We live in a fool’s paradise because we are not kept informed about the conditions of the functions, as you so aptly noted, by leaders who have kept the denizens ignorant on purpose. The fact that we know we are ignorant is not going to make us in the collective sense cognizant over night.  Apparently it takes education which everybody with a brain knows takes time. Time that we don’t have apparently. Those who know the truth and speak it loudly are drowned out by the rich and powerful so the ordinary citizens never hear and go blithely on their way as if there was an endless supply of whatever it is they consume.  It doesn’t really matter if mathematicians assign real meaning to function values, as long as the mathematicians keep it a secret and only the few initiates understand.  Why aren’t the informed mathematicians shouting it from the rooftops?  And we do thank you for making it known on this forum LeRoy Kottke. Since there is not going to be a significant discovery of crude oil supply, all the explication about functions and exponents is just an exercise in erudition.  (And here is the thing:  suppose there was an amazing discovery, do you think those who made the discovery would share it to the degree that it would affect the ordinary person?  To think so is naive.  Nor will Americans stop using oil altogether.  That is a preposterous fantasy.  The fact that the rest of the world (so-called third worlders) are exponentially using oil, inversely nullifies any and all fantasies anyway.

What is happening now with the decreasing oil supply is an excedingly good thing in that it is forcing humankind to seek relatively free renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, thermal, and whatever else nature can offer, i.e., hydrogen, which however will take another energy source to make useful for the creation of electricity.  We already use waterpower in hydroelectric plants to make electricity. So it is not like humans cannot come up with inventions to make renewable energy.  But someone here already made mention as to why there is such resistance (sscianni), there is no profit margin for the corporate ‘masters.’ How are they going to make a buck if the sun is providing the energy source?  The “masters” don’t know it, but the path is inexorable.  We war in Iraq not for freedom and democracy but to provide for oil commodities and speculation, on oil futures.  It is erroneously thought that the price we pay today for gasoline is directly connected with the price of crude oil on daily basis.  When in fact, the crude oil price is for “future” oil supplies.  The gasoline companies just take advantage of that fact to jack up the daily price of gasoline to make an obscene daily profit margin.

Ostrogoth has it right, as does “Ed Harges,” and Sodium who all give the perfect picture.  But I submit that the reality is it is not really Israel, it is Israel using the United States using Israel for its purposes, so we get sleight of hand away from the real reality.  We look like we are waging war against Israel’s enemies, but they are really enemies of the United States. Otherwise it would be called IAPAC (Israeli American Public Affairs Committee).  Most of America watches MSM.  MSM is a monorail for creating public opinion. MSM is run by corporate America, corporate America is sympathetic to Israel. It is apparent the Arabs, and the late Saddam Hussein in particular paying 30 grand per suicide bomber to attack and depopulate Israel, want a war between Israel and the Arab nations.  Granted that one nation (Israel) ought not to be annihilated by another (all the Arab nations), but beyond that fact, the big question is, Sodium, and I am not saying you are wrong, or right; why is Israel so important to the United States?  We want only truth.

One reason energy companies do not like wars in oil-rich regions is because of what Saddam did as he left Kuwait in the first Gulf war. You remember the burning oil fields!  Who has forgotten?

SamSneddegar,

You must be ‘in the know’ here..

“AIPAC didn’t even get invited to the Cheney energy meetings.”

Now as SECRET as those meetings were, and as hard as Cheney fought (and won) in the suit with the GAO to get the information on the participants, how do you get to know?

Inquiring minds want to know…

too bad that the Jews aren’t as big in the Bush administration as this apparent admirer of the Mossad claims; there would be far more intelligent things being done thereby.

Had the Iraq adventure been about Israel it would have happened a LOT sooner and a lot better; sorry to rain on someone’s poor parade, but it was never about Israel and always about oil. AIPAC didn’t even get invited to the Cheney energy meetings.

Sodium,

Thanks for making this information so clear and concise. Much appreciation.

I guess the confusion comes in because in the US the warmongers, I mean, folks in charge, are Big Oil and Christian, so it’s easy to say that the Iraq was about Oil and/or “The End Times”.

But, clearly, as you say, big oil lost its clout to AIPAC long ago and is more like a lap dog compared with the ferocity of AIPAC.

Thanks again for the explanation.

Jibbguy--I would also like to see Americans get energy Independent. I think it’s one way we can get out of big oil’s stranglehold.

It would be like Energy Democracy: One Roof, One Energy Net Zero Citizen. All it takes is a roof and a plug in car and we’re FREE.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8079

The second article in the series “Free Energy and the Open Source Energy Movement” discusses suppressed and buildable working energy alternatives, the “Rotoverter” conversion can save you hundreds a month… Just by modifying your home and small business devices that use AC motors.

