Did Someone Mention "Blood for Oil"?
March 15th 2008 15:26
My son-in-law and I have had some good laughs over the term "Blood for oil." If we were really waging a war simply for oil from the Middle East, why are the prices so freaking high? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard! Sort of like saying, "I'll get even with you by slamming my own fingers in the door."
On the other hand, one could say that the libs/dems are waging an "oil for votes" election. They've been at it for years, in case you missed it, folks. No new refineries, no offshore drilling, no touching ANWAR... all for "ecological" reasons, right? Hardly! When the economy is shaky, they try to step in and take over, so they don't want us to be less dependent on foreign oil. It's their idea and their policy to force us to use foreign oil or go without. All the "green" noise about "alternative energy sources" is a smoke screen (pun intended). Using those new light bulbs was supposed to reduce our need for imported oil, wasn't it? Didn't we hear repeatedly that we'd all have to use the new bulbs "for the environment?" Of course they said that. Didn't bother to mention the "environmental" cost of making and transporting the new bulbs, did they? No mention of the damage that could occur if one was broken and the mercury spilled out, either, right? How about ethanol? That was supposed to be the "green" way to solve the pertoleum problem. It doesn't work. It's made from corn, folks, and the cost of food is going up like crazy while the corn crops are turned into ethanol producers. Corn, itself is much more expensive, which makes corn-fed livestock higher in price. This helped us, how? Nuclear energy is an enviromental "NoNo!" And wind isn't attractive enough for the rich libs/dems (like Teddy Kennedy) to allow the windmills in their view. Geothermal energy could be useful, except that it isn't everywhere and it's not popular enough to get real consideration from most of the politicians.
Bush has an energy policy that contains research and development of alternative fuels. He believes in forest management, not the "hands off" policy of Bill (the Zipper) Clinton. Of course Clintons energy policies were non-existant (maybe he was pre-occupied...) He wasn't about to buck his "friends" and agree to anything that wasn't strictly "green" in nature (another intended pun), and he wanted to keep the country dependent on foreign oil so that Hillary could look good as she ran for the Oval Office.
So, if Billary or Obama are elected, what do you think their "policies" will be on energgy? That's O.K., folks. They don't know either.
On the other hand, one could say that the libs/dems are waging an "oil for votes" election. They've been at it for years, in case you missed it, folks. No new refineries, no offshore drilling, no touching ANWAR... all for "ecological" reasons, right? Hardly! When the economy is shaky, they try to step in and take over, so they don't want us to be less dependent on foreign oil. It's their idea and their policy to force us to use foreign oil or go without. All the "green" noise about "alternative energy sources" is a smoke screen (pun intended). Using those new light bulbs was supposed to reduce our need for imported oil, wasn't it? Didn't we hear repeatedly that we'd all have to use the new bulbs "for the environment?" Of course they said that. Didn't bother to mention the "environmental" cost of making and transporting the new bulbs, did they? No mention of the damage that could occur if one was broken and the mercury spilled out, either, right? How about ethanol? That was supposed to be the "green" way to solve the pertoleum problem. It doesn't work. It's made from corn, folks, and the cost of food is going up like crazy while the corn crops are turned into ethanol producers. Corn, itself is much more expensive, which makes corn-fed livestock higher in price. This helped us, how? Nuclear energy is an enviromental "NoNo!" And wind isn't attractive enough for the rich libs/dems (like Teddy Kennedy) to allow the windmills in their view. Geothermal energy could be useful, except that it isn't everywhere and it's not popular enough to get real consideration from most of the politicians.
Bush has an energy policy that contains research and development of alternative fuels. He believes in forest management, not the "hands off" policy of Bill (the Zipper) Clinton. Of course Clintons energy policies were non-existant (maybe he was pre-occupied...) He wasn't about to buck his "friends" and agree to anything that wasn't strictly "green" in nature (another intended pun), and he wanted to keep the country dependent on foreign oil so that Hillary could look good as she ran for the Oval Office.
So, if Billary or Obama are elected, what do you think their "policies" will be on energgy? That's O.K., folks. They don't know either.
| 85 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by S.L Bradish
Comment by Geoff Egan
Noise Fanatic
Of course oil and corn prices are rising. For oil there is a decreasing supply with an increasing demand. Virtually all of the world oil has been tapped. Only Russia and Iraq have significant untapped reserves. Why? Because Russia was one of the poorest countries in the world for the last 20 years and Iraq was an international Pariah.
US (and European) reserves have been in constant decline since the turn of the century.
As for corn prices, it is natural that when another consumer comes into the market (ie ethanol) competition it will push prices up.
But I 100% agree that it is time to find new ways of sourcing our energy needs, but there seems like so little real options at the moment.
p.s I'm Australian, and take it from me your petrol prices are cheap. We'd be paying upwards of $5 a gallon here (its like $1.35/L last time I looked). I guess thats the benefit of the last of the reserves you have left!
Comment by S.L Bradish
Comment by Geoff Egan
Noise Fanatic
But I'm totally going to keep an eye on this blog, while I disagree with some of the things you say I really enjoy hearing other opinions and the occasional intellegent debate (something the internet lacks)
Comment by S.L Bradish
Comment by Anonymous
The war is being fought for profit, it is being fought for more control of oil while at the same time iti s being used against idiots such as yourselves as en excuse to jack up prices.
