At this very moment Bush has probably heard rumors of 1,000,000 different plots. Which to believe? Oil prices are higher now than before so your theory has a few holes in it.
quote[quote]Why wouldn't you think the Al-Queda were capable of flying airplanes into the World Trade Center? It was Asama's stated mission. [/quote]
Really? It was his stated mission? Please inform the other posters here as they seem to believe we targeted him at random or for oil. (partially referring to the America staged the WTC attack thread)
I do not believe that prior to 9/11 we had tapes that said “I am going to mastermind a airliner hijacking with the purpose of ramming the WTC” We had SIMILAR threats from him on tape but nothing as specific so that preventative measures could be put into place.
Back to Oil…hilarious really. You know that there are American oil producers right? Vast untapped reserves of oil in Alaska? That we have started implementing a mandatory production by all motor companies of atleast partially electric cars? I beleive that 15% of ALL American companies new cars have to hybrid electric or better. (this has started already and will go into full effect by 2005) I ask you this and please answer…What would the effect on the middle east be if we just simply reduced our comsumption of oil from that region in half? We could tap Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico more heavily and implement tighter restrictions on car manufacturers for miles to the gallon and a larger % of electric cars to make up the difference. We would be relativly unaffected. What about them?
Truth is that this has nothing to do with oil. It’s about religion and our refusal to allow the middle east to sweep over Israel. Just like we refuse to let China sweep over you.
Cheaper oil prices are in the USA interest… not higher oil prices.
I find it disturbing that people are willing to think of the USA as so cynical as to let 2,000 (or was it 3,000) people die, just to manipulate oil prices.
The real cynicism lies on the side of the terrorists, who are willing to kill these people (many different nationalities, different religions - including muslim) for some kind of a media spectacle…
I’m probably going to open myself up to a broadside on this one, but i feel the US government (and those of all developed nations for that matter) could make major inroads into countering terrorism by starting to hold transportation company heads criminally responsible for allowing their employees to engage in, and their vehicles to be used for, illegal purposes.
If I’m a truck driver crossing an international border and authorities find illegal drugs or firearms stowed within the confines of the vehicle, i go to jail. It matters not whether i was aware that i was carrying contraband. It’s personal, and governments can pick on individuals. Big corporations are not so easy.
Airlines have been mollycoddled for too long and know that their pilots can get away with killing people; insurance companies will bail them out when their jets crash even through negligence; their government will give them funds in a cashflow crisis; and that the consumer will ultimately foot the bill for everything through extortionate airfares.
Thay know we as consumers are over a barrel - what other option do we have? Take the boat? Before 911, I had always assumed that commercial airplane cockpits were secure areas, and that airline personnel were well screened before being employed. Guess i was duped. So was the rest of the world.
It’s surely time for the US government to put the thumbscrews on its airlines and shipping corporations, and make them pay for the damage their operations do to the nation.
quote:Originally posted by unregistered:
Yeah... Grasshopper... kind of a silly post.
Cheaper oil prices are in the USA interest… not higher oil prices.
I find it disturbing that people are willing to think of the USA as so cynical as to let 2,000 (or was it 3,000) people die, just to manipulate oil prices.
Oil prices have never been higher. Well not true they were about this high during his father’s reign and during the “Oil Crisis” of the 1970’s. In fact at that time they were worth about 70$'s a barrel. Should suit Bush, his father and their cronies.
Every red blooded Saudi, Iranian, and Iraqi also finds it disturbing but not unbelievable that the US would allow people to die to cynically manipulate oil prices. Obviously your average citizen in the US also finds it disturbing. The Bush’s, however, have been manipulating peoples lives since his granddaddy’s Union Bank was financing Hitler. Now there is an exercise in cynicism.
Asama did say he was targeting the WTC. He didn’t say how he was going to do it - not to any of us anyway. What I’m saying is that it should have been obvious that Bin Laden was planning another attack on US soil and there was more than casual evidence floating around about how he intended to do it.
On the same day of the bombing’s the CNN terrorist expert said he couldn’t believe the States weren’t aware of something of this magnitude going to occurr, because the people streaming out of Afganistan were talking about this major event that was about to take place in the States. From my limited experience of working in these environments there are more than a few US intelligence officers on the ground in these situations. If CNN could find an expert who thought that on day-one of their reporting, why couldn’t the US administration? If you don’t mind letting the Bush’s have a lend of you, fine.