Oil and coal corporations not only have illegal “trust” cartels to fix prices, they along with MSM actively work to suppress new energy technologies. The only ones you are allowed to hear about are the ones that are less cost effective than petroleum and still require an infrastructure to distribute (under THEIR control). But there are many more out there that can eliminate using oil and coal as fuels forever… And free us from a society based on “scarcity”.

De-centralization of energy via embracing the new technologies means no more hunger, poverty, wars… Desalinization plants running on cheap energy will turn deserts into farm fields… And every home and vehicle will have non-polluting energy without filling stations or power grids. The technology is THERE. They just won’t let us have it.

The Open Source Energy movement is working to change that. If enough of us build our own, they can’t stop it and it WILL become accepted, and will be reported on by the mainstream media, and Universities will be forced to study them, and politicians (including Obama who knows all about them) will be forced to admit they exist… Finally.

There is a peaceful revolution going on now: Its not about “politics” it is about having the right to generate our own energy… Cheaply, cleanly, and safely.

I go back to the thousand dollar bill you found in the street . . . you didn’t know it but why it was there was because SOMEONE lost it under SOME circumstances. The actual reason for the bill being there to be found may never be known because it could have been a single bill blown there from the bag carried by a bank robber, a bill which blew out of a rich woman’s purse as she fumbled for a kleenex, a bill which somehow floated away as a drug dealer counted his take, or even a bill which flew out of the window of a small plane in the sky fifty miles from where you picked it up.

So how can I say OIL, when there are all those competing reasons for our Iraq adventure, including the fact that somehow in some way all those Jews sympathetic to Israel were involved in the process, people like Feith, Wolfawitz, Perle, Feinstein, Schumer, Wexler, etc.?

Sometimes logic CAN be developed from a negative thing, and in this case, if there were NO oil, then there would be no reason for Israel to fear Saddam, Iraq, or anything about the arabs and Persians; without the oil, there would be no way that Saddam or any other arab leader could mount a threat to Israel, because there would be no MONEY for armies or weapons or missiles or bombs or biologicals or nukes.

Mainly though, if there were no oil in Iraq, there never would have been any reason at all to OCCUPY and maintain a forceful presence in Iraq by American soldiers. Remember, we let them fix their own damage after Gulf War One, and they did a good job of it, far better than we seem to have been able to do in the last five years.

I’m not saying that there were not hundreds or even thousands of influential Americans and foreigners with varying reasons for wanting war with Iraq, but none of them had or could have had the power to force us to war, and indeed, the Bushitter gang of thugs found it necessary TO LIE to us in order to get their troops into Iraq where they could guard “our” oil. They didn’t have to lie about it so they could do a favor for the Izzies, and you’ll never sell me that the Bushitters give a pluperfect damn about the Izzies at all, but they did have to lie to keep us from finding out that they coveted and killed to steal oil, or more properly stated, steal CONTROL of the oil.

So.....even though Feith, Wolfie, Perle, Feinstein, Schumer, Wexler, and many others all had their OWN good reasons for wanting us to war with and occupy Iraq, all of their wants didn’t once figure into the plans of the Cheney forces, except maybe as an auxiliary diversionary tactic. You may not agree, but I personally think there was a planned operation which put Feith and Wolfawitz and Perle in the Defense Dept where they could use their own desires to further the war plan. Everyone had to lie, because NONE of their reasons for going to war would stand scrutiny, so in the end they all settled for the same lies that have now been proven such.

So instead of all these possible reasons that might have preceded finding the thousand dollar bill, I’m looking for ONE reason, the REAL reason, the banknote got there on the street.

Seems plain to me: no oil in Iraq, no American occupation of Iraq. Here’s a quote from the Tom Tomorrow of a number of years ago: “Of course it was about the goddamned oil. Anyone who fails to comprehend this now desperately needs to take a refresher course in Basic Distinctions Between One’s Ass and a Hole in the Ground.”

Well SamSnedeggar,

Maybe you’re right. Clearly I’ve never doubted that OIL was a huge if not a primary reason. That doesn’t explain why Israel attacked Iraq nearly 30 years ago though, and specifically their nuclear reactor, and we can’t make that go away.

But I’m fine with the OIL part of it. No doubt it was the primary reason. But, we also can’t ignore the fact that -again- it was the one thing -OIL- that Israel didn’t get with the gift deal in 1948.

Naomi Klein’s recent article, “Disaster Capitalism, State of Extortion” has a nice description of how the big “four” oil giants wormed their way into Iraq:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout

Here’s an excerpt:

“After years of back-room arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oil fields, accounting for around half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq’s oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign firms will keep 75 percent of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25 percent for their Iraqi partners.

