. Piezoe: Africa???, Why when Cuba is one giant sugar cane farm and within spitting distance of the US. It is way past time to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. ********** September 18, 2006 SouthAmerica: Quoting from above: ISN â Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich, Switzerland â report. âCuba, meanwhile, is considering expanding its ethanol fuel output with the help of a Spanish firm in hopes of climbing aboard the alternative fuel bandwagon that Brazil is leading to worldwide prominence. The communist island's economy reportedly grew 12.5 percent in the first half of 2006 in large part due to growing sugar cane exports. Brazil's decades of success with ethanol has recently prompted Britain to seek an alliance with South America's largest country and economy to promote increased sugar production in southern Africa, officials from both nations said earlier this month. South Africa and Mozambique are reportedly on the short list of candidate nations for expanding the ethanol market in the region, according to ethanol experts at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at Iowa State University.â ******* Jayford: Why the hell should oil companies pay for the war in Iraq? They didn't go to war, the US government did. You must be one of those conspiracy dudes that believes the oil companies run the government here. *********** SouthAmerica: I am 100 percent sure that the main reason the US invaded Iraq it was to take over its OIL RESOURCES. Do you really believe that the US attacked Iraq because of WMDâs or because Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator which was not nice to the Iraqi people? I am 100 percent sure that if Iraq had âNOâ oil reserves then the US would not be interested in Iraqâs WMD or the welfare of the Iraqi people. I wrote about that in articles that were published before the US invaded Iraq in March 2003. We would not be debating in the US mainstream media today about the possibility of an United States invasion also of Iran, if Iran did not have such a major oil reserves. It is all about OIL and nothing else. When the United States attacked Iraq in March of 2003, the operation it was called: âOperation Iraq Liberationâ â (OIL) Before the Iraq invasion in March 2003, Brazzil magazine and âThe Brasiliansâ newspaper published in December 2002 an article that I wrote âOur Future Is Nowâ, and quoting from that article: âOil and war If Iraq had no oil, would we be worried about anything related to Iraq? I don't think so. But because they have a lot of oil, in Wall Street jargon "Iraq is in play." Similar to a company in the stock market, when a company is in play, that means that the company will be taken over by another company. In this case the US wants Iraq's oil. On November 10, 2002, The Record (a major newspaper in New Jersey) had an honest article titled: "U.S. vs. Iraq: Is It All About the Oil?" On October 2, 2002, I was stunned by Mr. James Woolsey, a former CIA director's honesty regarding his comments in the program Nightline with Ted Kopel. He said very clearly that the war with Iraq was about oil. He also said that the Russians and the French had been in Baghdad signing deals to develop Saddam's oil reserves. Among them are Total Fina Elf, a French company developing the oil field near the Iranian border, and Lukoil, a Russian company developing another oil field in the Iraqi desert. Mr. Woolsey also said that the French and the Russians had better vote in the Security Council with the US, because after the US defeats Saddam's army, the US will be in complete control of Iraq's oil. All Iraq oil contracts in the future will be approved in Washington. Depending on how the French and Russians act in the Security Council todayâWashington will answer their calls tomorrow, after the war, when they come calling for Washington to honor their old oil contracts. We all know that George Bush will get his war with Iraq one way or another. It is a done deal. We all also know that it does not matter what Saddam Hussein does with the UN arms inspectors; he will not be able to meet the requirements of the UN resolution. I am sure that the decision to go to war has already been made, and the inspectors will just go through the motions until everything is ready to start the war.â You can read the entire article at: Brazzil - December 2002 â âOur Future Is Nowâ http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/6226/38/ To answer your question one more time: Yes, the United States went to war against Iraq to secure the huge oil resources of that country on behalf of the American oil companies. The Iraq war and possibly a new war against Iran it is part of the US government energy policy that was iron out in the basement of the White House between Dick Cheney and the representatives of the oil companies. It is a shame that the American mainstream media never made the connection between the major oil companies and the costs of going to war against Iraq which has a direct relationship to securing a large pool of oil resources on behalf of the US oil companies. If the costs of war were taken in consideration, then the US oil companies would not be as profitable as they think that they are. The only reason they are making so much money it is because the US taxpayers are eating on behalf of the oil companies a massive amount of costs related to securing new sources of oil. In one hand Americans have the illusion that the American oil companies are the most profitable corporations in the world â when in reality they are the companies receiving the largest subsidies of any industry in the world. The sugar ethanol industry it is a better bet all around when all the costs are considered. . .
Even if the war is about taking oil, it is NOT the responsibilities of the companies. They did not go to war! Is the war about oil? Sure. But not in the way you think. That oil is still the property of Iraq. Here is the clincher. Even if the US stole every drop of Iraqi oil, and shipped it to the US without paying for it (which won't happen), the expense of this war would be FAR in excess of the value of the oil. This war was about establishing a western friendly democracy in the region, and hoping it would spread. The result has been disaster so far to say the least. The war may be "about oil", but "taking oil" no chance in hell. One more thing, please don't support your argument with articles YOU wrote. Thats beyond silly.