If you really want to be a cynic, then examine the role of the oil-spot market singlehandedly created by Marc Rich…the guy whom was pardoned by Clinton in the eleventh hour. You’ll certainly find daisy-chain price schemes which suggest that the US Dept of Energy is more manipulative of the int’l oil market prices than you would ever want to really believe. Cheap energy policy drives the economy and oil is the most price sensitive lever for any sort of macro-economic manipulations not controlled by the Federal Reserve. Shipping costs are immediately impacted by oil costs and we live in petrochemical world. If you can’t comprehend it, then go to China where roads are mostly just concrete, whitewash prevails instead of any good paint, clay tiles instead of asphalt shingles cover rural homes, and the quality plastics are limited in the domestic markets. That is the pre-“cracker” days of no such oil refinery technology in China or the USA before the 1920’s.
Everybody is a monday morning quarterback. You would’ve done this differently or that. So what exactly are you implying?
A)That President Bush has 100% control over America and therefore is implementing his own secret agenda? Undoubtedly to benefit what? Himself? Rich “fat cats”? What’s the payoff? You do realize that he has a limited term in office right? That any program he implements can be torn down by the next administration? If history has shown us anything it’s that each administration does quite a bit of “tearing down” to put their stamp on things so to speak.
B)Or is it “them”? An elite room of seven highly secret uber fanatics that really run the administration? Undoubtedly to benefit what? Themselves? Rich “fat cats”? What’s the payoff?
C)We discussed the oil situation but I’ll leave it as an option. Perhaps it was to convince Americans to become less dependant on the middle east for resources? How did he get Osama to go for that? Why did the media not focus more attention on the bombing of the USS COLE? Enough airplay on that incident could achieve the desired results as well.
D)WHY NOT THE STATUE OF LIBERTY? I mean come on if you are going to attack America that would’ve hurt more and certainly Bush would know that. In addition, you’d get EXACTLY the same results perhaps even better (France would be PISSED) without the loss of life.
E)Perhaps you do not feel that Bush or any other member of the administration were directly involved; just merely incompetent. What if those Afganistanians that you said knew of threats were told 30 different threats? What if even after careful review 20 of them appeared viable and basically unstoppable without more information? What do you do now Mr. President? What do you do now? In a matter of days SOMETHING may happen. Put America on alert? For what exactly? Do you shut down the country until further notice? Do you know what would happen TO THE WORLD if America closed it’s banks, stock markets, transportation, even workers from working for a week? Really think about it. Hard. Imagine the panic in America and around the world. So that option if you are a thinking man is out. Back to the homefront…Thousands perhaps even millions of Americans can die if you screw this up…what do you do now? So far you only have enough information to know what not to do. Decide and may god have mercy on your soul.
Good point. When an abortion clinic gets blown up, should the police look for Buddhist groups?
Different nutsos have different axes to grind and different targets to swing them at. If an act of terrorism is domestic the perpatrator is most likely a miltant white male, if foriegn in origin the perpatrator is most likely a militant Muslim male. And, yes I know that Aum Shin Rikyo was Buddhist and there are some sketchy Hindu groups these days, but they’re not gunning for the US.
Somehow we need to find effective ways to make the US safer while doing as little damage to democracy and equality as we can. Obviously Ashcroft, who believes all amendments to the Constitution except the 2nd were mistakes, is not the man to strike this balance. But America as a whole needs a serious dialogue to figure out where it lies. Whatever mistakes are made will be smaller than those of previous eras. There’s been less of a backlash against Arab Americans and Muslims than a lot of people thought there would be and the prospect of lawsuits and reparations should also serve to curb some excesses.
So, again, how do we protect the country as effectively as we can without shredding it tries to uphold in its best moments? Should we pretend that there is no correlation between militant Islam and terrorism in spite of the fact that we were attacked by an overtly, if perversely, Islamic organization?
Osama and co. have brought us terrorism on a new scale. The IRA may have killed British civilians, but they never killed as many as Brtis Bin Laden did thousands of miles from British soil. Would the French or the British really react so much better if Al-Qaeda circled the Eifel Tower or Big Ben a couple of times with crop dusters full of chemical or biological agents? Unfortunately, we may still get a chance to find out.
In the final year of the Clinton administration Oil prices had hit 9$'s a barrel. This kind of pricing makes most oil fields in the States unviable. For the oil moguls of America it’s not worth taking it out of the ground at that price. Yet oil as a fuel source has a limited life span as any scientist worth his salt would tell you. Not simply because of the effects on global warming, but because there has been much more research into fuel alternatives.
That means for the States they have to jack up the price to make their reserves worth while over the next 20 to 30 years. 20 to 30 years think about it. It is happening in your life time - a move away from fossil fuels or a level of technology that allows for such fuel savings that the oil industry starts to become untenable. This isn’t my view, just flick to some back issues of “The Economist”.
You make the point that administrations change. The Bush’s have been around in power in the States for three generations. And we are not talking fly by night posts. Old Prescott got it all started he sired an inter generational presidency, and almost single handily started the cold war with Russia.
