades. Travelling through the country, it is immediately obvious why this is such a great prize in energy terms.

Around Mosul in the north, flares from oil wells can be seen at regular intervals in the otherwise empty grasslands; even in the centre of the country, in Baghdad, the skyline is lit by the al-Dohra oil refinery; and further south, in the desert scrubland round Basra, there is a huge concentration of wells.

Iraq has the second biggest known oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. But its facilities have been starved of investment over the last few decades, partly because of war and partly because of sanctions. The vast al-Dohra facility is a symbol of all that is wrong. In an advanced state of decay, rusting pipes link a series of large, sand-coloured storage tanks, almost every one of which is crudely patched with sheets of steel.

At present Iraq exports around 1.5m barrels a day but energy experts say this could be increased to 6m barrels within five years after reinvestment. The US needs access to new energy reserves. American industry and motorists are guzzling gasoline at a rate that easily outstrips the rest of the world while domestic reserves are running out at a time when demand is set to leap.

The US energy department frightened politicians with a study in 2001 known as the Cheney report after the former head of Halliburton oil services group, now US vice-president, who wrote it. He predicted that imported oil would need to rise from 10.4 million barrels a day at present to 16.7 million barrels a day by 2020.

The report spelled out the US dependence on a stable energy market and the need for a foreign policy that would protect America's energy supply. "In a global energy marketplace, US energy and economic security are directly linked not only to our domestic and international energy supplies, but to those of our trading partners as well," it said. "A significant disruption in world oil supplies could adversely affect our economy and/or ability to promote foreign and economic policy objectives, regardless of the level of US dependence on oil imports."

George Bush, like Mr Cheney, is a former oil man, as are many of his close staff, so they need no lessons on how the energy world works. As politicians, they also know that their voters' commitment to cheap and available petrol for their car is seen as an inalienable right not far short of bearing arms.

Traditionally, America looked to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for its crude supplies. But since the September 11 terrorist attacks, carried out in the main by Saudi nationals, the former important Middle East ally has been deemed unreliable while political turmoil in Venezuela has virtually halted exports to the US.

Washington has been wooing Russia and African nations to secure future supplies but there is nothing like the ultra-cheap-to-produce reserves in Iraq sitting just below the desert sands.

Professor Peter Odell, professor emeritus of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and a visiting professor at the London School of Economics, rejected the view that oil was the main driving force behind the current Iraq frenzy. "Its not all about oil. There are other factors such as US fears about weapons of mass destruction, revenge for earlier failures and the fact they believe Iraq has not behaved properly towards the US for 20 years," he said. "My own view is that an attack will lead to destruction of Iraqi oilfields as happened in Kuwait and there could be severe oil market problems in the short term. Longer-term, Russia and France have pre-emptive rights for deals done or money owned by Iraq but clearly the US will get in on the act [on redeveloping Iraqi oilfields]."

Paul Slater, who owned and ran a tanker fleet hired out to Shell and is a leading figure in the independent tanker owners association (Intertanko), is less certain. "I think oil is a major issue which cannot be left out of the equation although whether it is the major driver I don't know."

It is not just wild-eyed western peaceniks that believe oil is at the centre - or close to the centre - of the pending conflict. It is quite a commonly held view even in the conservative business world but few are willing to express such things publicly.

Fadel Gheit, a former Mobil chemical engineer and now an investment specialist with New York brokerage firm Fahnestock & Co, told 50 of the largest pension funds and financial investors in America before Christmas that the expected war was "all about oil" and that the global fight against terrorism was just "camouflage" to mask the real purpose.

Later he told the Guardian: "The Americans have nothing against the people of Iraq but our way of life is dependent on 20m barrels a day and half of it has to be imported. We are like a patient on oil dialysis. It's a matter of life and death. The smart people [in Washington] all know this but its not generally advertised on the kind of shows that most people watch: MTV and soap operas."

Mr Gheit said a strike against Iraq has become vital in the eyes of Washington because politicians and security chiefs fear that Saudi Arabia, the traditional provider of US oil, is a political "powder keg" that is going to explode from within. "Of the 22m people in Saudi Arabia, half are under the age of 25 and half of them have no jobs. Many want to see the end of the ruling royal family and whether it takes five months or five years, their days are numbered. If Saudi Arabia fell into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists and the exports were stopped, there is not enough spare oil anywhere else to make up the shortfall."

But Dr Charles Tripp, head of politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, argues that the idea that oilfields need to be physically seized in order to be controlled is outdated. "Oil is a part of this," said Dr Tripp. "But it is as much to do with asserting American power."

Oil was key factor in the first Gulf war, along with protecting the sovereignty of a United Nations member. This time round "oil" is a word that politicians and officials in both Washington and London are almost afraid to speak, fearful of how it will play in the Arab world.

