I believe the point being made is that the US has caused the increase in prices, not anyone else.
Prove that Saddam was contained… That was not the conclusion of Kenneth Pollack in Threatening Storm or many others. Please feel free to pony up a link or two about how Saddam was “contained.” I have already posted the Butler and Duelfer reports on other site. These reports clearly stated that sanctions had collapsed and there were no prospects for getting them up and running again because the UN Security Council was divided. Please also refer to Bush II’s efforts to get “smart sanctions” imposed. You are very far off the mark here.
I wrote earlier:
In the meantime, we have a whole list of nations that were in DIRECT VIOLATION of numerous security council resolutions. Ah… Explain away…
Strange. I was not aware that there were any binding resolutions on Israel, but so? That has nothing to do with the US and the legality or illegality of the action. Given that the US invaded without UN approval, the act could be deemed “illegal,” but there was no UN resolution stating that the action was “illegal” and there was no UN resolution calling for the US to cease its action and to remove its forces from Iraq. Remember that in past actions, such resolutions have been passed, most notably when Saddam invaded Kuwait and when the North Koreans invaded the South. Given that there is a precedent for determining and naming in a formal manner which actions are “illegal” I would question why the same was not done in this case. And given that it was not, then the best that you can say is that the action was not legal but not illegal. And IF the action were of such a gross illegality, why would the UN then pass a resolution approving the US occupation of Iraq? Strange, eh?
Really, strange that most economists seem to think that it is soaring demand around the world, primarily from China and India. But what do they know?
Really, strange that most economists seem to think that it is soaring demand around the world, primarily from China and India. But what do they know?[/quote]
Yes, of course demand is increasing, but uncertainty of supply jacks the price up also. More so.
So I guess that you will agree with me and not Rascal then that the efforts to contain Saddam through sanctions were not working and the whole system and effort were about to collapse? Thank you.
The sanctions were not punishing Iraqis, Saddam was. He always had plenty of access to food and medical supplies, so much in fact that Iraq was actually (according to Kenneth Pollack) exporting such supplies to nations throughout the Middle East while building 50 palaces and continuing to fund his weapons programs. I strongly suggest that all of you read the entire Butler and Duelfer reports. It is all there in black and white.
You are talking out of your ass on this. Admit it. Let it go.
You are talking out of your ass on this. Admit it. Let it go.[/quote]
Bahahaha.
Back to the “Mission Accomplished” sign.
You are talking out of your ass on this. Admit it. Let it go.[/quote]
YOU are talking out of your ass fred. YOU should admit it.
Google for one minute and you will discover that the threat of war and the actuality of war do in fact cause the price of oil to rise dramatically, as clearly shown in the chart in my prior link.
The primary cause for the huge increase in the price of oil over the past few years has been the US invasion of the Middle East, and increased uncertainty caused by that, not increased demand. There is no disputing that fact among reasonable minds (yourself excluded of course).
Shouldn’t you be scrolling back a page to apologize to me for jumping all over me regarding the price of oil when that was not even my point. I was stating that high oil prices gave dictators in the region a lot of money to cause trouble. I was not linking US efforts in the region to any price control measures whatsoever. You need to calm down and read more carefully. You are making yourself look foolish. Alternatively, prove that I was making the argument that you seem to think I was. Get the relevant quotes out and show how your oil price rise chart is relevant to my remarks. If anything, it buttresses them. I clearly stated that possession of oil was what gave these dictators the revenue that made them the threat that the IRA and Tamil Tigers were not.
I understand that fully. What has been the main cause by far of the oil increase over the past four years? The Persian Gulf has been incredibly unstable before. There was a war between Iraq and Iran for Christ’s sake throughout the 1980s. What were the prices like then? While instability can cause TEMPORARY price increases, the massive sustainable increases are from increased demand.
I will give you some time to reflect on this and then respond to “qualify” your remarks. The main cause of the oil price increase in the past four years has not been instability in the Persian Gulf but soaring demand throughout the world especially because of the incredibly high growth rates in China and India. Do you still wish to disput this?
In the meantime…
[quote] Last Updated: Wednesday, 15 February 2006, 00:33 GMT
Why oil will hit $100 a barrel
By Nils Blythe
BBC News business correspondent
The era of easy oil is over, but
[color=red]growing demand from countries like India and China[/color]
is forcing oil firms to enter unusual territory. “The easy oil has already been found,” explains Mike Watts on a sandy hilltop overlooking the Mangala discovery well which made his company’s fortune. Oil companies are having to look much harder for major new oil finds. And while some new finds are being made, like Cairn’s in Rajasthan, few people in the oil industry believe that new discoveries will match the vast oil fields found in the 20th century. And demand for oil is likely to go on rising.