That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anticolonial struggles. According to Muttitt, the assumption until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop brand-new fields in Iraq--not to take over ones that are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. “The policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company,” he told me. This is a total reversal of that policy, giving INOC a mere 25 percent instead of the planned 100 percent.”

Vietnam had oil offshore. No oil, no USA.

You keep losing sight of the reality; no oil, no REASON EVER to put one single boot on the actual ground of Iraq; we could easily have bombed them back into the middle ages if all we wanted to do was to kill Saddam and protect Israel.

There were a lot of people who wanted to invade Iraq for a lot of reasons, but NONE of the reasons hold up for WHY we had to go there, let their country languish without water and electricity for FIVE YEARS, and present Iran with a carte blanche for taking over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis . . . as I said before, if we’d done any of it just to do Israel’s bidding, we’d have gone to Baghdad after Gulf War One, but that was under UN auspices and directions, and we couldn’t control the oil all by ourselves at that time. Hence, we waited for the time to attack when WE were the only arbiter of what happened to the oil, and WE got the UN out of the picture entirely.

I’m sorry, Cyrena; it’s about oil. It never was about anything else. There are only two verities to consider in the 21st century: (1) it’s about oil, and (2) the nose picking, farting Bush is a moron who never made a decision and never made a plan.

SamSnedeggar,

This is just my own opinion, so bear with me a moment here. I honestly don’t KNOW that the US would have invaded and occupied Iraq if they didn’t have any oil, and those are the kinds of questions that nobody can answer, unless we make a comparison to similar events in history.

For instance, what did the US hope to ‘steal’ in Vietnam? Rice? No. The purpose then was the global hegemony that the US has practiced for over a Century. And no, at the time of Vietnam, the US wasn’t attached at the hip to Israel..at least not to the extent that they are now. And if the occupation of Iraq by the US were ONLY about oil, why didn’t we do it long ago? It’s not like the US hasn’t a history of taking over nation states.

So it’s not a matter of this invasion being one thing OR the other. If it was ONLY about oil, it would have happened before now, but you’ve always believed it was the ONLY reason to invade Iraq. But that isn’t the case. Do you remember asking me how we would get the oil if we DIDN’T steal it? And my response at the time was that we could simply PAY for it! Earlier US regimes have been willing to do that! Naturally the oil companies have made trillions more by stealing it rather than paying for it, but that still is not the only reason that the Neocons choose to destabilize that entire region.

It is NOT a secret that Israel has always been determined to be the ONLY nuclear power in the region, which is why they did that sneak attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility nearly 30 years ago, before oil became as globally important as it is now. And needless-to-say, OIL was the one thing that didn’t come with the land that Israel stole 60 years ago! Who has to explain the Zionist mentality there? No way in hell was Israel then or now, ever going to be satisfied with sharing any resources, or any geopolitical power with any single other nation in the Middle East. They’ve put up with Saudia Arabia because the Saudis don’t HAVE any nuclear ambitions, and because Israel needs to assure their own supply of the stuff from SOMEWHERE. Now imagine if the Saudis decided they needed some nuke power themselves. Well, Israel and/or the US would be all over them as well. And according to Larry Wilkerson, the thugs would probably have gotten to even them eventually.

Read the PNAC document Sam. Read the signatories on the documents. Over half of these people have dual US/Israeli citizenship. Look at the names and read them carefully. Cross check them with those involved in the assault on the ME, which was also intended to include Iran and Syria. Read the absolute goal of the PNAC, with is to enforce US hegemony throughout the Middle East by use of military force. Iraq is literally the heart of the Middle East, and THAT was the strategic place to begin. And until about 15 or so years ago, the Iraqi military was the 4th largest and most well equipped military in the world. In other words, Israel couldn’t have destroyed Iraq without the help of the US, no matter how many stealth missions they undertook.

So yes..it was of course about oil, but it was never ONLY about oil, once the neocons/pnac had developed their plan. They couldn’t get Clinton to carry it out, so they had to wait until they could steal the Oval Office. And THAT is why Cheney snarled to whipped everybody up over 8 years ago, with the instructions to “Just get the Oval Office.” He said he didn’t care what they had to do to get it, but to just get the F%@#-ing Oval Office. He was serious. It’s the only way they could even attempt to get the goals of the PNAC accomplished. And the PNAC was as much an Israeli operation as it has been a neo-con operation.

after I tried so hard to be logical . . . pointing out that if there was no oil, there would be no occupation and would have been no reason for Israel to fear Saddam, an Israel which feared him so little that they bombed his nuclear facilities in the past and interfered with his nuclear “deals” with the French.

