Interviewer to oil trader -

Q: "how is the Iraq crisis affecting oil prices"
A: "Prices will go up a little and although I trade in oil it hurts me just as much to pay higher at the pump"

Q: "What will a change in Iraq govt mean ?"
A: "Ohh that will have a profound impact - I mean a friendly Iraq govt will pump a lot more oil and that will have a dramatic impact on what we pay for petrol which will be come significantly cheaper"

Hmmmmmmm !!! - Do you guys know just how many gallons of petrol the US consumes per day !!! - and how many cubic feet of CO2 that produces (the most harmful greenhouse gases).

I challenge Marlowe to come back with the figures for US consumption (I saw them on Discovery channel 2 weeks back) plus include comparisons to the next biggest consumer of petrol.

If Marlowe has the fortitude to take up my challenge I also add to list to list the cost per gallon (allowing for diff between imperial & US gallons) of petrol in the US compared to the next 5 largest countries - I am willing to bet (but be proven wrong) that you (Marlowe) will have no desire to research these figures - but if you don't I will at a later date.

Anyone who says this is *not* about oil is either blatantly dishonest or dangerously naive or spends a lot of their time wondering where the whistling sound comes from (as the wind blows between their ears - in one & straight out the other).

Doug Marke

what was that all about ?

You are no idiot (we all know that) - but I could not make one skerrik of sense from that post & despite how tough I can come across - I truly do look for rational commentary it what we all post (even my own posts !!!).

Can you mimick Brandioch & just give us some simple straight facts & points - Brandioch is always easy to understand even if you disagree with him.

Don't let emotion obscure the smart person you are (not an insult but a genuine compliment).

Cheers

Doug

When the others were discussing US invasions I decided not to chime in (have a long list (grin))

There was little ole Grenada - It wasn't an independent country, it was in fact the territory of the UK, a European country - Why did US invade Grenada when it was UK territory? - we all know the UK had no trouble protecting its territory such as when the Argies siezed the Falklands - Brits kicked ass big time reasserting their control - message from UK was don't mess with us else we'll send in the SAS. Answer is that Maggie Thatcher Gave Reagan the green light to invade to suit both countries strategic needs.

In Grenada there were communist influenced agitators stirring up trouble - at the same time US wanted to invade Panama (down the track). Panama invasion was to undo the wimpy agreement that the Rev Jimmy Carter entered into to cede Panama Canal to Panama by year 2000 on the basis that the PDF (Panama Defence Forces) was fully able to defend the canal - Reagan & crew (same bunch as Dubya has behind him) did not like that agreement one bit so engineered the Norriega ascendancy just so they could take him out (not a lot unlike what is being done to Saddam Hussien). Norriega was a CIA asset. The former head of Panama had died when his plane fell out of the sky with a big missile shaped hole through it, Norriega was general in the PDF & he took over. He was anothesucker who thought CIA were his friends & supported him in some drug running as they were profiting (for other covert ops) as well. The Panama scheme worked beyond expectations. A pro US govt was installed the former PDF officers were all executed - many were dug up later with bullet holes in back of head & hands tied behind backs (this kind of cracking down is very scary). Some were believed agents of Soviets or China. The new PDF was then US trained & controlled. Then with little delay, US ceeded the canal to Panama. There is though some considerable concern that China through the Hong Kong based Huchison Whampoa mega-shipping line, has gained excessive influence over the port facilities at both ends of the canal. I posted a US think tank report on that matter some months back.

Anyway, back to Grenada. Reagan asked Maggie if the US could use Grenada as a practice run for Panama & at the same time clean-up the communist trouble makers there (Russia was really giving US a tough time thru these little take-over plots it kept hatching - in the Pacific they had tried similar takeovers in Kiribati & Fiji but US managed to blunt them (Figi is a fascinating story in itself - I know lots about that one)). So when some US students staying on Grenada were 'kidnapped' the US press gave it a blaze of publicity (later evidence suggests they weren't actually kidnapped at all) Reagan then used that event to authorise the invasion & siezure of Grenada.

US did get some solid experience in Grenada & discovered that even the fearless SEALS could get shot up badly. I always remember that poor chopper pilot whose machine was shot down in the surf & was trapped there until finally picked off by one of the rebels ashore before rescue unit could reach him.

US needed to do what it did in Grenada but the story used to justify the invasion was largely fabricated. Some times Presidents tell lies in order achieve strategic goals. It is ok if they get away with it as the victor always writes the history but when one can see lies being told it is hard not to jump up & down & cry foul. That is what many of us are doing re this invasion of Iraq. The problem is if lots of people see lies then the Pres has to try a more subtle strategy for fulfilling his goals - the main thing is not to be too transparent (which unfortunately Dubya is) as that breeds hate amongst some nations & peoples towards US & that compounds the problem longer term. I really don't think that Dubya has the charismatic quality that Reagan had (actually, a quality actor) that earned him the nickname 'Teflon President'.

Bush has used 9/11 to lay the foundation for why he is going after Iraq. He really does need to provide some legitimacy to this invasion because make no mistake, lots of people will be killed & nothing breeds hate for US faster than if others see the killings as superpower murder of innocents. Bush has total and full legitimacy for going after the perps of 9/11 - almost everyone in the world agreed with that right. Warping 9/11 into any form of justification for invading another sovereign country is politically very very dangerous turf.

But after it is all over Bush will get to write the history & Saddam will get forgotten *but* the seeds of hate will have been planted.

Cheers

Doug Marker

#1 Why is I can't see my spelling mistakes until hours after they are posted - sheesh

the very issue you raise.

In the late 60s & early 70s - a whole new generation showed that they didn't have to support wars that were clearly unjust.

Did the world suffer because the Nth Viets won - not really.

Perhaps the Internet and a new generation who have the guts to do the researh & and filter the 'facts' might just teach this pres a new lesson.

Cheers Doug

used its influence with ISPs to redirect access to google to a lesser Chines search engine. This appeard to last about 2 weeks abut was reported as erratic.

Google is back & working - I gotta say that google is the best source I knowof to quickly unearth screeds of information on fairly specific topics.

Nothing else compares (that I know of). So if google goes under in US then fighting back would become harder.

Doug M