From the day Doublya got into power he ratcheted up the level of stress between Israel and Palestine. His administration had a hands-off policy from the outset with obvious concequences. For the peace process in Palestine.
They knew some thing was brewing with Al-Queda and waited it out. They let Asama play his hand in a way that would justify all out war. Under the Clinton administration there were fornightly Presidential meetings held to plan strategies to catch Bin Laden. These were abandoned in Bush’s first weeks as President.
Odd theory. So he wanted oil prices to go up and he has an enemy whose only export is oil. Gee how can I figure a way out of this? Wow! I got it! In four seconds flat I can shoot a hole the size of Texas in your “plot”. STOP BUYING ANY OIL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. The USS Cole would’ve been the justification he would’ve needed. Does the “Economist” tell you what happens to a product where demand skyrockets yet supply goes way down? I learned this in EIGHTH GRADE home ecomonics class. Did you cut class that day?
Oh I just found a report by the American Petroleum Institute that states we are trying to lower gas costs by :
NEW TECHNOLOGIES CUT COSTS
Improved technology has helped cut the costs of making, distributing and marketing gasoline. These savings are passed on to consumers at the pump. A number of new technologies contributed to these savings, including:
Long-haul pipelines, which have increasingly replaced less-efficient truck and barge transport of crude oil and petroleum products.
Newer, more efficient tankers with high-speed loading and unloading capabilities.
Pay-at-the-pump equipment and other labor-saving devices at service stations.
New computer-based inventory management techniques, which allow companies to track their supplies more efficiently, assuring that most inventory is en route to users in tankers and in pipelines, rather than sitting idle in costly storage facilities.
Computerized processing that allows refiners to tailor their operations to obtain the optimum mix of products. Refiners are now able to produce gasoline and other light fuels from grades of crude oil that, with older technology, were generally useful only for production of heavy boiler fuels and asphalt
Oil prices always go up during periods of uncertainty about supply. The best way to create this uncertainty is to have a middle eastern conflict as most oil is supplied from the Middle East. This assists the likes of the Bush’s in maintaining the price of oil high. It also allows for justified penetration of Middle Eastern States to control their governments which in turn allows for control over supply. These conflicts are conducted on the basis of these governments being undemocratic, despotic regimes. They often are, but they are certainly not the only ones in the world that fit this mantle. They are simply the ones that control the flow of most of the world’s oil. If this sounds all too familiar, it’s because it’s the same old story over and over again.
The US would never stop buying oil from the middle east as it is just capable of supplying it’s own needs and it has many oil production franchizes working out of the middle east.
The problem is Anjinsan demand is not skyrocketing and supply is not drying up. The oil crisis is not really eventuating. There are two sure fire ways to control oil prices. One is to restrict supply through a cartel. The other is to create uncertainty about supply through conflict. At present the OPEC cartel is too large to guarantee restrictions on out put. There are too many members and too many people willing to break with quotas at an oil price higher than about 20$'s a barrel.
Conflict is an easy temporary solution for the Bush administration, until it can get it’s hands on Iraq and other Middle Eastern governments. Why do you think these countries dislike the US? It’s all because of their oil policy.
Whilst new technologies are cutting the cost of refined oil to the US consumer, what we are discussing here is the price of crude oil. That is what interests the Bush administration, not the price at the pump.
“The majority of these posts just proves how much of an insulated and sheltered life you guys have in the States. Just because America leads such a sheltered life until now does not and cannot justify this discrimination that is going on, particularly as it comes close to bordering on racism.”
pot…kettle…black. any american who decides to explore outside the us immediately finds that all those people lecturing americans about discrimination and racism are a bunch of hypocrites. north african ghettos in france. asian(as south asians are called in the uk) riots in great britain. turks having to jump through hoops to get citizenship and other rights in germany. let’s not even mention asia and the rampant racism here. please, stop lecturing us like we don’t know what goes on in your own country. sure, some lily white town in europe likes to talk about how tolerant they are…but just walk around any town with a sizable minority population(like the french riviera which voted heavily for le pen) and the stuff that gets quoted by the newspapers would be worse than bigoted statements made anywhere in the us.
just because you guys don’t hold regular pogroms anymore doesn’t mean europe is some sort of racial paradise. so back off on the sanctimonious lecturing and try to solve discrimination in your own respective countries.
grasshopper, your argument is pretty weak. kinda like you needed a reason to make the us look bad and crafted an argument that defies economic sense to fit your needs.
if the bush administration is in the pocket of big business, artificially manufactoring high oil prices is the WORST thing he can do. not only does it depress company profits and piss off all his big business buddies, it slows us recovery and makes his administration look bad. so you’re saying that bush is willing to piss off big business, wall street, and the public and possibly sink his reelection campaign just to further the principle of us self-reliance on oil? and i’m sure in the same breath you’d say that bush cares about nothing except pleasing big business. at least pick some arguments that don’t completely contradict each other.