When you're convinced your leader is jesus christ reincarnated I guess you stop looking at the facts... then again, being inbred probably doesn't help either.
Comment by Geoff Egan
Noise Fanatic
Also hides behind the almighty 'Anonymous' mask.
Comment by S.L Bradish
My son-in-law is smarter asleep than you can ever hope to be. Could you take your ignorance and jealousy someplace else? You're boring me.
Comment by S.L Bradish
Comment by Anonymous
and when Al-Gore says we need to cut emissions, use renewable energy and become 'self reliant' he's accused of trying to run businesses into the ground and siding with the terrorists.
Fun fact: Oil corporations control the US government, it would be political suicide to try and make them irrelevant to the political system.
Comment by S.L Bradish
Comment by Anonymous
Do you want proof?
Which corporation posted the highest profit in the history of the united states: Really Long Link
If their industry was in oh so much turmoil, what with the Iraq war then how are they thriving so much?
Now where is your proof for your circular arguments and rhetoric?
Comment by S.L Bradish
Before you further embarass yourself and say something assinine like "American policies caused 9/11" let me say something. I agree with you. The policies (or lack thereof) shown by Bill (the Zipper) Clinton showed the terrorists that we were weak, and stupid, and an easy target. That's why they continued to attack us and finally used our own airplanes and innocent civilians against us. They expected us to cry and whine about another attack (like Clinton had done) but not to fight back. Had there been a man in the White House during those Clinton years with a bone in his back instead of his front, 9/11 would never have happened. The terrorists really didn't expect any consequenses for their murderous actions. Guess they got a surprise, huh? Then the liberal morons (like you) jumped on their evil bandwagon and cried like a bunch of babies when we took the battle to them.
Stay Anonymous if you're smart (which you obviously are not!) because someone you know might read the things you say. You'd never be able to show your face in public again, would you?
Comment by Geoff Egan
Noise Fanatic
The fact that oil is running out is no mystery. The largest reserves in the world are in Saudi Arabia, where it is entirley controlled by Saudi Aramco, a wholey nationalised corporation. Reserves around the world are being depleted, the Northern Sea and Gulf of Mexico are virtually dry, Russia is vastly underdevelopped and even then has little in comparison to that in the Persian Gulf. The oil sands in Alberta, Australia and Venezuala is amazingly costly, both environmentally and monetarily to process.
That the War in Iraq was about oil is, to a limited degree a valid argument, but the truth is that Iraq is a powerplay by the US government to exert more influence on the Middle East, especially the powers of the region in Saudi Araiba, Iran and Turkey. It can't rely on Israel anymore, as they are bodded down in their own internal and external conflicts and no longer relying so heavily on the US. Saudi Arabia is one of what is called 'energy superpowers' (along with Russia, with Canada and Australia considered emerging powers). This means that these countries can directly influence global policies with their energy resources (Arabia with its oil, Russia with gas, Canada with oil sands, Australia with coal and uranium). Having a presence in the Saudi region where there is growing instability, not to mention a Wahhabist monarchy is only common sense. The fact that the occupation of Iraq hasn't worked is due, the way I see it, as a failure on behalf of the Bush regime to listen to it's military that claimed very early that a large troop numbers would be needed to supress resistance in a country that has centuries of experience in fighting superpowers, along with a failure to adopt 'Peace Building' policies in favour of 'Peace Enforcing' strategies.
General Petraeus' tactics have done a lot to change this with his favouring of using the military to get the people onside rather than using them to soley for intimidation purposes.
Comment by S.L Bradish
In what way do you consider the war a failure? (Or by "not working" did you mean something else?) Sadam is gone, the Iraqi's have a government of their own, that they elected, the Surge worked, more Iraqis are taking responsibilities for protecting their country (by informing on terrorists, joining the military and police), the death count is down. Even American libs/dems seem to think it's going well, since they're not carping on it so much anymore.
Every country on Earth should be busily developing new energy sources. You'd think, with modern technology, someone would come up with something brilliant, wouldn't you?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Brendan Nelson (former Australian Defence Minister), in an interview on ABC Radio, July 2007:
"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them...The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world".
Jack Straw (former British Foreign Secretary), speaking to a meeting of British Ambassadors in January 2003, Straw said that a top strategic priority for the UK was to:
“bolster the security of British and global energy supplies”
Did someone mention 'blood for oil'? Yes we did!!!
Comment by Geoff Egan
Noise Fanatic
Islamist terror was virtually non existant in Iraq before the War, Hussein was vehemently secular. Now they seem to be a major player.
Oh and my comment regarding sources was diected at 'Anoymous' not you SL. Most of my stuff comes from news (more of a Rueters, BBC fan myself) and then journal articles that I know about through my degree. But they are mostly full of theory and ideas that most people don't know about. But that's another story for another time....
Comment by S.L Bradish
Hello Geoff!! As I understand it, the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech was referring to the fall of Saddam and taking Baghdad. It was precipitous, true. Since the war was far from over. We could wind up being there a long time to support the Iraqi government as it grows and learns. Look at Germany, Japan, South Korea and others. We have bases all over the world in former enemy countries. Leaving before the new government can handle things would be disastrous.
I'd like to get the BBC, but it isn't available where I live (at least with the cable service I have). However, the UK has Sky News, which is a sister station to Fox News Network. I get to hear lots of reports from them, with a British twist, of course.
Let me know when the "other story and time" comes about. You sound like an interesting person!