Logic would appear to be in shortest supply among those who invoke it most, so I will just point out that if there were no oil and no oil pipeline sites, then there would be no interest in Iraq by the Bushitter gang of thugs and their PNAC predecessors; no interest at all, and for that matter, if Iraq had no more oil than Syria, then not even Israel would be interested in occupying it or saving it from Iranian interference. Yes, the Tigris and the Euphrates makes Iraq critical to the feeding of the mideast, but who cares about bread when there is oil to steal?

re: By Ostrogoth, July 7 at 12:55 am:

Yes, Ostrogoth. Sam also fails to distinguish beween a necessary cause and a sufficient cause. He says, “No oil, no war; therefore, the war was entirely about oil.”

Logically, Sam makes an elementary error. He thinks that if “Not-A implies Not-B”, then “A implies B”.

This is not logical. It’s like saying, “If you have no musical talent, you won’t get into the Juilliard Conservatory; therefore, if you DO have musical talent, you WILL get into Juilliard.”

The fact that Sam can’t get past this simple logical error makes it difficult for me to bother engaging him directly. There’s just no point.

Concerning the price of oil, I can’t say it better than than Thomas McAdams Deford of freepressonline:

“It’s all the fault of the ‘speculators,’ our elected officials shout. The fact that speculators are the ones who take the risk and provide the liquidity and are in many ways the lifeblood of the capitalist system, which these same elected officials insist the rest of the world must emulate, seems to have escaped their notice.

“One thing Congress might do, if it’s so concerned about the high price of oil, is to ask that Bush and Cheney and McCain, and Obama as well, publicly take military action against Iran OFF the table: you’d see a few of those speculators taking their winnings and heading for the doors. They’re not causing the high prices; they’re only reacting in a rational way to the irrational policies of our government.”

http://www.freepressonline.com/article.cfm?id=551

re: By Ostrogoth, July 7 at 7:38 am:

Ostrogoth, thanks for helping to keep the truth audible of the din of screaming denials from Israel’s “American” partisans.

Greenspan’s comment wasn’t about oil per se and its being “largely” the reason for the occupation of Iraq, it was about NO ONE WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

The reason no one wants to address that issue is because to admit that you did it for oil is to admit to coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing, all in order to get our economy right again.

It is very stupid to think that the USA would ever have invaded and occupied an oil free Iraq, even as it is a given that the Israelis WANTED us to nail Saddam and protect them from his wrath when the sanctions were lifted---and they HAD to be lifted sooner rather than later, for the cruelty of them was visited on the PEOPLE of Iraq, not Saddam.

A few people of note are starting to mention the oil connection; Maddow nattered about it, and Charlie Rangel did the same; Scheer is back to telling the truth, and Kucinich never wavered in his remonstrations anent Iraq’s oil. It seems that some people would rather admit to their country breaking a few of their God’s commandments than show their abject stupidity in trying to maintain that AIPAC would have the clout to send the GOP to war where the only prize was safety for Israel.

I don’t deny that the Izzies were all lobbying for the war; I just hold it utterly stupid to even contemplate the USA going to war for AIPAC, and I will admit that Hillary Clinton VOTED for the war because of AIPAC. But then we were going to war no matter what the Congress did or didn’t, because the money was already misappropriated for the invasion of Iraq by taking it away from the Afghanistan venture. To say that the Bushitter gang of thugs went to war for AIPAC is monumentally stupid. They would have gone to war if AIPAC were against it, and it probably should have been, because the only result of the Iraq adventure will ultimately be to push Iraq into the waiting arms of the Iranian mullahs after which TWO of the major oil producers in the mideast will be selling oil for euros or yen or something besides the worthless dollar.

Even though SamSnedegar’s posts are somewhat confused and cryptic, they’re consistent with the Israel Lobby’s strategy of shifting the spotlight away from its critical role in spurring violence and instability in the Middle East.

Sure, Big Oil is making Big Bucks off the oil crisis, but it’s a logical fallacy to assert that they instigated these wars just because they have profited from them so far.

Israel isn’t a “flea on the Mideast dog,” as the Zionists would have us believe. With two hundred illegal nukes plus nuclear submarines, it IS the Mideast dog.

“By Ed Harges, July 6 at 4:29 pm #

re: By SamSnedegar, July 6 at 3:46 pm:

Isn’t it funny that Sam thinks Alan Greenspan is some kind of transparently candid, agenda-free oracle of truth?

“Why, Alan Greenspan says the war was all about oil and had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel! How could anyone doubt him?” “

You are NOT quoting Sam there, so who is the author that gave rise to the quotes and italics?

As far as I know Greenspan never said any such thing, and neither did I.

What I KNOW is this: no oil, no occupation. Period.

Israel is a FLEA on the mideast dog, and even as it has bought and paid for a few hundred US congressmen, it never could have declared war for the USA just because a live and powerful Saddam threatened its (Israel’s) very existence.