As India’s economy is growing, energy demand will rise
It’s the only stone building in the vicinity. The children walk here from simple huts surrounded by thorn hedges in the desert. There is no electricity at the school or anywhere else. Local transport is provided by camels pulling carts. And water is drawn from wells by hand. Conduct a simple “energy audit” and you discover that the children use almost no energy. They were hazy about what a fridge was used for and few of them had ever travelled in a car. But, with India’s economy growing fast, these children and hundreds of millions like them are likely to become much heavier energy users as adults. “If we are to rid ourselves of the scourge of poverty, demand for energy will at least double in the next 20 years,” says India’s former Energy Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar.
And Mr Aiyar’s view is broadly in line with the latest projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA). It forecasts that the world’s total energy requirements will rise by half in the next 25 years. The IEA candidly admits that such an increase would be “unsustainable” for the world’s environment. It argues that in future much greater use will have to be made of non-fossil fuels. And energy will have to be consumed much more efficiently.
But at present global demand for energy in general - and oil in particular - is rising inexorably. With supply struggling to keep pace with demand, oil prices are likely to remain high for years to come, according to leading figures in the industry.
‘$100-a-barrel oil’
Sir Bill Gammell is the chief executive of Cairn Energy. He’s a former Scottish rugby international who went to school with Tony Blair and knew George Bush when he was just a young Texas oil man with a famous father. I think we might see $100 oil in the next five years. Sir Bill’s company was exploring for oil through the lean years of the 90s when the price of a barrel of crude was hovering around $20 a barrel. Today the price is close to $60, and Sir Bill thinks it may go higher because supplies can barely keep pace with demand. “I think we might see $100 oil in the next five years” says Sir Bill. “We won’t see $20 again.”
[/quote]
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4713186.stm
Here’s another one while I am waiting… Again, instability can result in TEMPORARY price increases but not massive sustained levels that we are seeing and have been seeing for the past four years.
[quote]Rising oil price has wider impact
Higher petrol costs ‘act like a tax on consumption’
By Bina Brown
For CNN
Monday, August 7, 2006 Posted: 0406 GMT (1206 HKT)
(CNN) – Higher oil prices are starting to cause havoc far beyond the petrol bowser. Slowly but surely, the rise in the price of oil is pushing up inflation and interest rates and affecting people’s spending habits and share markets. Where the price of oil is headed is anyone’s guess. But predictions for the short term outlook range from the current level of around $74 to $100 a barrel by the end of the year before a possible retreat.
[color=darkred]Mostly the outlook for oil prices comes down to supply and demand.[/color]
With global production capacity at a very low excess (about 2 million barrels a day) and China ready to buy any oil there is, there is no shortage of demand.
Couple that with the problems facing most of the oil producing areas – Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, Middle East and the Gulf of Mexico – the price of oil is not expected to retreat in the near future.
Kalish says that a sufficient slowdown in economic growth would have a dampening effect on the price of oil, which could easily drop below $60 per barrel in 2006
[color=darkred]if growth in the U.S. and China slow.[/color]
[/quote]
edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/08 … index.html
Let’s look at this quote in particular…
Nigeria mentioned first? Problems? Yes. Instability there? Yup? US Caused? er no. Venezuela? problems? Chavez? Nationalization of Oil? Conflict between two political parties and their followers? instability? US Caused? er, no… Russia? Problems? Instability? Some? US caused… Damn. No! Middle East? Instability? Yes. US caused? some. Okay. Fourth of five mentions though… And the US is not responsible for all the instability there. I mean there is violence in Lebanon, violence in Israel, terrorism in Saudi Arabia… and no specific mention of Iraq, only “the Middle East.” Very strange. And finally, the Gulf of Mexico? What kind of problems is the US causing there? MT: Can you help here? So confusing to try to justify how to make sense of your argument… Any help? Please…
Strange that there is no mention of US led wars or instability mentioned once in this article.Two apologies to go? I will be waiting… Talking out of my ass indeed. bwwwaaaahahahahahaha
Not wanting to take advantage of fred’s absence, I too played with the pretty colours.
[quote=“Politico”]A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that
[color=blue]the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.[/color]
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
[…]
“
[color=blue]The White House had concocted a fake letter[/color]
from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq.
[color=blue]There is no link.[/color]
”
[color=red]The White House flatly denied[/color]
Suskind’s account. Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico:
[color=red]“The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd.”[/color]
The White House plans to push back hard. Fratto added:
[color=red]“Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence.”[/color]
[/quote]
That’s fine. I was taught to [color=blue]
listen to that small, almost too-quiet voice
[/color].
[color=red]Miss[/color]ion Acco[color=darkblue]mplished[/color]
[/quote]
Halliburton Executive guilty of bribing Nigerian government officials: