| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:17 pm: | 
|
According to BBC Newsnight, the plan by Bush administration neocons to privatize Iraqi oil for US companies has been superseded by a plan supported by the State Department and Big Oil companies to establish an Iraqi state oil company. Presumably this state oil company would be set up to be friendly to US oil interests (my opinion).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
The BBC report says that the appointment of Defense Department official Paul Wolfowitz to the World Bank is a result of the neocon's defeat within the administration.
This posting began as a response to CJC on the "Lebanon" thread in which I was about to defend my argument that the Bush administration planned to privatize Iraq's oil for US companies and build permanent US military bases in the country.
If the BBC story is accurate, Bush privatization plans have changed, but it appears that plans to control Iraqi oil wealth by other means -- along the lines of the Saudi Arabian model -- remain in place. And if Saudi Arabia is the model, it seems plausible that permanent US military bases will be a key component. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 202
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Is it a surprise to anyone that the U.S. would seek some means to control Iraqi oil? As on ordinary American, what difference is it to me whether it's privatized or run by a state owned company like Aramco in Saudi Arabia?
|
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5666
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
For one thing, I thought a free market was a sign of a healthy democracy. Iraq is going from socialism under Saddam to socialism under Bush.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
but Dave, "freedom is on the march"
and "war is peace" and "ignorance is strength" |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7961
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
I may be wrong, but I never viewed the neo-cons as particularly interested in economics. They basically believe that we should spread democracy, by force if necessary. Capitalism, while implied, isn't their overriding issue.
The "who gets the oil" question is much more a typical liberal/conservative traditional issue. Iraq should be able to maximize their revenue and profits from the oil. Saddam made some nice sweatheart deals with the French and the Russians that I don't think anyone thinks are in the interests of the Iraqi people. However, under international law they many be enforceable.
Interesting, huh? We go to war, get over 1,500 soliders killed and over 10,000 wounded to make Iraq safe for the Russians and French. 
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3305
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
If Iraqi oil was privatized or state-run doesn't obviate the fact that -- like Mexico's state-run oil industry and it's woeful state of technological capability not to mention bureaucracy and corruption -- Iraq will need outside investment and know-how to realize the oil production capability they have. They can go right along and honor the contracts Saddam had with the French and the Russians should they choose to do so.
Gosh -- why haven't they let the French in already? One word from Sistani and/or the Kurds and they'd be in there. They've only got the Iraqi interests at heart, after all.
Be serious, people. The US is all for the free flow of oil at market prices. If they were as imperialist as the Chomsky's on this board would have it, they'd have declared victory in Kuwait and taken all their oil back in 1991. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 649
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Gas hits $3.00 per gallon in California.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3309
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
I believe that price in CA given what kind of state that is. Overall, I think it's about $2.10 a gallon nationwide.
On an inflation adjusted basis, the highest gas prices were $3/gallon in 1981.
AAA reports that despite the high gas prices, the overall cost per mile when you figure in maintenance, fees, tires, insurance, etc is just over 56 cents a mile -- roughly the same as last year. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
You could cut gas prices by 60% instantly... just eliminate the taxes. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 795
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
MJ, while true, that is a pointless suggestion without followup. How would you make up the shortfall in the budgets that rely on those funds. And if you don't make up the shortfalls, what programs would you cut?
BTW, is it really 60%? Geez... |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 796
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
cjc, I'm curious... Did they breeak down the costs? I wonder what costs went down, given that the price per mile stayed the same, but gas prices are going up. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3311
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
I'd cut spending. Consolidate townships, eliminate county government, shrink the state employee payrolls, institute school choice and merit pay to bring competition into the monopoly of education, and encourage widespread healthcare savings accounts.
And sell more liquor licenses. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
if gas prices are so cheap (which they are, even at $2 a gallon) why do we need to cut taxes? and encourage people to ride around in even bigger, fuel wasting vehicles?
if they do that, I'll use the gas tax savings to buy a respirator, because if gas goes back below $1 a gallon, our air won't be worth breathing when everyone in creation buys a truck that gets 10 MPG. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Just a few years ago gas was 89 cents a gallon at the Exxon on Vauxhall & Springfield.
It wasn't the end of the world.
If gas was $1 a gallon, would YOU buy a 10mg SUV? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
you don't believe market forces affect people's behavior? with gas at 80 cents a galllon, where's the incentive to use less? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
and maybe you're too young to remember the gas shortage of '78 - '79. I can assure you that under those kind of circumstances, a higher price for gas does give people an incentive to drive less and shop for more fuel efficient vehicles. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3313
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Well, we've got another $1 a gallon to go. However, as the Wall Street Journal reported sometime last week, the amount of energy going into creating $1 of GNP has declined by over 50%. Those industries highly dependent on oil have left the country, or the operations outsourced to areas where petroleum is cheaper, or closed down all together. It adds to the picture of higher gas and oil prices not causing near the calamity they did in the Carter years. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 798
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Michael, how do you define "Just a few years ago?" It's been over 15 years since gas prices have been stable below $1/gallon.
However gas is still relatively cheap in the US, both in real dollars and in comparison to other countries. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
No way.
It was less than 5 years ago.
I've only lived here 6 years.
Stable is a different story, but it was under a buck for a few months. The Denco was under a buck for longer.
Prices will drop this time too. |
Bill P
Citizen
Username: Mrincredible
Post Number: 139
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Rastro,
Yeah, I remember it too, when gas was around $1 a gallon and less in a lot of places. It was not long ago, I think MJ may be right, about that. Late nineties.
Which would make it ...
my God ...