On the other hand, Iran very likely will get nukes, and it will test them by setting them off in Tel Aviv.

One MIGHT say that Israel caused THAT war---the one where some force has to neuteralize and neuter an Iran which would have threatened no one had Israel not stuck its stick into the fecal matter.

For all the rabid (and I do mean) rabid Obama supporters, you are the ones that should get over it. Your defense of your candidate has become so laughable. So now you base your faith on the candidate lying? Did he not say he wanted to seize Iranian assets? Or yes, that is just pandering, and I should get over it. Everytime he reveals what a complete defender of the status quo he truly is, you make excuses. So if the big bad Bush-Cheney cabal attacks Iran immediately, what is your candidate going to say, that Iran was not a threat? You support a candidate based on the faith that he is lying. When I read that kind of nonsense, with the instruction to get over it, I am reminded that is exactly what the Republican party said after the debacle of the 2000 election. An instruction recently revived by a Supreme Court judge. Perhaps getting over it, replaces reality? Who a person votes for, or not votes for, is nobody’s business but the voter.

“It’s about oil, not about Israel. Israel didn’t look for an excuse to start the Iraq war, the Bushitters did; Israel didn’t want to steal control of Iraq’s oil, the Bushitters did.”

By SamSnedegar, July 6 at 3:46 pm
_______________

This is the myth that the Israel Lobby wants you to believe so they can continue subverting US foreign policy with little or no opposition. Most neocons are Zionists. Bush and Cheney are oil men, but they didn’t ram resolutions against Iraq through Congress, AIPAC did. The oil lobby didn’t push the Kyl-Lieberman resolution through the Senate, AIPAC did. The same goes for HR 362. AIPAC, not the oil lobby, is bribing US politicians to commit treason.

In order to stabilize the ME and our oil supply, we first have to identify the cause of the escalating ME violence and instability: Israel and its fifth column in the US.

Sorry to harp on this, but it has literally become a matter of life and death for millions of innocent Muslims. Apartheid Israel and its lobby will destroy the US as well, unless Americans are able to snap out of their MSM-induced stupor.

By troublesum, July 6 at 6:08 pm:

(1) Yes, indeed. The decline of the dollar is a big reason for the oil price rise. And the 3.5 trillion dollar Iraq war has a hell of a lot to do with the loss of the dollar’s value. Uncle Sam’s printing money like mad to throw at his wars, and that means our money is losing value.

(2) Another factor is the US/Israeli threats of war against Iran.

Remember that during Israel’s 2006 onslaught against Lebanon, oil went up to the then-scary price of $75/barrel, because there was a good possibility that the war might escalate to involve Iran, threatening oil supplies, the Straits of Hormuz, etc.

After the Israeli war of aggression ended without spreading to Iran, oil went back down to $50/barrel: a thirty-three percent drop.

(3) So: the debt-financed Iraq war drives the dollar down, raising the dollar price of oil; and the threat of war against Iran also drives the oil price up, because it threatens supply.

And both of those wars are for Israel.

Bottom line: our economy, and therefore our country, is being ruined in the pursuit of wars for Israel.

$25 of the $140 per barrel cost of oil is due to the decline in the value of the dollar.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25556072/

• “As to my crack about Senator Obama, that was just a cheap shot on my part, concerning his Iran saber rattling, his assertion that: “There is no greater threat to Israel--or to the peace and stability of the region--than Iran.” ….That is indeed some very high falooting rhetoric when you consider what the United States’ assorted administrations have done to Iran. From the overthrow of democratically elected Mosaddeq, to support for Iraq and their war against them. No, it is the United States government that is a threat to Iran and the region.”

####
Yep, beerdoc,

It was a cheap shot, just like all of the others, specifically because we ALL saw this for the rhetoric that it is. Unwelcome rhetoric to be sure, (at least by anyone other than AIPAC which is why it took me so long to get around to reading the thing…I’ve never paid any attention to the ‘needs’ of AIPAC before, so why would I care about what Sen Obama had to say to them?)

And, I think even a 6th grade review of history would probably be enough to inform most of the crimes of the US against the Middle East for the past 60+ years at least). So yeah, WE know the US government is the threat against Iran and the region, and I’m sure Obama knows it too. So accuse him of pandering and get over it. Vote for McCain if it’ll make you feel better, or stay home like troublesum bert keeps urging everyone to do after her girlfriend lost the democratic nomination.