. Jayford: Is the war about oil? Sure. But not in the way you think. That oil is still the property of Iraq. The war may be "about oil", but "taking oil" no chance in hell. ********** September 18, 2006 SouthAmerica: The United States installed a new government in Iraq â and who is charge of the oil industry in Iraq? On January 2, 2006 I posted the following information on this message board: SouthAmerica: The Iraq government has replaced its Oil Minister with a real Con Man â Ahmad Chalabi - He is also wanted in Jordan for major banking fraud. Now that a âcrookâ is in charge of Iraqâs main natural resources â I guess the United States has completed its work in Iraq, and the US troops can return home. By the way, with Ahmad Chalabi as the new Iraq's Oil Minister â this move will give a lot more credibility to the newly elected Iraqi government, and as a first move they should hire the people from âEnronâ as advisors to help handle their new racket.â First, Chalabi con the American senators, and senior officials of the Bush administration about Iraqâs WMD, and so on⦠Since January 2006, the major resources of Iraq â its Oil â and the main source of cash flow for Iraq is under the management of a crook and an embezzler. Ahmad Chalabi must be thinking that Americans are a bunch of âidiotsâ for letting him get away with all his crap. And he is laughing all the way to the bank; probably to the tune of billions of US dollars. **** You mentioned that the United States is not taking the oil away from the Iraqis. But why the US is able to get on a regular basis these sweetheart deals regarding the price of oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and so on â and in Brazil we canât get the same type of deals? For a long time, a gallon of gasoline in Brazil always cost from 2 to 3 times the price of gasoline that we are able to pay here in the United States. Today, a gallon of gasoline cost around $ 5.00 dollars in Brazil, and I have a friend that just came back from Sweden and the price of gasoline was around $ 7.00 per gallon in that country â even though they have lots of petroleum right next door in the North Sea. ****** Jayford: One more thing, please don't support your argument with articles YOU wrote. Thats beyond silly. ****** SouthAmerica: It would be silly if it was a recent article â it would be like plying Monday morning quarterback â but that is not the case I am on record and I wrote all these articles and they were published months before the United States invaded Iraq. When I wrote many of these articles the United States mainstream media, and the American population were on the flag-waiving mode, and George W. Bush approval rating were over 70 percent. If you look back when my articles were published there were very few people saying the things that I was saying at that time regarding Iraq, Saddam Hussein, WMD, that Iraq would become a new Yugoslavia, and would blow up into a nasty civil war, and so onâ¦. .
Sweetheart deals? What the hell are you talking about? The US pays market price for oil, which is set globally. As for gasoline, if it is cheaper in the US than it is in Brazil, it is a function of taxtation and refining costs. The price of gas in the US vis-a-vis Brazil, has absolutely ZERO to do with Iraq. But we are wandering from the gist of the argument. The US oil companies make most of their money from selling crude, not refining it into gas. US oil companies profit greatly from HIGH oil prices in relation to the cost of pulling it from the ground.
. Jayford: As for gasoline, if it is cheaper in the US than it is in Brazil, it is a function of taxtation and refining costs. The price of gas in the US vis-a-vis Brazil, has absolutely ZERO to do with Iraq. ******* September 19, 2006 SouthAmerica: If anything, the refining costs should be lower in Brazil than in the US â since labor costs and many other factors of production are lower in Brazil than in the United States. I donât know the detail of gasoline taxation in Brazil, but I doubt that taxation would explain the huge difference in the price of a gallon of gas at the pump between the United States versus Brazil. It is not only in Brazil - in most of Europe gasoline at the pump cost 2 to 3 times a gallon of gas than in the USA. This is why in those countries people are driving cars that take in consideration the mileage that they get with one gallon of gas. .