quote[quote]Conflict is an easy temporary solution for the Bush administration, until it can get it's hands on Iraq and other Middle Eastern governments. Why do you think these countries dislike the US? It's all because of their oil policy. [/quote]
Nothing to do with the support of Israel like Osama clearly stated 1,000 times? Do you realize what you are saying? I know that I will not get through to you but yet I’ll try…The USS Cole incident would’ve been enough to declare military action. Millions of Amercians were DEMANDING action then. Why wait for something bigger if all you need is an excuse? I mean really what would the guarentee be that there would be something bigger? Because some madman said there would? Gee wake up the middle east always has a madman that claims to be minutes away from crushing the American spirit through terror. ALWAYS. You never answer any of my questions. You side stepped the supply and demand fact by saying that we have companies in the middle east. What? What % would that be? Same companies that have VAST interests in American refineries too right? How would it be detrimental to them to keep their operations home?
Especially if it meant $25 a barrel due to reduced supply? Your arguments are flawed to say the least. You presume more than you prove which is always the case with fanatical liberal ideology.
Fact-Jets hijacked by muslim terrorists crashed into the WTC and the pentagon.
Fact-Osama Bin Laden has claimed for years to be planning massive terrorists strikes on America’s home soil due to it’s backing of the Zionist state of Israel.
Fact-Oil prices have increased but only marginally.
Fact-America supports freedom globally even by means of military intervention. Where was the farging oil in Vietnam? Where is the farging oil in Taiwan? Do I need to go on? Or is your beleif that we never do anything for human rights merely $. Yeah Vietnam was a real windfall. War ultimately losses money since it deverts funds that would normally be used for profitable ventures into the manufacturing of weapons that offer no return to investors.
Flipper you make some fair points. And at least you can understand that it’s not America as a whole I’m targeting, but the Bush administration and his cronies.
Don’t forget that the biggest contributors to Bush’s election campaign came from Energy companies. I agree with you that he will soon be pissing off his big business buddies. If he keeps this up for much longer there will be a substantial backlash in America against this kind of governance. War mongering for cynical means cannot be conducted long term. That’s why Bush would like to get into Saddam as soon as possible, before the back lash starts. The Europeans are awake up to this. That’s why they are stalling.
Anjinsan, I’m sorry i haven’t been responding to your questions, but I didn’t want to ruin my street cred as an Oriented poster. By the way companies that have had oil interests in the middle east: EXXON Mobile, Standard Oil, Amoco and Chevron. You know all the small ones.
I guess my point to you is that under Clinton’s regime Bill would have been more reluctant to orchestrate a war against terrorism as he didn’t have the oily motivation of the Bush’s. Hence when the USSCole was bombed Clinton didn’t have the motivation to go after Iraq through an all out war with Afganistan. He did however try to kill Asama. He even made a half botched attempt at it.
Yes those 62 posts worth of respectability have gone whoosh already. Typical evasiveness that always persists when the poster has no valid points to be made. One ounce of proof is all that reasonable men require to start a discussion. Just answer some questions for once…why did Osama say the reason of his hatred was because of our backing of Israel if he meant oil? What would they give us to hand over Israel free and clear? What would China give us to back away from Taiwan? We stand to gain more by NOT helping outnumbered countries.
All those oil companies that you named…what % of the middle east do they “own”. What % of the middle east oil goes through their hands as a refiner? Companies would gain more by having an embargo against the middle east. If our “in house” comsumption tripled those companies would lose money?
I read your post much more carefully this time and apologize that I took your previous thoughts out of context.
But I do have a bone to pick with your last post
Anjinsan writes:
quote[quote] Fact-America supports freedom globally even by means of military intervention. Where was the farging oil in Vietnam? Where is the farging oil in Taiwan? Do I need to go on? Or is your beleif that we never do anything for human rights merely $. Yeah Vietnam was a real windfall. [/quote]
(I know I didn’t get the whole thing in but I hope it’s enough this time.)
Please tell this fact to Allende in Chile, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua or more recently Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. (I know one is dead!) I think they would disagree with your facts. But, then again I guess we could always dust off the Monroe Doctrine and call it a day. Quoting some lyrics from one of my favorite rock bands in the US:
“And don’t forget sucker which hemisphere you’re in…”
So now the discussion is whether or not America has always been perfect? C’mon. Leaders make errors of judgement then hopefully they are replaced by better leaders. Have I bothered to check Taiwan’s history to find nuggets of “evil” if you will? China’s? No but please comment on this instance, in this time period, with this leader.