The Clinton Administration!!!!!
Heh heh heh. Oh, God, I love this board. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Bill P,
If you're going to make pronouncements about this board, you need to learn some of the rules. With regard to events that happened during the Clinton Administration, the two most important are these:
1) Anything good that happened was a result of the Republican majority in Congress.
2) Anything bad that happened was Clinton's fault.
And the corrollary to the above (let's call it 2A):
2A) Anything bad that has happened during the Bush Administration is Clinton's fault.
If you learn those simple rules, and listen to Hannity every day - three hours a day is all we ask - you'll learn to relax and accept that Dear Leader has our best interests at heart. If not, it means you hate America, and you hate freedom.
So get with the program, bub! |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 619
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Boogie's most accurate post to date. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7971
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Cjc, great spin. You are the only one I know who can make the loss of our industrial base a positive!!!!!
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Bill,
By that logic, Bush is doing far more for the environment than Clinton... Right?
Gas prices fluctuate... big whoop. They were expensive in the mid 90's (under Clinton) and then they became cheap (also under Clinton). Same will happen now, its about supply and demand, always will be.
Inflation adjusted, Gas is still cheap, and that doesn't even take efficiency into consideration. Compared to the 70's gas is cheaper and goes a heck of a lot further even in "gas guzzlers". |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3322
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Bob K -- it's the truth. And our GNP will continue to be more or less the same as relates to manufacturing in this country as it has been for decades (in or around 17% last I read).
Gas prices today aren't governed strictly by supply and demand. There's a ton of oil out there. You can talk about bottlenecks in refining since we can't build them here without MOL-types raising a stink, but many investors are hedging and trading with oil. Low dollar enters into here too.
With all that....MJ is right. Gas is still cheap. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
I agree, it is cheap. so why the call to eliminate gas taxes? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:01 pm: |
|
quote:You can talk about bottlenecks in refining since we can't build them here without MOL-types raising a stink
Actually, it's the refineries themselves that raise a stink, and that's why NO ONE in America (not just "MOL-types," but "real" Americans, for that matter) wants one built in their community. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Here's another report that suggests the neo-cons are in retreat and that the Bush administration may be reversing course in Iraq:
quote:Chicago Sun-Times
RICE LIKELY TO BACK IRAQ PULLOUT
March 28, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Determination high in the Bush administration to begin irreversible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq this year is reinforced by the presence at the State Department of the most dominant secretary since Henry Kissinger three decades ago. Condoleezza Rice is expected to support administration officials who want to leave even if what is left behind does not constitute perfection.
Amid the presidential campaign's furious debate over Iraq, I reported last Sept. 20 ("Quick exit from Iraq is likely") about strong feeling in the policymaking apparatus to get out of Iraq in 2005 even if democracy and peace had not been achieved there. My column evoked widespread expressions of disbelief, but changes over the last six months have only strengthened the view of my Bush administration sources that the escape from Iraq should begin once a permanent government is in place in Baghdad.
The most obvious change is the improved situation on the ground in Iraq, where it is no longer preposterous to imagine local security forces in control. Subtler is the advent of Secretary of State Rice. This willowy, vulnerable-looking woman wields measurably more power than Colin Powell, the robust general who preceded her. Officials who know her well believe she favors the escape from Iraq.
"She is not controlled by the neo-cons insisting on achieving a perfect democracy before we go," a colleague told me. That reflects not only the national consensus but also the preponderance of Republican opinion. Without debating the wisdom of military intervention in Iraq two years ago, President Bush's supporters believe it now is time to go and leave the task of subduing the insurgents to Iraqis.
In my Sept. 20 column, I speculated that Rice would replace Powell at State, that she would be replaced as national security adviser by her deputy Stephen Hadley and that Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz would succeed Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. I was correct in two out of three because Rumsfeld is staying on at the Pentagon.
When I reported that Rice, Hadley and Wolfowitz all would opt for withdrawal, skeptics claimed that I had misrepresented Wolfowitz and ignored his neo-conservative mind-set. In fact, Wolfowitz resents the neo-con label and privately regards its use as a catchword to be a form of anti-Semitism.
Nor is Rumsfeld a neo-con determined to spread democracy to every corner of the world and eager to place U.S. boots wherever needed. He is a pragmatist who views an intrusive U.S. occupation in Iraq as a political benefit for the insurgency. Rumsfeld consequently opposes the addition of more American troops, which is advocated by some supporters and by many critics of Bush.
The central figure in shaping the policy is Rice. Not since the days of Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft has a secretary of state had the power position of working with a former deputy at the National Security Council, as Rice does now. Furthermore, she is Bush's closest adviser. During Bush's first term, he spent vastly more time with Rice than with Powell or Rumsfeld.
Actually, withdrawal from Iraq short of an absolute military victory seems more feasible today than it did last September. Six months ago, it appeared that U.S. officials might have to ignore a bloody secular conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. Lethal though it is, the current insurgency does not rise to the level of a genuine civil war.
But how does the president rationalize an escape from Iraq with his inaugural address' embrace of a Wilsonian or neo-conservative dogma to spread democracy worldwide? Bush officials who want to reduce the military profile in the region argue that the grass-roots democratic sentiment boiling up in Lebanon is to get rid of Syrian troops, not to welcome U.S. troops.
Escape from Iraq for Bush, however, does abandon the neo-con dream of micromanaging creation of a democratic state in Iraq. Since I wrote about this option last September amid much skepticism, 500 more U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq to bring the toll to 1,500. That is too heavy a price to continue paying for not letting Iraqis try to make the best of their country now that we have eliminated Saddam Hussein.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page