An independent working group part-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations has just handed over a report to Mr Bush entitled Guilding Principles for US Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq. It argues: "Iraqis have the capability to manage the future direction of their oil industry. A heavy American hand will only convince them, and the rest of the world, that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament reasons. It is in America's interest to discourage such misconceptions."

The international oil companies are already circling. The US and British accuse the Russians and especially the French of playing dangerous games with Iraq, keeping in with Baghdad in the hope of securing favourable oil contracts.

The French foreign ministry is infuriated by the suggestion. One French diplomat challenged journalists to look at what was really happening and insisted that they would find it was US companies that were making the running to secure a share of Iraqi oil.

Senior oil executives generally want to avoid talking publicly about the issue but privately they say it is "rubbish" to suggest that they need Iraq so much that they would support a war. Mark Moody-Stuart, a director of Shell and its former chairman went further, telling the Guardian that a military strike would unhinge the Middle East and was therefore a "recipe for disaster".

So what do the people at the centre of the impending war think? "Our oil is the main reason America wants to attack Iraq," said Ali al-Rawi, head of the economics department at Baghdad University. "They want to control our oil and control price and production levels. They know the future oil resources for the world will continue to come from this area for many years."

US administration's foot on the gas

George W Bush

Unsuccessful Texas oilman. His prospecting company, Arbusto, was on the point of going bankrupt when it was bought out by another company, Spectrum, which in turn was bought out by another oil firm, Harken, which kept Bush on the board for his contacts, primarily with his father.

Dick Cheney

Before becoming vice-president, Cheney, below, was the chief executive of Halliburton, the world's largest oilfield services company. Halliburton does not drill for oil but it sells everything to the corporations that do the drilling. It also provides housing and services for the US military.

Condoleezza Rice

Before coming to the White House the national security adviser sat on the board of Chevron. They were clearly happy with her strategic advice and Bush family contacts as they named an oil tanker after her.

Don Evans

Old Bush friend from Texas oil days. Evans stayed in the oil business. Before becoming commerce secretary, he was the chairman of Tom Brown Inc, a $1.2bn oil and gas company based in Denver, and also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, an oil and gas drilling operation.

Gale Norton

Environmentalists objected to her appointment as interior secretary because of her oil links. As a lawyer she had represented Delta Petroleum. She also ran an organisation called the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, co-funded by BP Amoco.

· Source: Centre for Responsive Politics

Quote

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

I agree with you fully on this, this whole situation sucks.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Debate is healthy but what we have here is people firmly entrenched in their "side" trying to bring the others glass house down. Can you honestly tell me that if I gave you(showed you, short of taking you there) proof that you would change your stance and sing a different song and dance?

In this post, I said the UN must act. You decide if I'm "firmly entrenched".

Quote

I agree ,debate can be a good thing but to think that you can offer something up that will influence any administrations stance by posting to a skydiving BB is absurd. Wheather your "for this" or "against that", if you want resolution your not going to acheive it here on the internet.

The point of debate is not resolution. If a debate ever ends with all parties argreeing, the topic wasn't worth debating in the first place.

Saturday night I was at a debate over Intelectual Property. The presenters were some of the countries most prominent lawyers, artists, and ivy league professors. The debate over intelectual property has the music, film, and publishing industry on one side, and artists on the other side. It will never be "resolved". What I hope though, is that ideas that came out of that debate will propagate into the national psyche - the idea that when Walt Disney knocked off "Steamboat Bill" by creating Steamboat Willy (later mikey mouse), he was exercising the exact same rights as the next guy who downloads an MP3 off Kazaa. No politician was at that debate, no transcript will be sent their way, but the people there - just like the people here, took something from that debate, and in their own way they will influence others in ways we can only imagine. I digress.

I hope that people following this debate will take from it not a decision of wether it's "right", or "wrong" for the US to invade Iraq, that really isn't the issue that I see as relevant. What I personally want people to take from it, is the idea that just because the US is the only remaining Super Power, It is not right, nor desirable for them to use their supremacy on a whim, without international co-operation. The US maintains military supremacy only because the rest of the world allows them to. The US has supremacy only because other countries in the world choose not to fund their military.

The recent sabre rattlings of the US is changing this. In the last 3 monthes, I can name over 8 countries that have significantly increased their military funding, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. They've done this not because they want to take part in activities like invading Iraq, but singularly because they're concerned over the the US expanding their unilateral tendencies.

Let me repeat, and make it clear. The US's alies are building up their militiaries because they're scared of the US.

This is bad.

If the US wants to continue to be the "top cop" of the global community, they must do so with the respect and following of that community. Right now, they don't - and that scares me.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.