Meantime, if you wanna move up to the big time, and take some expensive shots instead of spilling yet more ink on the same old cheap shots, check out the plans for Iran that make Obama’s comments to AIPAC totally insignificant. Dick Bush will in fact follow through on their long ago plans to attack Iran, and long before the next president takes office. That’s because they know that they cannot absolutely count on stealing this next election as they have the last two. Consequently, they can’t delay the attack any longer, and wait on McCain to follow it through, because McCain may not win. If Obama wins, he won’t follow through on their war plans against Iran, and we know that as well.  He’s said from the beginning that he prefers direct talks and diplomacy, and it is direct talks and diplomacy that Dick Bush et al have avoided for nearly 8 years, preferring instead to lay the ideological groundwork to create an enemy that is not an enemy. Creating ostensible enemies is what Fascists do best. That this is being accomplished on behalf of Israel just adds the other dimension to it this time. Initially, (back at the time of Mossadegh’s overthrow) it was on behalf of the US and Britain.

So, check this out. It’s lengthy, so it’ll keep you busy for a while. You can go back as far as two years at least, on everything else that Seymour Hersh has documented on this planned takeover of Iran if you wanna know the real story.

http://www.truthout.org/article/preparing-battlefield

Obama didn’t do it. So, blame him for something else. I’m sure you’ll find plenty.

re: By SamSnedegar, July 6 at 3:46 pm:

Isn’t it funny that Sam thinks Alan Greenspan is some kind of transparently candid, agenda-free oracle of truth?

“Why, Alan Greenspan says the war was all about oil and had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel! How could anyone doubt him?”

Like Alan Greenspan before me, I marvel that NO ONE WILL TALK ABOUT IT . . .

It’s about oil, not about Israel. Israel didn’t look for an excuse to start the Iraq war, the Bushitters did; Israel didn’t want to steal control of Iraq’s oil, the Bushitters did.

I’m so happy to see Bob Scheer back telling the truth about what caused the LAT to fire him. Perhaps he got enough money out of the last book to keep him forever, or perhaps he figured out that if someone doesn’t start telling the truth, we will be paying ten thousand dollars for a loaf of bread. Either way, I am very happy to see his voice out there telling those inconvenient truths once more.

Fadel Abdallah, thank you. For the record, although I am a professional beer consultant where non-drinking convenience store owners from Lebanon ask me for advice, I do not drink when writing, or any other creative activity that requires complete concentration. As someone on HuffPo said: Do not drink and blog!
The recent link posted about $144 barrel of oil and bin Laden is a real show stopper.
Peace, and soberly so,
The Beer Doctor

By thebeerdoctor, July 6 at 4:07 am #

Fadel Abdallah, and everyone, the reason I posted the Glaspie-Hussein link was, among other matters, the fact that it is the desire of the oil industry to always have a higher price for a barrel of oil. Quote: “Glaspie: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.”
And just who are those “many Americans”?
As to my crack about Senator Obama, that was just a cheap shot on my part, concerning his Iran saber rattling, his assertion that: “There is no greater threat to Israel--or to the peace and stability of the region--than Iran.”
===========================
Dear thebeerdoctor:

Thanks for the clarification; now I understand its relevance to the thread and to whole mess our country is going through.

And thanks again for bringing to our attention the Saddam-Glaspie document; it’s a very important document for students of modern history and current affairs.

After your clarification, I realize we are on the same page, except that I don’t drink beer! (Laugh!)But I promise that I am willing to drink one to your health if in the near future we get some good news worthy of being celebrated!

I think I found a link that is worthy of this discussion.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/

Fadel Abdallah, and everyone, the reason I posted the Glaspie-Hussein link was, among other matters, the fact that it is the desire of the oil industry to always have a higher price for a barrel of oil. Quote: “Glaspie: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.”
And just who are those “many Americans”?
As to my crack about Senator Obama, that was just a cheap shot on my part, concerning his Iran saber rattling, his assertion that: “There is no greater threat to Israel--or to the peace and stability of the region--than Iran.”
That is indeed some very high falooting rhetoric when you consider what the United States’ assorted administrations have done to Iran. From the overthrow of democratically elected Mosaddeq, to support for Iraq and their war against them. No, it is the United States government that is a threat to Iran and the region. Time and again some new cynical machinations are pulled, and then the USA always claims to be innocent.
Ironically, on that same day, June 4, 2008, Senator Obama stated: “And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil.” When it is the craven need for that oil by the West, which has extended tyranny throughout the region.
Obama also stated:"We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.”
This is a remarkable statement, providing clear evidence that Senator Obama like his opponent is a true believer in American hegemony. Perhaps I missed a meeting, but when was it that war was declared against Iran?
Forget the immorality of all this, just ask yourself: what will the price of oil be when the United States overtly attacks Iran?

cyrena,

Thanks for the links. Especially the one to Antonia Juhasz’s work, wow.

And I agree, the Exxon ‘award’ is criminal.