TAX, TAX, TAX. This is why Europe pays so much for gas. They use the taxes not only to raise revenue, but to discourage driving. They pay the exact same for oil as everyone else. In fact the UK has major oil fields, and Norway is a net exporter. They still have very high gasoline prices. TAX. BTW, refining costs are mostly dependent on technology and regulation, not labor. You also have to factor in transportation costs once the gas is refined. How are Brazil's roads for example? Any pipelines for gas throughout the country? SA, Brazil pays the same for oil as the US: the global market price. The US does pump a significant amount of its own oil, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Control of natural resources...in this case... oil is the name of the game... The decision to go to Iraq was about oil...and the world knows this.. Less than 10% of this decision was about other issues than oil...The other issues gave war legal impetus... This is a modern day conquest... The real struggle here is who wins the strategic control of this vital resource in the region... My opinion is that modern day conquests should involve economic reasoning which does not include warfare industrial players... Certainly there is a better way to create wealth than to create wars... ...................................... What is very interesting to me is the winning over of resources via capitalism... In capitalism...the same assets are worth far more when gainfully employed as a stock trading on the exchanges than the same company if the assets are nationalized or privately held... This has always been the game...to take resources public because the overall marketable value increases... The problem is distribution of the created wealth through capitalism.. However my argument is that if there is an overall increase in value....then there is more that is capable of being distributed... For instance...what if a figure such as Chavez decided that a type of socialistic capitalism is best in that if the resources of the state were capitalized ...there would be at least twice the money to spread around...ie..employee participation through the ownership of stock would could be exchanged for cash through the stock exchange when the employee wishes...furthermore this relieve his country of pure commodity price dependency... But the real reasoning here is that there is more value to be had by all... The same holds true for Iran and so on....This is what globalization is about anyway...and forming wars are far more disruptive and unnecessary...and do not form as much wealth as could be formed without the economic disruptions.... It is all about the money...and its distribution... Thus the real reasoning that all parties left or right wing would buy is more money and better distribution to its public.....This answers the political and economic issues in any state.....better than war.....
Control of natural resources.. Common man, imperiums used to fight for natural resources like 150 years ago. It's a totally different ballgame nowadays. Since oil became important to the world (and USA) America has never invaded any country for oil. Now (after 50 years or so) when oil actually became less important for an american economy (as a percentage of GDP, compare stock market performance in 70's and today), all of the sudden, they come up with a stupid pretext to invade foreign country for oil. You can only argue they were waiting tor good enough pretense to do it. Then you have to explain year 1992, they just needed to keep going and nobody would question anything. Iraq was the aggresor. Why the hell didn't they???
Cesko wrote... Control of natural resources.. Common man, imperiums used to fight for natural resources like 150 years ago. It's a totally different ballgame nowadays. Since oil became important to the world (and USA) America has never invaded any country for oil. Now (after 50 years or so) when oil actually became less important for an american economy (as a percentage of GDP, compare stock market performance in 70's and today), all of the sudden, they come up with a stupid pretext to invade foreign country for oil. You can only argue they were waiting tor good enough pretense to do it. Then you have to explain year 1992, they just needed to keep going and nobody would question anything. Iraq was the aggressor. Why the hell didn't they??? ............................................................................................. Excellent commentary Cesco... You are exactly right...modern day conquests are fought on supposed legal premises...Globalization supposedly seeks each countries comparative advantages...The country who houses the companies that can account for the most legal agreements supposedly wins the game... The military is utilized for legal adherence... The legal label for property rights...individual rights etc...is the name of the game...In some countries legal contracts are worth something...in some countries ...not a whole lot... Some pieces of paper with ink on them are probably not worth the paper they are written on...some are... The US and Europe probably account for more meaningful legal paper than most other countries....In some countries...its more like the wild wild west....
. Cesco: Then you have to explain year 1992, they just needed to keep going and nobody would question anything. Iraq was the aggressor. Why the hell didn't they??? *********** September 21, 2006 SouthAmerica: The advisors to President George Bush Senior told him during the first Iraq War to keep Saddam Hussein in power otherwise Iraq would blow up into a sectarian civil war. Saddam Hussein was the stabilizing force inside Iraq. In 2003, Junior (The Jackass) decided to send the troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power â and just look at what has happened to Iraq since then â Iraq has exploded into a sectarian civil war. And you did not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. The sectarian civil war has been obvious to me all along, and today even the American mainstream media can't continue to deny what it is obvious to everybody else around the world. I know it is election season in the United States and the Bush administration, and the people running the war in Iraq has to give a lot of BS to the American people â that is the way that works in a democracy â and a lot of people in the US still buys the stuff that they are being told, mostly because many of these people donât have the capability of thinking by themselves. In the meantime the evidence in Iraq is mounting that the sectarian civil war has been spinning completely out of control and on a daily basis they find dozens of people dead from the various sects and evidence shows that their bodies have been tortured just for the sake of provoking the other side to continue further bloodshed. The US government, and the American mainstream media just look âPatheticâ at this stage of the conflict when they try to minimize the nasty sectarian civil war that is spinning completely out control in Iraq. This week at the annual meeting at the United Nations many world leaders are letting the United States know that they are not following American leadership â since American foreign policy is nothing more than a joke â and that is just going to help in a further decline of American clout and influence around the world. When President Bill Clinton left office 5 years ago, the clout and prestige of the United States around the world was off the charts. Five years later, this clout and prestige has evaporated and today the United States government is hated around the world. Not only hated, but it is perceived as being completely incompetent. Only fools follow a government and a leader who has proved its complete incompetence to the world. The smart governments from around the world should distance themselves from such a leader, otherwise they also would start looking like Tony Blair from the UK - looking like a big FOOL. .