Did you notice that one of the points in the LA Times opinion piece http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/ la-op-feige20apr20,0,4231451.story is that the Ecuadorian court’s decision may make it easier for developing nations to have legal recourse?
David Feige says, “If the judge rules against the oil giant, [ChevronTexaco] plaintiffs in other developing countries that have suffered environmental degradation because of the business practices of multinational companies may follow the legal map laid out in Aguinda vs. Texaco. If so, developing nations could aggressively assert their sovereignty over multinational corporations, protecting their indigenous populations and ecosystems from the mining, drilling and timbering industries that have often written their own tickets.”

This is great news since we obviously can’t count on the American justice system anymore.

Thanks also for the Saddam info, thebeerdoctor, fascinating, and thanks to Fadel Abdallah for explaining it!

Lisa,

Thanks so very much for the link on the Ecuadorian case. You do good work!

You probably already noticed this most recent action by the USSC to let Exxon basically off the hook from the disaster of the Valdez nearly 20 years ago. If not, I’ve included a link for you and anyone else who might be interested.

Supreme Court greatly reduces damages in Exxon Valdez spill

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Wednesday brought to a close the 19-year legal battle over the Exxon Valdez oil spill by sharply reducing the punitive damages to be paid by Exxon Mobil Corp. The court ruled that the oil giant must pay $507 million—about one-tenth of the original jury award—to punish it for recklessly putting a known alcoholic in charge of a supertanker traveling a treacherous channel.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-v aldez26-2008jun26,0,3673626.story

There there’s this, which is what kind of kicked us off into this direction anyway. “Tis not a surprise by any means, since the Oil Cabal has been at this for decades.

Bush-Cheney Crony Got Iraq Oil Deal
By Jason Leopold
July 6, 2008

~“Ray Hunt, the Texas oil man who landed a controversial oil production deal with Iraq’s Kurdistan regional government, has enjoyed close political and business ties with Vice President Dick Cheney dating back a decade – and to the Bush family since the 1970s.

Despite those longstanding connections – and Hunt’s work for George W. Bush as a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board – the Bush administration expressed surprise when Hunt Oil signed the agreement last September.

At that time, administration officials said Hunt Oil’s deal with the Kurds jeopardized delicate negotiations among competing Iraqi sects and regions for sharing oil revenues, talks seen as vital for achieving national reconciliation.

“I know nothing about the deal,” President Bush said. “To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I’m concerned.”

However, on July 2, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released documents showing that senior administration officials were aware that Hunt was negotiating with the Kurdistan government and even offered him encouragement.
Hunt also personally alerted Bush’s PFIAB about his oil company’s confidential contacts with Kurdish representatives.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, committee chairman, complained that the administration’s comments last year were “misleading.” “~
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/070508b.html

Antonia Juhasz has done extensive work on the Oil Cabal, and her book on the Bush Agenda is an excellent read. I’ve attached a link to that as well.

http://www.thebushagenda.net/

Thanks again.

By thebeerdoctor, July 5 at 5:24 pm #

I read the full interview of Ambassador Glaspie’s with Saddam Hussein. I also read a summary of it in the Arabic media outlets right after it took place.

However, I don’t understand the point in referring us to this link in conjunction with your opinions on Obama and the current political situation in America. I am a Ph.D. and could not find the connection. So don’t assume that everyone her is a genius who could easily guess the point you wanted to convey!

Now for my take on this document!If this interview tells us anything at all, it casts Saddam Hussein as a very reasonable man, who was anxious to establishing friendly relationship with the United States, while at the same time he was expressing Iraq’s grievances, asking for understanding.

Furthermore, he was asking for a fairly-priced barrel of oil at $ 25.00 when the other Gulf States (Kuwait and The U.A.E) were over-flooding the market with oil bringing the price down to only $12.00 per barrel.

Actually, this document, properly studied and analyzed, would prove that Saddam Hussein was the only sane man in a world and region gone awry with greed, corruption and evil plotting!

I am glad, Mr. thebeerdoctor, that you dug out this document, but I am still curious to know the point you wanted to make in connection to this thread. Your clarification and comment would be appreciated.

I rarely comment here anymore due to the folks who think Obama is the answer and personally attempt to vilify me for pointing out how mediocre his equivocating candidacy has become. No matter. The so-called progressive democrats still believe that a dead donkey will rise, and they will not listen to anything that is contrary. But to this whole business about the Iraq war and oil, it might be instructive to go back and examine Ambassador Glaspie’s meeting with Saddam Hussein, before the first Iraq war, the one Papa Bush called “our glorious victory in the Gulf”.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Wow, Sodium, you really make clear the idea of a passionate attachment--how poisonous those attachments can be!

And, yes, we’re certainly due for a full house cleaning party! We should probably start in our own homes, our own non-political families where one finds attachments such as holding on to what the “ideal” family is and what it is not (eg. gay marriage).

The only ideal I can see that would not be poisonous to either our at-home families or our political families is a true and honest search for real peace, real freedom/liberty and real love. I think that Love is one passionate attachment that should exist, as long as it’s used in the above directions in a sort of transcendentalist way.

But, our attachment to the Israeli family is unhealthy as is our attachment to the MIC and world domination via capitalism, or just capitalism in general.

We need to free our minds, especially of those attachments that we hold so tight, if we’re to have real freedom in this world.

Cyrena, Thank you for your comments. I agree, as far as the chaos/war that started after 9/11 goes, it’s BOTH or ALL: A CABAL if you will. (I’m not calling it a conspiracy on purpose) but it is what it is.

Here’s the link for the Chevron environmental disaster (the company was called Texaco during the time the environmental damage was done, but Chevron-Texaco merged in 2001 thus Chevron acquired all Texaco’s baggage): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/ la-op-feige20apr20,0,4231451.story

“Last month, finally, an Ecuadorean court was asked to consider a damage award of $8 billion to $16 billion. To this date, no damage payments have been made, no one’s been held responsible.”

Lisa, thanks for this news on the Ecuadorean legal action. I’d like to check it out, and find out what actually happened, (or why nothing has as you’ve noted). Just curious about the legal details of that, and I wasn’t even aware that a court had even taken it up.

You also mentioned in an earlier post about details for oil contracts (and who wrote them) as put forth by the NYT recently. Just as sort of something to throw in, (even though I agree with those who know that the occupation of Iraq was not for OIL alone) many of these contracts and their various details were written up long ago, by other ‘American Officials.”

Now that may seem contradictory to the theory put forth by W&M;in respect to Israel being the real reason why the US invaded and occupied Iraq, and hopes to do the same in Iran. But, I don’t think so. I say it’s BOTH.

Because one of those neo-cons made it a point to say that Iraq’s oil would pay for the entire venture. But I also said that to say that the oil draft laws that Cheney has been trying to force down Iraq’s throat are not new. They were drawn up by “American Officials” even before all boots were on the ground. It’s just taken this long to force it on the Iraqis. (although the Kurds have been doing deals on their own for a couple of years at least).

So..the oil was definitely on someone’s mind long ago, even if that’s not the primary reason for destabilizing that nation.

On the subject of oil costs this 4th of July:  http://www.thinkprogress.org/

Ed and AS, thanks for the citations to Walt and Mearsheimer. I was planning to post that paragraph myself, as soon as I had some time to dig it out.

As long as the US unconditionally backs Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Muslims, the US will have few diplomatic options in the Middle East. We are perceived as the enemy of Islam, and our only option for obtaining an uninterrupted oil supply in the ME is military force.

Our politicians’ continued appeasement of Israel, with its concomitant ratification of Israeli atrocities and crimes against humanity, is going to bankrupt us, both morally and economically. It’s a totally irrational, suicidal (“self-destructive,” as AS noted @ 6:43 am) foreign policy designed to further Israeli, not US, interests.

The Israel Lobby works in the shadows whenever it can, so if it can blame America’s ME woes on anything else, e.g., the oil lobby, it will. When Americans accept the red herring that the oil lobby got us into war in Iraq and is about to get us into war with Iran, they are playing into Israel’s ME strategy. Until Americans figure out the real cause of the current ME instability and violence, and our corollary sky-rocketing budget deficit, our troubles will only get worse.

AIPAC’s House Res. 362 and Iran’s reaction to it will provide a perfect case in point.

Re: By cyrena, July 3 at 8:50:

Thanks, Cyrena. By the way, I’ve tracked down the sourcing for the bit about Cheney’s complaint against the “sanctions-happy” US Iran policy. It’s from Mearsheimer and Walt’s book on the Israel lobby, pp. 145-146:

Some commentators believe that oil and gas companies are driving US policy to gain lucrative access in places like Iraq, or to foment instability that will drive up oil prices and enable them to reap windfall profits. Not only is there little direct evidence of such behavior, but it runs counter to the long-term interests of major energy companies. Energy companies do not like wars in oil-rich regions, sanctions, or regime change — the staples of US Middle East policy in recent years — because each of them threatens access to oil and gas reserves and thus their ability to make money, and such events also encourage Americans to think more seriously about reducing demand for the oil companies’ main product, Thus, when Vice President Dick Cheney was the president of Halliburton, a major oil services firm, in the 1990s, he opposed US sanctions on Iran (a policy, as discussed in Chapter 10, driven largely by the [Israel] lobby) and complained that US firms were being “cut out of the action” by America’s “sanctions happy” policy. Cheney’s earlier position suggests that if oil companies controlled Middle East policy, the United Stat